PRIVATE home owners are not ogres. When a charity starts using words like 'morality' and 'ethics' they appear to be putting some kind of onus on private house owners.

Private home owners have to find their own money for maintenance on their homes.

We have often struggled to buy our houses on a mortgage or spent all of a redundancy payment to do so.

We do not live any better than those that rent or are on benefits. We do not ask for help from those that rent or live on benefits.

Two Rivers say that it would be 'unlawful' to charge extra for grass cutting by taking 'it all from the poor'. Doesn't anything they pay come out of taxes, via the government anyway?

How much money is not collected in unpaid rents each year? How much money will be spent (wasted) on solicitors (et al) when Two Rivers take the grass cutting to the High Court? What is to stop the cost of the grass cutting rising year on year? Then where do we stand?

We have bills of our own which are rising year on year without extra ones.

Will private home owners get their hedge cut if they are forced to pay an extra 'maintenance' bill? – I think not!

If Two Rivers has no 'extra money' how do they afford to buy private land to build houses on? I don't know of a charity that does not have money to spend, or people at the top who are not on a good 'business' wage.

The council tax is enough without any more private bills being added.

– 'V' for Victory, (Forest of Dean Resident).