DAY 3 living in limbo (threat to life): Declan is faced with issuing St Mungo's CEO Howard Sinclair a pre-action letter for the Central London County Court under the Human Rights Act 1998 (WITH UPDATE - DAY 35 20/6/2018)
Some progress but seemingly endless dickering!!
- Donald A. Collins, President, International Services Assistance Fund, Washington DC
The County Court at Central London and High Court of Justice (Judicial Review) are both located in the Royal Courts of Justice.
It's far from inconceivable that Declan and I could be fighting for the roof over our heads in two courts in the Royal Courts of Justice in less than a month. Declan has already issued the Greater London Authority (GLA) his Letter Before Claim prior to Judicial Review proceedings (see below). Yesterday we received a shocking tenancy agreement that no one in their right mind would accept (see further below). This means that Declan is now also faced with issuing St Mungo's CEO Howard Sinclair a pre-action letter for the Central London County Court under the Human Rights Act 1998, citing discrimination and harassment. This is the Letter Before Claim the GLA received last week:
Authority Solicitor
Public and Regulatory Law
TFL Legal, on behalf of:
The Greater London Authority
55 Broadway
London
SW1H 0BD
15 May 2018
Dear Sir or Madam,
Letter Before Claim
I write as a tenant of Clearing House. The Greater London Authority (GLA) commissions St. Mungo's to provide Clearing House services. Please find enclosed my Letter Before Claim in compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review. For the purpose of my claim no distinction is sought to be drawn between the GLA and the Mayor of London.
My wife and I have been effectively informed by the Clearing House that we will be living in limbo as from 16 May 2018 and can be served with a Section 21 Notice to vacate our home at any time and without any stated reason (a threat to life).
The Clearing House's decision on 10 May 2018 to rule out the re-issue of another tenancy (the "decision") for two former entrenched rough sleepers who have ongoing high support needs amounts to a type of harassment. No reason has been provided for the decision, notwithstanding my repeated requests for same.
I am seeking a review by the GLA of the decision as an exercise of public function. I would argue in judicial review proceedings that a decision by the GLA to deny me this review does not provide me with sufficient procedural protection of my rights, in violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Connors v. UK [2004] HLR 52).
I look forward to receiving a response in due course and, in any event, by no later than Tuesday, 29 May 2018.
Yours faithfully,
Declan Heavey
Enclosure: Letter Before Claim (Heavey v GLA)
On Wednesday, 16 May, the day after Declan sent his Letter Before Claim to the GLA, St Mungo's and our landlord, Peabody Trust, agreed to a renewed 2 year fixed term tenancy for us. However, what we received yesterday from Peabody is far from renewed. It's a shocking document that puts us the other end of a section 21 eviction notice (damned if we sign and damned if we don't), and it seems to have been drawn up very much with eviction in mind. I have put together some screenshots in preparation for court action(s).
Our previous tenancy agreement stated "renewed":
The new tenancy agreement does not state "renewed":
Our previous tenancy agreement is specific on time and amount of rent increase:
The new tenancy agreement is not specific on time and amount of rent increase:
Our previous tenancy agreement specifies "weekly rent":
The new tenancy agreement specifies "monthly rent":
Our previous tenancy agreement makes no mention of "visiting support":
The new tenancy agreement specifies "visiting support":
Our previous tenancy agreement specifies "8 weeks" in arrears for possession:
The new tenancy agreement specifies "14 days" in arrears for possession:
This week St Mungo's made the international press for all the wrong reasons. They are accused of helping to get rough sleepers arrested and deported. When the story came through my Russia Today (RT) news feed last Monday, it left Declan gob smacked. He has already spoken with Diane Taylor, the journalist who is covering the story for the Guardian. This is her up-to-date piece on the scandal:
EU freedom for rough sleepers infringed - shock horror. https://t.co/RuJKrSEiTm
— Andrew Martin (@devonprof) May 14, 2018
DAY 35 UPDATE 20 June (10.06am): This is DAY 35 for us living in a limbo state, subject to a section 21 eviction notice being served (a threat to life). GLA Legal replied to Declan's Letter Before Claim, stating that the original decision of St Mungo's to rule out the re-issue of another tenancy "is not a decision of the GLA or the Mayor". Declan has issued St Mungo's CEO Howard Sinclair a pre-action letter for the Central London County Court and received a reply. The letter is published in my blog post of 18 June, Will a District Court Judge tell us we are not tenants of the Mayor of London's Clearing House service? (WITH UPDATE – DAY 35 20/6/2018). This is Declan's threat-to-life paragraph in his recent updated complaint to the United Nations:
Re: Threat to life (The Greater London Authority)
Paragraph 38 of Declan's updated complaint to the United Nations under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
38. It has been acknowledged by the GLA in judicial review papers that the Applicant and his wife can live independently – they do not have addictions or mental illness or behavioural issues. Their needs are solely related to the harassment and intimidation they routinely face. Following their unavoidable court action against St. Mungo's last year (see para. 36 above), they are extremely concerned that their tenancy will not this time be renewed on the same terms as the original tenancy agreement. (The Applicant has repeatedly asked Peabody for a new, like-for-like fixed term contract from 16 May 2018 and has contacted his local councillor to take up his case.) The Applicant may then be left with no option but to challenge this decision in the High Court (Judicial Review) as unreasonable, unlawful and incapable of legal justification. As the matter stands, therefore, there is a threat to life and well-being considering the following range of factors as applicable:
(i) The Applicant has a history of respiratory diseases such as pneumonia, bronchitis and other lung infections. Both he and his wife doubt he has the respiratory health to survive even another year or two on the streets. He is in his late fifties and during his and his wife's first period of homelessness he was twice hospitalised, once with pneumonia in December 2006 and the second time with a viral infection in October 2007. Near the end of their second period of homelessness in April 2014, the Applicant was diagnosed with asthma as well as a chest infection (see para. 31 above).
(ii) Both the Applicant and his wife have serious concerns about the health care the Applicant has or has not received over the years from National Health Service (NHS) England. Prior to his hospitalisation with pneumonia in 2006, he lost consciousness while vomiting and could have easily died had his wife not been with him. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital discharged him 42 hours after admission whilst still unwell (into the shivering cold and dense fog), placing him at risk. The Applicant most recently complained to NHS England about emergency dental treatment he received in January 2018. He complained in part that he had a nerve removed from a tooth but was only prescribed antibiotics after the eruption of the tooth days later. NHS England did not uphold any aspect of the Applicant's complaint. The tooth itself was extracted a month to the day after the emergency treatment.
(iii) Back on the streets the Applicant and his wife will be restricted to sleeping on night buses, notwithstanding the Applicant's asthma and now increased susceptibility to respiratory disease. They were forced into this predicament prior to coming off the streets the second time because of an excessive use of force by police officers to move them out of where they had been sleeping. This included the Applicant's wife being threatened with arrest on the trumped-up charge of assaulting a police officer (see para. 31 above). Since the subsequent escalation of the migration crisis in Europe, the police have been given more powers to crack down on rough sleeping and need less to resort to excessive force (such as arrest without lawful authority).
Paragraph 38 of Declan's updated complaint to the United Nations under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
38. It has been acknowledged by the GLA in judicial review papers that the Applicant and his wife can live independently – they do not have addictions or mental illness or behavioural issues. Their needs are solely related to the harassment and intimidation they routinely face. Following their unavoidable court action against St. Mungo's last year (see para. 36 above), they are extremely concerned that their tenancy will not this time be renewed on the same terms as the original tenancy agreement. (The Applicant has repeatedly asked Peabody for a new, like-for-like fixed term contract from 16 May 2018 and has contacted his local councillor to take up his case.) The Applicant may then be left with no option but to challenge this decision in the High Court (Judicial Review) as unreasonable, unlawful and incapable of legal justification. As the matter stands, therefore, there is a threat to life and well-being considering the following range of factors as applicable:
(i) The Applicant has a history of respiratory diseases such as pneumonia, bronchitis and other lung infections. Both he and his wife doubt he has the respiratory health to survive even another year or two on the streets. He is in his late fifties and during his and his wife's first period of homelessness he was twice hospitalised, once with pneumonia in December 2006 and the second time with a viral infection in October 2007. Near the end of their second period of homelessness in April 2014, the Applicant was diagnosed with asthma as well as a chest infection (see para. 31 above).
(ii) Both the Applicant and his wife have serious concerns about the health care the Applicant has or has not received over the years from National Health Service (NHS) England. Prior to his hospitalisation with pneumonia in 2006, he lost consciousness while vomiting and could have easily died had his wife not been with him. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital discharged him 42 hours after admission whilst still unwell (into the shivering cold and dense fog), placing him at risk. The Applicant most recently complained to NHS England about emergency dental treatment he received in January 2018. He complained in part that he had a nerve removed from a tooth but was only prescribed antibiotics after the eruption of the tooth days later. NHS England did not uphold any aspect of the Applicant's complaint. The tooth itself was extracted a month to the day after the emergency treatment.
(iii) Back on the streets the Applicant and his wife will be restricted to sleeping on night buses, notwithstanding the Applicant's asthma and now increased susceptibility to respiratory disease. They were forced into this predicament prior to coming off the streets the second time because of an excessive use of force by police officers to move them out of where they had been sleeping. This included the Applicant's wife being threatened with arrest on the trumped-up charge of assaulting a police officer (see para. 31 above). Since the subsequent escalation of the migration crisis in Europe, the police have been given more powers to crack down on rough sleeping and need less to resort to excessive force (such as arrest without lawful authority).
From My Picks
8 May 2018: Threat to life: Updated complaint to the United Nations under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Today we are cut off the internet for a half an hour
http://churchandstate.org.uk/honorary-associates/
