I DO not know if it is as a result of Two Rivers Housing Association's propaganda over the last three years, but as shown in letters from a tenant member of their board, Gillian Robins, and, last week, from one of their tenants, Joan Gibbs, there seems to be a bit of confusion as to the matter of both Two Rivers Housing Association and its tenants "subsidising" ex-tenants who bought their properties Right to Buy.

The definitions of to subsidise are "to give money in exchange for goods and services" and "to support financially". Two Rivers Housing Association and its tenants do neither in respect of private home owners.

Firstly, Two Rivers Housing Association does not carry out services to private owners' properties.

The land in question for which Two Rivers Housing Association wishes to charge private homeowners, leaseholders and tenants for grass cutting and other services is in the sole ownership of Two Rivers Housing Association. Private home owners have no interest whatsoever in the land. They do not necessary use the land. In the vast majority of cases, their properties can be accessed by public highway.

Despite what Two Rivers Housing Association have claimed in the past the areas are not "communal lawns" nor have any amenity value to privately owned properties.

Secondly, the housing association tenants do not subsidise those who own their own properties. In truth, by making the service charge demands, Two Rivers Housing Association wanted the private home owners to subsidise the maintenance of property in the housing association's ownership. What the Judge did, by not even referring the cases to court, was to show that Two Rivers Housing Association was unable prove that the private home owners were under any legal obligation to pay such a subsidy.

Thirdly, tenants pay service charges because they have signed a tenancy agreement, a form of contract, to do so. They did so willingly. The private home owners never signed such an agreement with Two Rivers Housing Association, and despite what the housing association has claimed, there is nothing in their deeds that state they have to pay estate maintenance charges.

There is also some doubt as to whether tenants who signed their tenancy agreement before the 2003 large stock voluntary transfer and who do not live in flats or sheltered housing are under any obligation to pay such service charges. The main reason for this is that, despite statements from the Forest of Dean District Council to the contrary, the maintenance of areas of general amenity on council housing estates was not taken solely from the Housing Revenue Account. Contributions were transferred from the General Fund to the HRA. This was a requirement of the Local Government Act and therefore statutory law. It is the main reason why local authorities up and down the country transferred amenity land from the HRA to the General Fund. Forest of Dean District Council seems to be one of the few exceptions to the rule.

When service charges were "de-pooled" and had to be shown separately, it was universally accepted that grass cutting of amenity areas was such a charge and never queried. Unlike the private home owners, who had to face court proceedings, tenants and lease-holders can take their case to the Tenant Service Authority or the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. Neither will cost the £10,000 that the private home owners contributed to fight Two Rivers Housing Association claims.

Finally, to put Joan Gibbs' mind at rest, she and other tenants should have no worries about their service charges being increased to cover the £10,000 court expenses. After all Two Rivers Housing Association were subsidised by the tax-payer to the tune of £160,000 (they originally wanted £250,000) to fund the court action in an out of court settlement payment by the Forest of Dean District Council because "several" of the Right to Buy conveyances did not allow for the recovery of service charges. It would now appear that by "several" they actually meant "all". Even after accepting the payment Two Rivers Housing Association still sent out demands to all private home owners, although acceptance of the payment meant they were aware that "several" of those private home owners were not obligated to pay.

Hopefully Two Rivers Housing Association tenants can now understand that they not subsidising the private home owners, and that in fact what the court decision has shown is that private home owners do not have to subsidise Two Rivers Housing Association.

– Mark Evans, Lydney.