Two river users have begun a legal challenge over how Richmond Council handled their complaint about alleged sewage pollution in the Thames.
Rower Eleanor Warren and Taggs Island resident Suzanne Cave say the council did not properly investigate a statutory nuisance complaint they made in December 2025. Their challenge is backed by the environmental charity River Action.
A pre-action protocol letter has been sent to the council, setting out the proposed grounds of challenge and asking it to reconsider its position. The letter is a step before potential court proceedings: it does not establish that a court claim has been filed or that the council has broken the law.
The council says the legal framework surrounding sewage pollution and statutory nuisance is complex. It says it will consider carefully whether there is enough evidence to support formal action and will respond to the letter by 10 November.
What the complaint concerns
Warren rows with Mortlake Anglian & Alpha Boat Club. Cave lives on Taggs Island and is a member of Taggs Island River Watch. Their complaint raised concerns about sewage discharges into the Thames within Richmond’s area, the potential effect on health and the use and enjoyment of the river.
They asked whether the alleged pollution amounted to a statutory nuisance. This is a legal category, rather than simply a description of something unpleasant, and whether the particular evidence satisfies the relevant test is disputed.
River Action says the council replied in February 2026 that it recognised its statutory duties and that sewage-related matters could, depending on the circumstances, amount to a statutory nuisance. The charity says the council also said that the nuisance regime was not generally the appropriate legal mechanism for dealing with river pollution.
The charity says the council sought further information, including how the complainants were affected at home or in their gardens, the source of the pollution and who was responsible. The complainants then supplied additional evidence and legal representations in February, April and July, it says.
River Action says the council replied on 28 August that it did not accept the information was sufficient to establish a statutory nuisance or to require the extensive investigation sought. The complainants dispute the council’s approach and say their further evidence was not adequately considered.
The proposed challenge
River Action says the letter advances five grounds. The complainants argue that the council either failed to investigate the alleged nuisance or failed to take sufficient steps; that it did not properly consider the further evidence; that its rejection of that evidence was irrational; and that its approach to the statutory nuisance regime was wrong in law. These are the complainants’ arguments, not findings by a court.
Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 says that, when someone living in a local authority’s area makes a statutory nuisance complaint, the authority must take steps that are reasonably practicable to investigate it. The dispute concerns what that duty requires in these circumstances and how the nuisance rules apply to the complaint.
The complainants say they want an investigation that takes the evidence into account and a lawful decision on whether a statutory nuisance exists or is likely to occur or recur. River Action says they are not asking the council to reach a predetermined conclusion.
The charity says the material submitted included water-quality testing by Putney Town Rowing Club and Taggs Island River Watch, Environment Agency discharge data and information about infrastructure associated with sewage releases. It says results from monitoring sites exceeded what it describes as the agency’s inland bathing-water threshold in 27 of 35 weeks tested. That is the campaigners’ account of the evidence; it is not a council finding that the legal nuisance test has been met.
What happens next
Richmond Council says it shares concern about pollution in the Thames. It has also pointed to the significant costs associated with formal action and the pressure on its finances.
The council says the focus should be on tackling untreated sewage at its source and holding those responsible to account. It has called for water companies to invest in infrastructure and for government and regulators to ensure that rules can be enforced.
River Action says the Richmond complaint was one of 13 statutory nuisance complaints submitted to councils across the Thames catchment in December 2025. It says no council has opened a formal statutory nuisance investigation into Thames Water sewage discharges as a result. That is the charity’s account of the wider campaign, not a ruling on the Richmond complaint.
The immediate next step is the council’s response to the pre-action letter. Whether the dispute proceeds to court, and whether the council’s handling of the complaint was lawful, remain unresolved.
Featured image: AI-generated illustration.
