I was intrigued by the comments of Gillian Robbins, tenant board member for Two Rivers Housing Association, on the grass cutting issue. I feel I should correct her on a few matters.

1) The Judge is not just reviewing the evidence at the matter. He will be making an adjudication, which you will abide by, for the simple reason that you will be legally obliged to.

Two Rivers Housing has a habit of taking a holier than thou attitude. In the past it has sent out demands for service charges stating that home-owners would be liable to £150 court costs if they did not pay. The truth is that the court decides who should pay court costs and how much they should pay, not the plaintiff. Furthermore there have been comments on websites that Two Rivers Housing have threatened to confiscate people's houses as if the property sale transfer had never existed. Two Rivers Housing has never given any legal justification for this tactic.

2) Two Rivers Housing does not subsidise the home-owners who are refusing to contribute towards the grass-cutting because it has yet to be proven that these people are legally obliged to contribute. That is why Two Rivers Housing is taking the test cases to court in the first place.

3) What is fact is that the tax-payer has subsidised Two Rivers Housing's legal case against the private home-owners. This took the form of a £160,000 out of court payment for the period 2009-2010 by Forest of Dean District Council to Two Rivers Housing for breach of warranty in respect of the upkeep of communal areas because "several" conveyances did not contain the relevant covenant that Two Rivers Housing claims allows them to charge for grass cutting. No indication is given to how many "several" is.

The home-owners stance has always been the same. Prove to us we are liable to pay, and we will pay. The problem, as far as Two Rivers Housing is concerned and as far as we have been advised, the justification that they are using to warrant these charges (part of one sentence from the whole schedule) is non-existent. Contrary to what Two Rivers Housing says on its web-site, nothing in our deeds makes mention of estate maintenance charges. No such charges are registered with the Land Registry, a requirement of all properties that were sold Right to Buy.

The Land Registry advised on the stock transfer of council housing to housing associations. By their definitions the estate to be transferred would not include those properties that have been disposed of privately or through the Right to Buy. Nor would it include adopted highways or areas retained by the council or transferred to a city or parish council.

It even advised against simply putting a red line around the cartilage of the old council estate as this had no legal basis. This is why many pour scorn on Two Rivers Housing's claims that they own the whole estate. It is simply not true. In the majority of cases the home-owners do not make any use of Two Rivers Housing's land. Properties can be accessed by public highway, so Two Rivers Housing cannot even use necessity of use as justification.

Land in the ownership of Two Rivers Housing is their responsibility to maintain.

– Mark Evans, Forest of Dean.