We have started work on our grounding letter to the European Court of Human Rights (Heavey vs. the United Kingdom) to prevent being evicted from our home before Christmas
Mayor of London Boris Johnson
Yesterday the Mayor of London's Greater London Authority (GLA) emailed us its application to dispute the court’s jurisdiction by way of reply to Declan's claim against it in the Central London County Court for terminating our eligibility for our flat without the right of review or appeal. According to our Notice of Issue, they had until close of business yesterday to reply to the claim, but they had until the end of the month to either file a defence or contest the Court's jurisdiction. Without their defence, we expect the Court to quickly dismiss based on the papers alone, so that eviction proceedings can be initiated against us. We, however, will be appealing to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), having already brought the matter before the High Court. The same day we receive the court order, we will dispatch our letter to the ECHR to receive its application form. We assume we will not have to appeal a costs order against us (sought by the GLA), given the background to the case as outlined in this extract from an updated complaint to the United Nations that Declan is currently working on:Paragraph 38 of Declan's updated complaint to the United Nations
38. The Applicant wrote on numerous occasions to SHP and twice to the GLA protesting his and his wife’s referral to GLA Clearing House on 4 September 2014, but to no avail. Finally, on 18 June 2015, the Applicant filed an application for permission to apply for a judicial review against the GLA. By order dated 12 August 2015, the High Court refused the Applicant permission to bring judicial review proceedings, principally on the basis that his claim form should have been filed within 3 months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014 (see Annex 28, Greater London Authority: Order by High Court Judge Lavender, pp. 73-74). It is evident from SHP's email of 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the GLA's Grounds of Opposition to the claim that the Applicant has been repeatedly deprived of his right of review, and that the GLA has not properly considered the impact of its referral decision on his family life. For example, the GLA states at paragraph 13 of its Grounds of Opposition that its initial letter of 23 March 2015 was not a new decision but a response to the Applicant's first pre-action protocol letter, and that it "has not reviewed the earlier [referral] decision or taken any new decision regarding the Claimant's tenancy". On 10 September 2015, the Applicant filed a claim in the Central London County Court against the GLA under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (right to respect for private and family life) for depriving him of a review and appeal of its decision to refer him and his wife to its Clearing House programme, thereby terminating their eligibility for their flat because they are able to live independently (see Annex 29, Greater London Authority: Particulars of claim filed at Central London County Court, pp. 75-81). [Emphasis added]
38. The Applicant wrote on numerous occasions to SHP and twice to the GLA protesting his and his wife’s referral to GLA Clearing House on 4 September 2014, but to no avail. Finally, on 18 June 2015, the Applicant filed an application for permission to apply for a judicial review against the GLA. By order dated 12 August 2015, the High Court refused the Applicant permission to bring judicial review proceedings, principally on the basis that his claim form should have been filed within 3 months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014 (see Annex 28, Greater London Authority: Order by High Court Judge Lavender, pp. 73-74). It is evident from SHP's email of 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the GLA's Grounds of Opposition to the claim that the Applicant has been repeatedly deprived of his right of review, and that the GLA has not properly considered the impact of its referral decision on his family life. For example, the GLA states at paragraph 13 of its Grounds of Opposition that its initial letter of 23 March 2015 was not a new decision but a response to the Applicant's first pre-action protocol letter, and that it "has not reviewed the earlier [referral] decision or taken any new decision regarding the Claimant's tenancy". On 10 September 2015, the Applicant filed a claim in the Central London County Court against the GLA under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (right to respect for private and family life) for depriving him of a review and appeal of its decision to refer him and his wife to its Clearing House programme, thereby terminating their eligibility for their flat because they are able to live independently (see Annex 29, Greater London Authority: Particulars of claim filed at Central London County Court, pp. 75-81). [Emphasis added]
This is an extract from the GLA's application to dispute the Court’s jurisdiction, filed at Court yesterday:
Click to enlarge
The GLA contends that the Mayor of London's Housing First programme no longer exists, but their website still lists the programme here. Are they lying to the taxpayer? This is Declan's claim that was issued by the Court on 11 September 2015:
Brief details of claim
The Claimant challenges the Defendant for depriving him of his right of review in respect of its decision to refer him and his wife from the Mayor of London’s Housing First programme to the Mayor’s Clearing House programme (the “referral decision”), thereby terminating their eligibility for their flat because they are able to live independently. On 12 August 2015 the High Court refused the Claimant permission to apply for Judicial Review, principally because his Claim Form was not filed within 3 months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014. It is evident from the email the Claimant received on 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the Defendant’s Grounds of Defence (in particular paragraph 13) that the Claimant has been repeatedly deprived of his right of review, and that the Defendant has not properly considered the impact of the referral decision on his family life. It has not taken into account the Claimant and his wife’s needs and vulnerable position as rough sleepers for almost 4 years in total. The Claimant is therefore making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unlawfully and an order that it reviews the referral decision and provides the Claimant with the opportunity to appeal to an independent tribunal if he is not satisfied with the outcome.
Value
The Claimant expects to recover damages for distress of not more than £1,000.
The Claimant challenges the Defendant for depriving him of his right of review in respect of its decision to refer him and his wife from the Mayor of London’s Housing First programme to the Mayor’s Clearing House programme (the “referral decision”), thereby terminating their eligibility for their flat because they are able to live independently. On 12 August 2015 the High Court refused the Claimant permission to apply for Judicial Review, principally because his Claim Form was not filed within 3 months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014. It is evident from the email the Claimant received on 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the Defendant’s Grounds of Defence (in particular paragraph 13) that the Claimant has been repeatedly deprived of his right of review, and that the Defendant has not properly considered the impact of the referral decision on his family life. It has not taken into account the Claimant and his wife’s needs and vulnerable position as rough sleepers for almost 4 years in total. The Claimant is therefore making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unlawfully and an order that it reviews the referral decision and provides the Claimant with the opportunity to appeal to an independent tribunal if he is not satisfied with the outcome.
Value
The Claimant expects to recover damages for distress of not more than £1,000.
Particulars of claim (threat to life and wellbeing, paras. 16-17):
'Let me recommend an important web site churchandstate.org.uk. Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out.' Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty
http://churchandstate.org.uk/about/
http://churchandstate.org.uk/letter-from-the-chairman/
http://churchandstate.org.uk/category/church-and-state-press/
If you would like to help us personally, please feel free to pick up one of our books (shameless plug, I know, but every sale helps us to work our way out of our precarious situation). There is currently five books available in Church and State Press here, and all proceeds from the first four of these books go to us with the authors' permission. Thank you all for all the support you have given us, and I hope we can keep our Church and State website going despite the constant threats.
