Pages

What am I missing?

Council bans NHS worker from living in her parents' shed while she saves up mortgage deposit

The headline I get. They added 'NHS worker' rather than woman in order to get a better sympathy vote. No, this is the bit I don't get.

The shed was intended to be a temporary home for Miss Campbell and her boyfriend, Bill Warden, while they saved for a deposit on a mortgage.

But now her local council has given her nine months to move out of the shed at Havant, Hampshire, or face a fine.

The council’s planning committee ruled that it was ‘not appropriate for primary living accommodation.’

The shed is not appropriate primary living accommodation but homelessness is? Where is the logic in that? Am I missing something?

And I have to ask, what bloody business is it of the council what she chooses to live in? Absolutely none.

It's not a bad shed, as sheds go



The response is typical too. If she defies them and doesn't move out she gets the predictable fine. In essence, paying the council for permission to stay in the shed.

There is another bit to this story that I don't get too.
The structure was built by her parents, Jenny and Colin, at a cost of £14,000.

Would that not have covered the mortgage deposit?

Really. Am I missing something?

13 Comments:

JuliaM said...

Henry Crun said...

Anonymous said...

Bucko said...

Bucko said...

Bucko said...

Twenty_Rothmans said...

Bucko said...

English Viking said...

Andrew said...

Bucko said...

English Viking said...

Bucko said...