ChatterBank1 min ago
Good For Her.
She doesn't even own it so a five figure sum to lose something you don't own would seem like a lottery win to some people. But she values her garden more so good for her I say.
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -englan d-brist ol-4327 7247
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
This is her right. She has a secure tenancy - one that has subsisted for 50 years (or the article would imply). There is a principle that a Landlord must not derogate from his grant (ie he must not seek to take away something that he has leased). The fact that she presumably has complied with the terms of her tenancy, means the Council can do nothing. She does "own" something - she owns the rights attracted to her tenancy and she can sell or retain those rights as she sees fit!
I find it rather amusing.
I find it rather amusing.
I knew of a similar case locally in the early 90's. A very old disabled man whose home (which he owned, had built and lived in since his marriage some 60 years earlier) drove a truck through too many public health laws to list. His neighbours loved and supported him and all he wanted was to be in his own surroundings for as long as he could. I has several "informal" chats with local public health officials who knew of the circumstances and had decided that under the circumstances, they would have to defer enforcement due to various good official sounding reasons. Social services were similarly able to bend rules as though they were rubber bands in order to keep him at home for his last few years.....one of my better memories.
-- answer removed --