A headline in The Metro reads Couple forced to live in tent after removal van explodes on the M5.
The article explains how the removal van burned all their stuff "while they were moving house", but it does not explain why they couldn't move into their new house, even if they had to start buying furniture from scratch. It says that they had given up the lease on their old flat (so they can't move back in their) but not why the incineration of their stuff caused them to lose their new home and force them to camp in a relative's garden.
Hmm. Is it possible that there is no connection between the two events? That they were just evicted (or did a bunk) from their old flat?
Tuesday 6 July 2010
Doesn't make sense
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
there are a few stories about this couple in the papers, none of them explain why they can't go to the place that they rented though. The commenters on the story at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292267/Gone-20-minutes-Couple-set-home-tent-losing-possessions-van-fire.html all seem to have the same question.
The only way I could see it being required is if all of the money they were going to use to pay the deposit was in the van as well (which has to be unlikely, doesn't it?) and even then, why stay in a tent rather than on the floor indoors?
Post a Comment