AS I fast approach 65 years of age, I understand that I may have to appear in a court of law for the first time on the other side of the fence. My misdemeanour: failing to pay a service charge that I and many others (approx 2,000) say I do not owe.

Two Rivers Housing (TRH) who are demanding payment of £33.69 are relying on the wording of the fifth schedule of my conveyancy. Having read this document many times I am sure it says that I may 'from time to time' (no mention of 'annual' service charge) be required to contribute a fair and proper proportion of cost for cleansing, repairing and maintaining of all things used in common.

My understanding of the fifth schedule when I purchased was that in the event of shared sewage pipes, guttering, downpipes and footpaths being damaged, then I would be expected to share the cost with the council or TRH. Something I would not argue against. No-one could predict when any of the above would need repair or replacement (maybe never) hence the wording 'from time to time.' At no time in my conveyancing does it mention grasscutting and I don't believe grass is something I use in common with my neighbours.

All that I ask of TRH is prove that I owe this money and I will willingly make payment.

If a court rules that residents must pay these service charges then the correct and only fair way would be via council tax. In that way the whole community contributes.

I don't believe that TRH efforts to extort this money from me will be settled by a visit to the small claims court. I foresee a long drawn out costly court case, firstly to define the wording of the fifth schedule. It would appear that TRH legal department have found something in the fifth schedule that mine and 2,000 other solicitors failed to find.

Many residents who bought their homes about 28 years ago keep asking how the grasscutting was paid for over that period, and why can't it be paid for in the same way now. Neither the council or TRH seem to know the answers.

In last week's copy of the Review TRH say they will be taking court action against a cross section of residents. I hope that they do not attempt to put me in court alongside any resident who has purchased from them since 2003. The conveyancing for those residents has been drastically revised and clearly states that a service charge will apply and specifically mentions grasscutting. It would appear that these residents have no argument.

Those residents who, like me, were born and brought up in the Sedbury area will be interested to know that TRH have declared that north of Beachley Road, in particular Grahamstown Road, is no longer part of the Sedbury estate. They can't say why, and goodness knows where they dragged this one from. I wonder what's next? Watch this space.

As TRH select those who are to appear in court might I suggest all residents check their home insurance for legal cover and then check with their broker to see if such an event is covered.

In any event, when selection is complete, can I suggest that residents' representatives from all areas arrange a meeting to discuss ways of raising funds to engage the best possible legal advice.

Let's hope that TRH do not select the elderly and most vulnerable in our midst. Sadly, bullies usually go for the soft option.

Until such time the courts rule that I must pay, I have no intention of doing so and would hope we all stick together.

How can 2,000 law-abiding citizens and their solicitors be wrong? – D. Edwards, Sedbury.