FOIR
Documents to Request
1. **Annual Water Company Performance Reports (2023-2025):** Specifically, the sections detailing pollution incidents and permit compliance metrics for water companies operating in coastal areas, as referenced in the EA’s 16 June 2025 response.
2. **Enforcement Action Records (2023-2025):** Detailed records of enforcement actions taken against water companies for permit breaches related to sewage discharges in coastal waters, including notices, fines, or prosecutions.
3. **Correspondence with Ofwat (2023-2025):** Internal communications between the EA and Ofwat regarding sewage discharge management in coastal areas, particularly on balancing environmental protection with economic considerations.
4. **Decision-Making Logs for Permit Breaches (2023-2025):** Logs or minutes from the EA’s Scheme of Delegation meetings where decisions on enforcement actions for coastal sewage discharges were made.
5. **Bathing Water Quality Assessments (2023-2025):** Reports or data on bathing water classification for designated coastal sites, including any investigations into sewage-related impacts.
6. **Resource Allocation Reports (2023-2025):** Documents detailing the EA’s budget and resource allocation for monitoring and enforcing water quality standards in coastal regions.
7. **Regulatory Appeals Records (2023-2025):** Records of any appeals or internal reviews related to EA decisions on sewage discharge enforcement in coastal areas.
#### Questions to Ask
1. What specific key performance indicators (KPIs) does the EA use to measure the effectiveness of regulatory actions against sewage discharges in coastal areas, and how have these KPIs been met or failed in the period 2023-2025?
2. How does the EA assess the socio-economic impacts (e.g., on tourism, fishing, or public health) of sewage discharges in coastal waters when making enforcement decisions?
3. What steps has the EA taken in 2023-2025 to address identified challenges (e.g., resource constraints, infrastructure limitations) in achieving water quality standards at designated coastal bathing sites?
4. Can the EA provide specific examples of enforcement actions (e.g., fines, prosecutions) taken against water companies for sewage discharge permit breaches in coastal areas between 2023 and 2025, including outcomes?
5. How does the EA ensure compliance with public law principles (e.g., rationality, procedural fairness) in its decision-making process for sewage discharge enforcement, and what mechanisms are in place to review these decisions internally?
6. What data or evidence does the EA rely on to determine whether water company permit conditions adequately protect coastal environments, and how is this data validated?
7. How does the EA coordinate with other bodies (e.g., Ofwat, local authorities) to address systemic issues like inadequate water infrastructure investment in coastal areas?
These requests are specific, time-bound (2023-2025), and focused on information the EA likely holds, minimizing the risk of exemptions under Section 14 (vexatious requests) or Section 43 (commercial interests). They align with the public interest in environmental protection and transparency, as emphasized in your prior correspondence and the coastal.cocoo.uk mission to address systemic distortions.
### Freedom of Information Request Letter
Oscar Moya LLedo
23 Village Way, Beckenham, BR3 3NA, United Kingdom
Email: contact@cocoo.uk
18 July 2025
Environment Agency
National Customer Contact Centre
PO Box 544
Rotherham, S60 1BY
Email: eandbcorrespondence@environment-agency.gov.uk
Dear Sir/Madam,
**Subject: Freedom of Information Request – Sewage Discharge Enforcement in Coastal Areas**
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am requesting the following information held by the Environment Agency (EA) regarding sewage discharge enforcement in coastal areas. If this letter has not reached the appropriate department, I kindly request that it be forwarded internally to the relevant team, as required by transparency and cooperation obligations under EU law principles.
**Requested Documents**
1. Sections of the Annual Water Company Performance Reports (2023-2025) detailing pollution incidents and permit compliance metrics for water companies operating in coastal areas.
2. Records of enforcement actions (e.g., notices, fines, prosecutions) taken against water companies for permit breaches related to sewage discharges in coastal waters from 2023 to 2025.
3. Internal correspondence between the EA and Ofwat from 2023 to 2025 regarding sewage discharge management in coastal areas, particularly on balancing environmental protection with economic considerations.
4. Logs or minutes from the EA’s Scheme of Delegation meetings from 2023 to 2025 where decisions on enforcement actions for coastal sewage discharges were made.
5. Bathing water quality assessment reports or data for designated coastal sites from 2023 to 2025, including investigations into sewage-related impacts.
6. Documents detailing the EA’s budget and resource allocation for monitoring and enforcing water quality standards in coastal regions from 2023 to 2025.
7. Records of regulatory appeals or internal reviews related to EA decisions on sewage discharge enforcement in coastal areas from 2023 to 2025.
**Questions**
1. What specific key performance indicators (KPIs) does the EA use to measure the effectiveness of regulatory actions against sewage discharges in coastal areas, and how have these KPIs been met or failed in the period 2023-2025?
2. How does the EA assess the socio-economic impacts (e.g., on tourism, fishing, or public health) of sewage discharges in coastal waters when making enforcement decisions?
3. What steps has the EA taken in 2023-2025 to address identified challenges (e.g., resource constraints, infrastructure limitations) in achieving water quality standards at designated coastal bathing sites?
4. Can the EA provide specific examples of enforcement actions (e.g., fines, prosecutions) taken against water companies for sewage discharge permit breaches in coastal areas between 2023 and 2025, including outcomes?
5. How does the EA ensure compliance with public law principles (e.g., rationality, procedural fairness) in its decision-making process for sewage discharge enforcement, and what mechanisms are in place to review these decisions internally?
6. What data or evidence does the EA rely on to determine whether water company permit conditions adequately protect coastal environments, and how is this data validated?
7. How does the EA coordinate with other bodies (e.g., Ofwat, local authorities) to address systemic issues like inadequate water infrastructure investment in coastal areas?
I request that the information be provided in electronic format where possible, sent to contact@cocoo.uk. If any part of this request is exempt under the FOIA, please provide the remaining information and specify the exemptions applied. I understand that you are required to respond within 20 working days, and I look forward to your reply.
Thank you for your assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Oscar Moya LLedo
SELF-QUESTIONS ON PROCUREMENT
Based on our extensive case history and a thorough review of the provided materials, I will now outline the likely answers to our strategic questions and detail the most viable path forward for each scenario. This exercise is crucial for refining our Unsolicited Proposal and anticipating the reactions of our target audiences.
When we ask the large procurement contractors how their current risk models account for a crisis rooted in regulatory failure rather than simple operational error, the most probable response will be a confident assertion that their existing frameworks are flexible enough to handle any contingency. A range of answers might include a detailed explanation of their enterprise risk management services or a dismissal of our premise. The most viable outcome for us is not to challenge their model directly, but to acknowledge their expertise and then pivot. We would respond by stating that while their frameworks are undoubtedly robust for known risks, our proprietary knowledge concerns a unique, unquantified liability stemming from a pattern of tortious conduct and public law failure. Our most viable solution is to propose that they engage us for a small, fixed-fee “scoping study” to integrate our unique “liability risk data” into their existing models as a specialist subcontractor, thereby enhancing their own offering to the government.
In response to our question about their methodology for a crisis where the framework itself has failed, they will likely describe their “complex transformation” or “change management” services. The most viable path forward is to agree with their assessment but highlight a critical missing piece. We would explain that before any new framework can be built, the old one must be legally deconstructed and the resulting mass claims managed. We would then offer our unique service: a “Managed Redress and Litigation Risk-Mitigation” package. This positions our legal and campaign expertise not as a threat, but as a necessary precursor to their transformation work, making a partnership the most logical solution for them to present a complete solution to the government.
When questioned on managing a mass redress program, the contractors will likely propose a technology-driven claims processing solution. Our most viable response is to explain that technology is only half the answer. The real challenge, we will argue, is managing the human element and maintaining public trust, which requires the unique community engagement and campaign skills that COCOO possesses. We would propose a joint venture where they provide the technical processing platform, and we manage the claimant outreach, verification, and communication strategy, again presenting a synergistic partnership that is more powerful than their standalone offer.
Turning to the public bodies, when we ask if they agree that a novel solution is required for this novel crisis, their most probable answer will be a cautiously non-committal agreement, tempered by a reference to their obligation to follow standard procurement rules. The most viable solution is to accept their point on procurement rules but use their admission that the problem is novel to reinforce the justification for a direct award for a scoping study. We would state that because the problem’s scope is unknown, a standard tender cannot even be written yet, making a preliminary engagement with us—the only organisation that has already scoped the problem—the most compliant and fiscally responsible first step under their own rules for innovation and emergency procurement.
In response to the question of how they can access our unique knowledge through a competitive tender, the public body will likely state that any supplier would be given access to the same baseline data. Our most viable counter is to respectfully disagree, explaining that our intelligence is not just data but a complex web of analysis, evidence from witnesses who will only speak to us, and a deep understanding of the perpetrators’ internal workings. We would argue that this proprietary knowledge asset cannot be simply transferred or replicated. This reinforces the argument that for this specific, initial phase, competition is impossible, and a direct engagement is the only way to access this critical intelligence.
Finally, when we present the choice between a low-cost scoping study with us versus the delay of a full tender, the most probable response is for them to express interest but cite concerns about perceptions of fairness and a lack of precedent. The most viable solution is to have our Unsolicited Proposal ready as a complete, professional document that looks and feels like a formal response to a tender. It will contain a “Statement of Uniqueness” that explicitly details why a direct award is justified, referencing the government’s own guidelines on sourcing unique and innovative solutions. This makes it easy for the public official to accept our proposal by providing them with the very justification they need to defend their decision internally.
SELF-QUESTIONS ON COMPENSATION
When we ask the defendant companies for their board minutes and risk assessments, the most probable outcome is not a transparent disclosure but a heavily redacted or delayed response, citing commercial sensitivity. The most viable strategy for us is to leverage this refusal. Their unwillingness to be transparent becomes a central exhibit in our case, creating a powerful inference for a court and for the public that they are concealing calculations that consciously valued profit over their public duties. Our success comes not from what the documents say, but from their refusal to produce them.
Similarly, when we ask the regulators for a clear timeline of their awareness versus their enforcement actions, the most likely response will be a bureaucratic deluge of un-contextualised data designed to obfuscate the truth. Our most potent counter is to perform the work they will not, ingesting their raw data and producing our own clear, damning timeline. By presenting this simple chronology of their inaction against their own complex data, we starkly illustrate their operational failure, creating a simple and compelling narrative of negligence for a judge or parliamentary committee.
In questioning the government departments about the dividends paid out since their last infrastructure audit, the question is designed to expose a deeper failure. Their most likely response is to deflect, but the truly damning, and highly probable, answer is that no such comprehensive audit has been conducted recently. This admission, forced by our question, is catastrophically negligent. It allows our campaign to pivot to the government’s own failure of oversight, making them a co-conspirator in the crisis and increasing their motivation to seek a quiet, managed resolution through our mediation.
When we turn to our own claimant class and ask what a meaningful resolution looks like beyond money, the most viable and powerful answer involves a combination of restorative justice and governance reform. By championing their desire for tangible local investment and a seat at the table in future oversight, we transform our compensation project into a forward-looking movement. This makes our mediation proposal far more compelling, as it offers a chance to not only compensate for past harms but to build a better, more accountable system for the future.
Finally, the questions posed to the defendants and the government in the context of mediation are designed to force a stark choice. When we ask them to compare the immense, open-ended cost of a decade of litigation against the certainty of our mediated settlement, we are compelling their own internal risk assessors to confront the logic of our proposal. While their public stance may be one of defiance, their private calculation will almost certainly favour a managed resolution. For the government, the choice is even starker: a chaotic public court case that will expose decades of regulatory failure across all political parties, or a confidential, structured mediation that resolves the crisis and allows them to avoid a public autopsy. The most viable outcome is that both parties will publicly refuse to comment while privately instructing their teams to engage with our mediation proposal as the only politically and financially survivable path forward.
MEDIATION
From the materials you provided on mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), I extracted key strategic principles that allow us to transform our Unsolicited Proposal from a procurement bid into a sophisticated and compelling mediation framework.
From the document titled “ADR SETTLE CLP HOW2,” I extracted the core methodology for structuring a multi-party settlement process. I focused on the steps detailing how to move from adversarial positions to identifying shared interests. I extracted this because it provides a proven roadmap for our mediation proposal. It allows us to argue that our process is not arbitrary but is based on established best practices for complex dispute resolution. This is crucial for gaining the trust of all parties, showing them that our proposed mediation is a structured and credible alternative to chaotic litigation. It helps us design the specific phases of our mediation, from initial data sharing to final settlement negotiation.
From the “MEDIATION.adr.pdf” file, I extracted the foundational principles of neutrality, confidentiality, and the non-binding nature of the mediation process itself. I chose to focus on these principles because they are essential for overcoming the initial reluctance of the defendants and government bodies to engage with us. By emphasising in our USP that COCOO will act as a strictly neutral facilitator and that all discussions will be confidential and without prejudice to their legal rights, we lower the perceived risk of participation. This is why our proposal highlights that the process is only binding once a final settlement agreement is voluntarily signed by all parties. It makes agreeing to mediate an easier, less committal first step for them to take.
Finally, from the list of mediation providers, I did not extract a specific provider to use, but rather the concept of an accredited and professionalised mediation service. I extracted this idea because it informs how we must position COCOO. To be accepted as a credible mediator in a multi-billion-pound dispute, we must present ourselves as having a process that meets or exceeds the professional standards of the established firms on that list. This is why our USP must be meticulously detailed and professional, outlining our rules of engagement, our ethical commitments, and the specific expertise our team brings. It justifies why a novel, case-specific mediator like COCOO is not only a viable option but is superior to a generic provider who lacks our deep, privileged knowledge of this particular case.
Our new Unsolicited Proposal will be reframed as a “Mediation and Mass-Redress Framework Proposal” and will be submitted to all principal parties: the defendant companies, the relevant government departments and regulators, and the representatives of the claimant groups we are assembling. The proposal’s core argument is that protracted, piecemeal litigation will result in immense, unpredictable costs, reputational ruin, and years of uncertainty for all involved. In contrast, our proposed mediation offers a structured, confidential, and efficient path to a comprehensive and binding settlement.
The first step in this process is to secure the agreement of all parties to participate. We will leverage the pressure from our ongoing media campaign and the threat of our well-documented legal claims to bring the defendants to the table. For the claimant class, we will demonstrate that this structured mediation is the fastest and most effective route to obtaining meaningful compensation. For the government bodies, we will present the mediation as the most viable way to manage their contingent liabilities and restore public trust without admitting legal fault in a court of law.
Our USP will detail a multi-stage mediation process designed specifically for this case. Stage one will be a “Scoping and Data Validation” phase, where, acting as mediator, we will oversee the sharing of key information to establish an agreed-upon factual basis for the extent of the environmental damage and service failures. This leverages our existing knowledge base and immediately demonstrates our value. Stage two will involve “Caucus and Interest-Based Negotiation,” where we will hold separate confidential meetings with each party to understand their core interests and red lines. We will mediate between the claimant groups’ need for fair compensation, the defendant companies’ need for financial viability and reputational recovery, and the government’s need for a durable solution and regulatory stability.
The final stage is the “Settlement and Redress Design.” Here, we will facilitate the negotiation of a global settlement agreement. Our unique proposition, detailed in the USP, is that we will not only mediate the settlement amount but will also design and administer the mass-redress scheme to distribute the funds to the thousands of affected individuals and businesses. This leverages our knowledge of the claimant class and offers the defendants and the government a single, efficient mechanism for resolving all claims. The proposal will conclude by stating that while mediation is non-binding, our framework is designed to culminate in a single, binding settlement agreement, offering all parties a final and complete resolution to this national crisis.