Introductory letter to the European Court of Human Rights

Yet another example of police intimidation and harassment, this time involving London Lite and The London Paper (two free London tabloid papers handed out to people in the evening Monday to Friday): Thursday evening Declan didn’t even bother stepping into his pitch outside Liverpool Street Station – where he sells The Big Issue during the week – after he found a bicycle tied up at his pitch and facing it a girl flogging the London Lite on one side and a guy harassing passers-by to take The London Paper on the other.

While such intimidation and harassment does little for the state of our finances, at least on this occasion there was a silver lining. The next morning, Declan lodged our case with the European Court of Human Rights by introductory letter. This is the letter he sent by fax and registered post:

Dear Sir/Madam

Re:   HEAVEY v UK

I am writing to introduce an application under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

On 11 August 2006 I attended an advisory interview to review my Jobseeker’s Agreement (JSAg) with an employment officer in Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus of the Department for Work and Pensions in respect of my claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). As with my first JSAg, my pursuance of a “temporary job” that would enable me retrain to start my own business was accepted as part of the new JSAg that I signed.

On 14 August 2006 my wife attended an advisory interview in Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus to review her JSAg in respect of her JSA on my claim. Contrary to the provisions of her first two JSAg’s however, she was threatened with the suspension of her JSA unless she agreed to sign a new JSAg without the restriction that she is looking for a temporary job that would enable her retrain for a new career. She was not provided with any reason as to why this restriction was no longer acceptable, and was furthermore denied her right pursuant to section 9(6)(a) of the Jobseekers Act 1995, to have her proposed JSAg referred to an adjudicator for him to determine whether she would satisfy the conditions that she was available for employment and was actively seeking employment.

On 18 August 2006 my wife and I were to attend another advisory interview in Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus, this time with the adviser manager. After my wife had been informed by this adviser manager that he would neither accept her proposed JSAg nor refer same to an adjudicator, she refused to attend the interview. I likewise refused to attend any such interview until such time as I was advised that the Jobcentre would either accept my wife’s proposed JSAg or refer same to an adjudicator in accordance with section 9(6)(a) of the Jobseekers Act 1995.

In a letter dated 18 August 2006, Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus advised my wife and I that my joint claim JSA would be suspended from 19 August 2006 on the basis that there was a doubt as to our availability for work.

Having been denied the only remedy that was capable of providing redress in respect of my wife’s complaint, on 24 August 2006 I lodged an urgent application in person for permission to apply for judicial review against Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with the High Court in London, claiming that the suspension of my joint claim JSA was irrational.

In a letter dated 13 September 2006, an adjudicator advised my wife and I that the doubt as to our availability for work had been removed and that any arrears of JSA due to us would be paid. On 14 September 2006 summary grounds for contesting my claim by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was lodged with the High Court, claiming that the decision to suspend benefit was lawful. Further it was submitted that my application for judicial review was premature and/or disproportionate.

On 15 September 2006 I wrote to the manager of Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus advising that neither my wife nor I would attend another advisory interview until such time as I was advised that the Jobcentre would either accept my wife’s proposed JSAg or refer same to an adjudicator. This resulted in the suspension of my joint claim JSA on 19 September 2006 due to the non-attendance of my wife and I at our respective advisory interviews earlier that same day. In a letter dated 25 September 2006, Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus advised me that my joint claim JSA had been looked at again and reinstated from 21 September 2006.

On 29 September 2006 my wife and I attended Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus to sign our respective declaration (that we were available for employment and actively seeking employment) as we were meant to, but were prevented from doing so without explanation. On 30 September 2006 I received a letter dated 27 September 2006 from the Jobcentre advising that the entitlement of my wife and me to JSA was ceased as from 19 September 2006 because I did not attend to sign my declaration. On 30 September 2006 I wrote to the manager of Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus advising of the Jobcentre’s mistake, and sent a copy of this letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Subject to regulation 27(1) of the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996, entitlement to a jobseeker’s allowance shall not cease if the claimant shows, before the end of the fifth working day after the day on which he failed to provide a signed declaration, that he had a good cause for the failure. Nonetheless, the Department for Work and Pensions neither changed the decision of 27 September 2006 to cease our entitlement JSA nor gave me an explanation, the latter of which I required within one month of the date of the decision letter to have a right to appeal to an Appeal Tribunal. (All I received from the Department was a letter from Birmingham Erdington Jobcentre Plus dated 5 October 2006 acknowledging receipt of my letter dated 30 September 2006.)

In a letter dated 31 October 2006, the High Court in London advised me that my permission application had been listed for oral hearing on 11 December 2006. With no income, our savings depleted, and not entitled to JSA hardship provision (JSA at a reduced rate) or a Social Fund loan (unable to repay), my wife and I were faced with the choice of going homeless in London or in Birmingham. We chose London because the pursuance of our claim through the national courts was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of my complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success. We would have been more vulnerable and insecure had we stayed in Birmingham, particularly as I had been deprived of my right of appeal against the decision to cease our entitlement to JSA.

My wife and I have been rough sleepers in London since 3 November 2006 save a brief period in rolling shelters. On 22 November 2006 the Dellow Day Centre recorded in my wife’s registration form that St Mungo’s, London’s largest organisation working with the homeless, had informed the Centre that neither my wife nor I could be referred into night shelters "due to not being on any benefits". My application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused by the High Court on 11 December 2006. According to the Court, my application for permission was premature. The Court’s decision also stated that I should have had my complaint about the letter of 27 September 2006 determined by an Appeal Tribunal.

On 18 December 2006 I was admitted to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital for pneumonia. In the discharge summary report dated 20 December 2006, my doctor recorded that I was admitted with chest pain worse on breathing, worse on inspiration, and that I had not been eating due to lack of finance. Furthermore, the doctor also noted that I did have an episode of loss of consciousness, witnessed by my wife. On 17 February I was punched twice in the face in the Whitechapel Mission Day Centre in an unprovoked attack by a homeless man (crime reference number: 4204886/07).

My application for permission to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal on the papers on 22 March 2007 as being totally without merit for the reasons cited by the Court on 11 December 2006, and an order was made that I may not request the decision to be reconsidered at a hearing. No further avenues of redress are available to me. My wife and I are currently surviving on the streets of London by selling The Big Issue, a magazine that is sold on the streets by homeless people in the UK.

I submit that in the circumstances of this case there has been a violation of Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) arising from the two suspensions of my joint claim JSA and the subsequent ceasing of the entitlement of my wife and me to JSA and that we were deprived of an effective remedy in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. I also complain that we have been the victims of discrimination because my wife wanted to continue to have her interests protected (in violation of Article 14 taken together with Articles 8 and 13).

I further submit that the abandonment of our flat and possessions and our current status as homeless has caused us suffering of sufficient severity for the acts of the Department for Work and Pensions to be categorised as inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 (the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment). I also complain that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property) arising from the abandonment of our home and possessions.

In addition, I submit that the true purpose of the two suspensions of my joint claim JSA was to intimidate my wife into signing a new JSAg on unfavourable terms in violation of Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8. I also complain that the ceasing of the entitlement of my wife and me to JSA was a measure introduced with a view to influencing the judicial determination of the dispute, in violation of the right to fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.

I seek a declaration from the Court that Articles 3, 6, 8, 13, 14, 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1 have been violated, together with just satisfaction under Article 41 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, plus legal costs and expenses).

This letter has been introduced within six months of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, in accordance with Article 35(1) of the European Convention.

A completed application form, together with a file of relevant copy documents, will be submitted shortly.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours faithfully

Declan Heavey

And these are some of the highlights of the week: we are treated to employees leaving the building by the porch we sleep in – they do have a very nice front entrance – either at the moment we arrive or when we are getting into our sleeping bags (Monday to Thursday between 8.15pm and 8.45pm); homeless try to get Declan to let them use his sink, and the fact that he is at it with half a foot of soapy water, for one character it was “So what?” (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday between 6.15am and 6.30am in the Whitechapel Mission washroom); a homeless first kicks the table Declan is sitting at, spilling coffee that narrowly misses his papers, and then kicks Declan in the shin as he is reading (this morning at 10.30am in The Connection at St Martin-in-the-Fields).

On the secular front, on Tuesday I found a very funny short bit in the Independent on Pope Benedict’s visit to Brazil. It reads: “In a speech at the end of his tour of Brazil, Pope Benedict condemned 'authoritarian governments' who are 'wedded to old-fashioned ideologies'. Presumably a sense of irony isn't very useful if you're a Pope, but even so it was a wonder he didn't blush. I thought 'old-fashioned ideologies' - resistant to reason - were part of the point of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Surely the fact that the Catholic church is rich and powerful, regularly earning bonuses of billions of pounds a year in deals with governments, and claiming a monopoly on truth, means that its head shouldn’t have to be constrained by fine-tuned speeches.