AS Two Rivers go ahead with charging private home owners for services that should be provided by the local council (Highways Act 1980 et al) a few questions still seem to be unanswered or require further clarification.

 1. How come these charges only seem to apply to properties that were acquired by former tenants under the Right to Buy scheme? This appears to openly target a specific minority. Home owners who brought their ex. council property privately or owners of non ex. council houses appear not to be penalised, although they use the "services" specified just as much. Why is there this discrimination?

2.  Why were local residents not consulted, or even informed, by Forest of Dean Council of the transfer of grassed areas to Two Rivers Housing, and the possible impact it would have? Has this transfer not basically privatised former council estates?

3. How is this not a form of taxation by a limited company, when it is a service that was previously paid for in the council charge? If the owner of Property A pays the same council charge as owner of Property B should he not expect the same services? Why should he or she be penalized for living on an ex. council estate?

4. Why is there no contravention of the Highways Act 1980, which clearly states who is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of public highways, including verges and hedges? The act also states how licenses for business on common grassed areas are allocated, and how monies can be made from this business.

5. How many home owners actually cut the grass outside their properties, and have done so for a number of years? I would hazard a guess the majority of those that are being charged.

6. What right do Two Rivers have to charge for this service? They have never provided a satisfactory answer. Originally they quoted one line from the deeds which, prima face, appeared to allow them to charge for the service. However, this was a deception on their part. The full schedule applies to shared access, parking etc. with which an individual property enjoys a specific benefit.

This may apply to a grassed or hard-standing area outside a block of flats, or a common lawn or parking area shared by two or more properties. In this case the private home owner should expect to pay some maintenance costs as they receive a specific benefit (a secure place for the kids to play, access to their property, parking). But even then such charge would only apply if the property was within certain boundaries. It certainly does not apply to public footpaths, whose benefit is enjoyed by everyone.

7. In their original statement Two Rivers said that they had been instructed by their "regulators", the Audit Commission and the Housing Corporation, to seek recompense for "services". Was this statement actually truthful? I contacted both organisations and got the following responses:-

•      The Audit Commission said that it has no links with housing associations. It is the regulatory for local authorities, such as the Forest of Dean Council. The only time it does get involved with housing associations is when they inspect them on behalf of the local council, and it certainly cannot give housing associations the authority to make service charges.

•The Housing Corporation answered that it does regulate housing associations, and the Regulation Officer was con­sulted for guidance. However the Housing Association has no statutory right to authorise housing authorities to make service charges to private home owners, they can only offer advice, and ensure that best practice is carried out by its members.

8. When I queried what right Two Rivers has to charge for these services, they actually quoted what they believed to be the relevant information from the original conveyance. I have never rented any accommodation from Two Rivers, and the property I own was bought privately. I can only assume that Two Rivers have access to the original deeds. What right has a limited company to this information? Is this not privileged information?

The original conveyance was between the original tenant who bought the property through the Right to Buy scheme and Forest of Dean Council. I accept that Two Rivers were originally the housing arm of the council, but does this legally entitle them to details of conveyances of properties that left the public sector before they became a limited company? Are Two Rivers not contravening the Data Protection Act?

 Originally I had some sympathy for Two Rivers, believing that they may have some recourse against Forest of Dean Council. However their continued failure to provide any real reason why normal home owners should be liable for their "service charge" and their continual playing of the "charity card" to gain some sort of moral high ground (in their eyes only) has only left a sour taste in the mouth. I think everyone now realises that the home owner and tenant meetings with Two Rivers were a total waste of time and that Two Rivers were always going to go ahead with these service charges. I also believe that the only way this is going to be settled will be in court.

 I shall leave you with one last question, and I shall even answer it for you.

 Question: If any other private individual or company came demanding money that they were not legally or contractually entitled to, what would a person do under normal circumstances?

 Answer: They would contact the police. – Name and address supplied.