"They are hopeless because they spew filth into the sea and no-one ever calls them to book..."

Julie Wassmer gives her behind-the-scenes account of going up against South East Water at Canterbury County Court on 26 March 2026

Julie outside court on the day of her hearing.

That may be the view of every water campaigner and dissatisfied customer in our country but those words were actually spoken by the judge at my recent court hearing which followed my 4-year payment boycott of Southern Water. 

I'd attended the small claims hearing at Canterbury County Court intent on putting forward my own defence against a claim brought against me and my husband, Kas, by South East Water who act as billing agent for Southern. 

I'd actually begun to withhold payment in 2021  after Southern Water had received a record criminal fine of £90m at the very same court for 6,971 illegal spills of sewerage into seas and waterways.

Why would I want to pay a criminal company for undelivered services?

As I explained to The Times newspaper in an article almost 18 months ago:  'It isn’t easy living with the constant threat of either bailiffs turning up on your door or being taken to court...The only way that I can deal with this really is to try and fight it...'

And that's why I had to take this all the way.

The court process is slow, with cases taking many months to be heard - my own case was postponed twice.

COURT PROCESS IS SLOW - MY CASE WAS POSTPONED TWICE

There's quite a bit of paperwork to be handed in over those months and having submitted 24 pages of evidence concerning Southern Water’s environmental permit breaches from 2021- 26,  and 16 pages of Defence of my own non-payment, on the day of the hearing I asked simply to present a Defence Summary.

Judge Peter Furness presiding allowed me to do this - enabling  me to tell the consumers’ side of the story to a packed court and press gallery.

I always expected that judgment in my case would be given to South East Water on behalf of Southern, principally because, as my defence set out to illustrate, water consumers have no access to a suitable court in which we can take our disputes regarding inadequate service - and, importantly, receive judgment on them.

This is because water companies enjoy the protection of statutory law.

Under the Water Industry Act 1991, they claim immunity from any consumer rights while stating, in effect, that they are statutorily obliged to offer services, for which we as customers are statutorily obliged to pay, no matter how unacceptable those services are.

That’s why the water industry in the UK has been described as a ‘legalised scam’.

Only regulatory bodies, like OFWAT, have the power to hold water companies to account, but, as I argued in my defence in court, neither OFWAT nor the consumer complaints process are fit for purpose due to a “merry-go-round” of conflicting interests.

What I considered to be new and relevant evidence was the fact that this actually amounts to a breach of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act (right to a fair trial) so I  asked the judge to withhold his ruling while referring my case to a higher court to determine that point.

FRANTIC PAPERWORK SHUFFLING CAUSED AMUSEMENT IN THE COURT

When Judge Furness asked South East Water's solicitor Fergus Pancia for his opinion on that, it soon became clear to everyone at the hearing that the solicitor, having at least one other of these cases under his belt, hadn't bothered too much about reading my Defence submission. Article 6 was actually a key point in that but Mr Pancia had clearly missed it!

After much riffling through paperwork, it was all he could do to simply suggest that this was all new evidence while the judge had to remind him that it had been there in my defence submission since January.

The solicitor's frantic paperwork shuffling caused a fair degree of amusement in the public gallery before he began rambling about me having stated at some point to South East Water on the phone that I had met with top legal firm Leigh Day, inferring perhaps that it was they who had given me this legal point.

When the judge asked for my view of that, I was glad of the opportunity to explain in fact that way back in 2021, Leigh Day had been looking for someone to head a Class Action against the water companies, and I had declined as my husband was about to embark on 3 years of cancer treatment.

I went on to further explain how South East Water had used phone calls to offer up to 100% discounts  to payment boycotters if they gave up their fight and paid the discounted sums - perhaps in the mistaken belief that these people would keep schtum - just take the discount and run... In fact, the boycotters not only informed me of this, they also handed over evidence of the discount offers and I duly broke their stories in The Times.

JUDGE ADMITS HE LEARNED MUCH FROM MY DEFENCE

All in all, it was a good day in court with Judge Furness admitting he had learned much that he hadn't known before and complimenting me on the "eloquence" of my Defence Summary.

Ultimately, he stated that he wasn't able to find in my favour - even on the Human Rights issue -  because a small claims hearing can only determine whether a sum is owed or not - a point that actually goes to underscore my whole legal argument.

Importantly, he added: 'I’m not blind, by the way, to the bigger picture here but it’s outside my remit. I watch television. I read the newspaper and in essence what you are saying is ‘they are hopeless because they spew filth into the sea and no-one ever calls them to book.’

South East Water asked that I should be made to pay my withheld sum in 28 days. The judge extended that to 56 days.

The case was widely reported in the UK press and on ITV and Channel 4 news with me commenting after the hearing: 'Today’s judgment highlights the basic injustice that’s being suffered by water customers from water companies.  If the law acts against consumers in this country regarding water companies’ crimes, then the law has to be changed because it cannot be right that in a modern civic society consumers are forced to pay for services which are not being provided while denying customers a means of challenging this through the legal system.'

My favourite news item of the day was broadcast on ITV Meridian News that same night with the judge's comment related in full. It was only after that piece went out that I was to learn, let's say by "hearsay", that the entire ITV News gallery gave a cheer as the piece ended!

A LEGAL FIGHTING FUND FOR MINE AND OTHER BOYCOTTER'S COURT COSTS

I recognise I now have to pay my withheld sum of £1,162.83, or risk getting a CCJ, but it will be particularly painful for me to have to pay South East Water's legal costs of £283 for a solicitor who clearly hadn't even bothered to read my defence statement properly, so I'm very grateful to Boycott Water Bills for having started up a crowdfunder to raise that amount for me - with anything over that sum to be held in a fighting fund for others.

If you can possibly donate, however small a sum, it will be greatly appreciated and will show solidarity with all of us continuing to fight for justice for water consumers - in whatever way we can!

Love and thanks,

Julie Wassmer

Watch the ITV Meridian News piece here.

Read Julie's Defence Summary here.

Donate to the fighting fund: