LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – On Tuesday, 4 November 2025, the UK's water regulator, Ofwat, is set to face a legal challenge in court over allegations it is unlawfully allowing water companies to make customers pay twice for the same infrastructure upgrades. The environmental group River Action has initiated the lawsuit, arguing that Ofwat's approval of a £104 billion investment plan forces households to foot the bill for fixing decades of corporate neglect and underinvestment in the nation's sewage system.

The core of the dispute is Ofwat's 2024 Price Review (PR24), a decision that greenlights a massive capital injection by water companies to tackle rampant sewage pollution in rivers. This investment is funded directly by consumers through significant bill increases. For instance, customers of major utilities like Thames Water face a 35% hike, while Southern Water bills are set to rise by 53%. River Action contends that under Ofwat's own rules, customers should only pay for new infrastructure, not for repairs and compliance work that should have been funded by past bills. The group argues that forcing customers to pay again for these historical failures amounts to an unlawful 'double charge', and that shareholders, not the public, should cover the cost of bringing neglected systems into legal compliance.

The legal action specifically highlights the case of Lake Windermere, where United Utilities received 'enhanced funding' despite evidence of thousands of hours of raw sewage discharges. Campaigners allege that Ofwat approved this funding without sufficient guarantees that it would be used for new projects rather than fixing pre-existing failures.

Global Precedent, Local Questions

While the court case unfolds thousands of kilometres away, its central themes of regulatory oversight, consumer protection, and infrastructure funding resonate powerfully within Kenya. The UK's struggle presents a critical case study for Kenyan authorities, particularly the Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB), the principal body tasked with protecting consumer interests and ensuring water companies operate efficiently.

Kenya faces its own profound challenges in water and sanitation. Rapid urbanisation is placing immense strain on ageing infrastructure, much of which dates back to the colonial era. According to a recent report from the Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB), national piped water coverage has increased to 70%, yet only 15% of the population is connected to formal sewerage systems. This gap is most acute in informal settlements and growing towns, where inadequate sanitation leads to the contamination of water sources and the spread of waterborne diseases.

Furthermore, the sector is plagued by inefficiencies, with non-revenue water (NRW)—treated water lost to leaks, theft, or faulty metering—standing at a staggering 45%, representing an estimated KSh11.9 billion in annual losses. These losses inevitably translate into higher tariffs for consumers and strain the budgets of utilities responsible for service delivery.

Who Pays for Failure?

The UK lawsuit forces a fundamental question with direct relevance to Kenya: who should bear the financial burden of systemic failure? In the UK, critics argue that privatised water companies prioritised shareholder dividends over essential infrastructure investment for years, leading to the current crisis. The legal challenge by River Action seeks to establish a precedent that the costs of rectifying such historical neglect should fall on the companies and their investors, not on a captive consumer base.

This principle is vital for Kenya as it navigates its own infrastructure development path, often relying on public-private partnerships. The WASREB's mandate includes developing guidelines for consumer engagement and handling complaints, recognising access to water as a constitutional right. The outcome of the Ofwat case could embolden consumer rights groups in Kenya and worldwide to more rigorously scrutinise regulatory decisions and challenge tariff increases that appear to subsidise corporate inefficiency or past failures.

As Kenya strives to meet its Sustainable Development Goals for water and sanitation, it faces a 46% funding shortfall for infrastructure demands. The debate over how to finance this gap is ongoing. The UK's experience serves as a stark warning: without robust and proactive regulation that holds service providers accountable for long-term investment and performance, consumers may ultimately be asked to pay the price for today's decisions—not once, but twice.