Both the Drinking Water Inspectorate and South East Water acknowledge the weaknesses of the escalation processes around the Pembury incident. This meant that operational staff were not given sufficient support to diagnose problems early and that key stakeholders were informed too late, inhibiting preparations and in breach of regulations. We are concerned that the CEO was too involved at the Pembury Works, a potential distraction from his overall crisis command. Either this is a further problem with escalation processes, or a choice by Mr Hinton to go against his company’s own procedures. In either scenario, SEW appears unable to determine when and where its leadership team can provide maximum value. In the case of 40 Tunbridge Wells, this ultimately impaired the CEO’s ability to communicate to customers and may have played a role in the poor crisis response. (Conclusion, Paragraph 35)