I have only just caught up with the issue between Two Rivers and Beryl Watts of Lydney.

I have been a Two Rivers tenant since they took over from the council as my landlords and have never once had cause to complain. It is very rare that I have ever had to bring problems to their attention because their properties are so well maintained by them that problems rarely arise. When they do, they are instantly addressed. Rents are considerably cheaper than one would have to pay for privately rented properties and I can't imagine a landlord bending backwards to accommodate individual needs to the extent that Two Rivers does.

So to read about them being described as "morally bankrupt" was somewhat surprising. Particularly so as the comment came from someone from whom one should be able to expect a balanced objective viewpoint.

I do sympathise with Mrs. Watts. To have to leave the home one has lived in for a long time is bound to be a difficult and painful experience. But sometimes the only solution available is not the solution we would prefer. Indeed; sometimes there is no solution at all. In Mrs. Watts's case, Two Rivers are offering the only solution they can. As I understand it: it is the property next door that is compromising the safety of Mrs. Watts's home and I presume the next door property is not a Two Rivers property so they were not at liberty to do the necessary maintenance that would have prevented the deterioration that has resulted in this situation. Once deterioration has passed the point at which it can be made safe, any adjoining property, however well maintained, is bound to be at risk. Two Rivers are taking the only responsible action they possibly can to protect Mrs. Watts's safety.

If they were simply putting her out onto the street then that would be the actions of a morally bankrupt landlord. If their motive was to sell the property then that could be construed as the actions of a morally bankrupt landlord. But they are not putting her out onto the street; they are offering to re-house her. Their motives are not for profit but to protect Mrs. Watts's safety. These are the actions of a responsible landlord and certainly do not warrant the label of "morally bankrupt".

The housing association was also described as "cash-driven". So is every other business and this is certainly so with registered charities. But registered charities are cash-driven in order for them to provide the vital resources that are so desperately needed by those who cannot to pay the kind of rents demanded by private businesses. It is not about getting rich but providing a vital resource and a secure home is the most vital resource of all.

I was heartened to see at least one letter of support from an independent member of the public and I feel moved to lend my voice also. I am very grateful to be a Two Rivers tenant and, as much as I would hate to be in Mrs. Watts' unenviable position, if I were so, I would accept that Two Rivers would be acting in my interests however unpalatable the solution might be.

– Ron Tocknell, Lydney.