Appeal Court - When will we know?

What happened in the Appeal Court last week?

Symbolic but serious emergency boardroom representation of the public and customer involving councillors, NGO and Green Peer, Jenny Jones. Arranged by fellow campaigners, WeOwnIt, while our MP Charlie Maynard was representing us in the Appeal Court nearby.

With our MP Charlie Maynard at the front of the appeal case for the public interest, our formidable legal team prepared and set out the case to overturn the High Court decision thatauthorised the expensive Thames Water bailout that we, the customers, will pay for. You can regard the legal team as yours too, if you live in the Thames Water region - they are working on behalf of you.

This team has been incredible and has worked for free for the public, while Thames Water’s legal fees will be paid for by its captive customers.

We express our gratitude, once again, to Barrister William Day, assisted by Barristers Riz Mokal, Rabin Kok, Niamh Davis, and Lucas Jones, supported by an excellent team from Solicitors Marriott Harrison led by Brett Israel and Simon de Broise.

Very briefly, for the blog newcomer, this is about blocking a massively expensive £3Bn bridging loan and, instead, taking Thames Water into Special Administration, where the company can be put in a protected. Once secured, a careful audit and examination can be conducted to solve the company's problems and return it to doing its job.

Let's remember that job should be providing water and sewerage. It is not meant to be used as a cash machine, but that is what it has become, as pointed out by academics in 2018.

https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/21097/20/21097%20YEARWOOD_The_Privatised_Water_Industry_in_the_UK_2018.pdf

Special Administration was developed, to protect national infrastructure from what is happening now and take the time needed to look at what led a monopoly, selling essential services, to collapse.

If, however, instead of using the expensive new lenders, as government has recently suggested could happen, the taxpayer provided the £3Bn, it should be the taxpayer that gets that £3Bn back and even a reasonable return on it, paid for by billpayers (largely the same people in the Thames region, of course). Customer money would then be used to fix the company's problems, not to play financial games at our expense.

That must be better than paying sky-high interest rates (up to 20%) to voracious creditors and watching about half of the first £1,6Bn being swallowed up in interest, advisors and legal fees.

The Appeal Court will decide which way it leans next week.

Keep watching - this will shape your future.