THE Highways Act 190 Section 41 states that highway authorities have a Statutory Duty to maintain the highway, which means that the Forest of Dean District Council must maintain the highway at public expense.
This of course means the grass verges as well as the carriageways and footways outside properties privately owned as well as outside council houses (social housing).
This can be done directly or by employing contractors, in this case the contractor being Two Rivers Housing.
If Two Rivers miscalculated the cost of the grass cutting etc. and now find themselves financially embarrassed I suggest they cease spending money trying to obtain money to which they are not legally entitled and cannot get. Neither Two Rivers or the Forest of Dean District Council can override an act which is on the statute books.
Two Rivers would not whinge and whine if they made extra profit, neither would they repay any profit so they should stop whinging and whining and accept that the grass cutting operation may make a loss although overall they will make a profit and get on with the work.
Also, I suggest that Two Rivers reimburse, with interest, payments received from tennants, to which, I believe they were not legally entitled.
If Two Rivers have the bare-faced cheek to send out bills, do not pay. Let them, if they wish, instigate legal proceedings, as they will then have to pay all legal costs when they lose.
With regard to Two Rivers saying that it's only fair that house owners as well as tennants share the costs, neither group should be paying anything at all. This is a matter of what is legally right not what Two Rivers would like. Two Rivers are the ones being unfair by forcibly extracting monies from tennants, also the tennants do not share the costs of paying the mortgage of a house purchaser if that person becomes unemployed, but a tennant does get their rent paid for them if they are unemployed, this being partly funded by house owners. Is that fair? – Name and address supplied.