MARKET tenants are set to go to war with Burnley Council in a £250,000 compensation battle.
They claim their council landlords have failed to keep a promise to come up with a reparation offer for disruption caused to stallholders during major improvements in the Market Square three years ago.
Tenants' association secretary Paddy Brady says traders are furious at continued delays and are considering withholding thousands of pounds each week in service payments to the authority.
The indoor market traders celebrated a major breakthrough in October when they say the council finally accepted their case for compensation for the loss of trade during the upheaval caused by the £12 million refurbishment upheaval.
But they say that since then the council had only come up with a "derisory" £300-a-tenant offer which was rejected out of hand.
The tenants, says florist Mr Brady are looking for the kind of compensation paid to shopkeepers in the centre - and that could amount to around £250,000.
He said: "We were promised a substantial offer would be made before Christmas, but we have heard nothing.
"The tenants have had enough and are willing to a return to direct action."
The last time traders withheld service charge payments - which are equal to the weekly rents - was when the council levied a 20 per cent hike in rents four years ago.
At its peak this amounted to more than a quarter of a million pounds withheld as the council and the tenants battled out the issue in the county court.
The court rejected arguments that there should be no rent rise and increased charges by seven per cent.
Said Mr Brady: "Things have dragged on for years and now we have had enough.
"If the council want a return to confrontation they will have it."
Mr Brady said there had been no consultation on April's proposed rent rise and tenants were fearful of another major hike.
"The council has been working out the budget figures for months, yet no-one has come to us to discuss any likely rent rise," he added.
No one from Burnley Council was said to be available to comment.
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article