TWO Rivers Housing Association has announced it is to appeal the court judgement against it in the long running dispute with homeowners over grass cutting and maintenance charges.

In a statement released last Friday morning (July 22) TRH said: "The Board met on July 18 to consider how it will respond to the summary judgement given by the county court in connection with the issue of how the costs of maintaining the land on housing estates in the Forest of Dean are distributed.

"The Board believes that the fairest approach to paying for the grass cutting and maintenance of estates is to share these amongst the residents who live on the estates and who benefit from the open spaces and associated amenities.

"Over the past two years we have spent considerable time trying to encourage homeowners who bought their houses under the government's 'right to buy' discount scheme to pay modest contributions towards the upkeep of the grassed areas, weed killing, paths and cutting hedges on their estates. The costs charged are the actual costs of the work, there are no hidden or extra charges. This is a 'break even' service. The current average cost for an owner occupier is 60p per week.

The statement continues: "Many of the homeowners believe that they should not be included and should not contribute towards the costs of grounds maintenance and have contested the matter in court.

"The owners asked for a summary judgement dismissing Two Rivers Housing's claim and the judge found in their favour. The Board has been advised by a specialist legal team who believe that this decision is unsound and have recommended that an appeal is lodged with the court.

"One of our concerns is that the judgement means that homeowners would have no rights at all to use or benefit from the land unless they could prove that they exercised rights over the land before they purchased under the right to buy. In giving summary judgement the judge made the following comment in relation to the uses of grassed areas of land.

Quote from summary judgement: "Indeed, the defendants (ie the four owner occupiers bring the action against Two Rivers Housing) specifically deny any such use either during their tenancy or during their period of owner occupation." End quote.

"We doubt that this is true for most owner occupiers who in fact do use the estate for recreational, parking and access purposes.

"Irrespective of the outcome of the court case, because we continue to believe that these are estate amenities shared and enjoyed by many residents (both tenants and owners) we wish to reassure those homeowners who disagree with the judgement that we will find a way to allow them to 'opt in' so that they can justifiably continue to walk their dogs, park their cars or otherwise utilise the environs.

"We also want such owners to continue to have some future say over, how the grassed areas, paths and hedgerows are managed as despite the ruling, we believe the nature of the estate management affects both the quality of their lives as well as the value of their homes.

"The Board believes that the summary judgement highlights complex issues of estate management that require clarification.

"If we do not appeal, there will exist an impractical situation which creates two tiers of residents, first tier residents (tenants) who pay for and enjoy estate amenities and second tier residents (owner occupiers) who neither pay for nor have access to estate facilities. We simply want everyone to benefit from well maintained estates that have been paid for fairly.

"The Board considers that the summary judgement fails to take proper account of the context in which the charges are being proposed.

"As it stands, the ruling creates confusion about rights and responsibilities relating to estate amenities. It suggests that Two Rivers should manage its estates differently from other transfer associations in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The Board also believes that the judgement brings to the fore important ethical issues. For all these reasons we feel that we are bound to appeal the judgement."