DAY 59 living in limbo (threat to life): Declan has worked inaccurate personal data into his claim against the Greater London Authority-commissioned St Mungo's for filing in the Central London County Court (WITH UPDATE 3/8/2018)
The Central London County Court is located in the Royal Courts of Justice.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms formulates what is the core of free speech. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression." In an important interpretation of this article, the European Court of Human Rights in Handyside v. UK (1976) indicated that this "freedom of expression" should be construed as follows. It "is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received, or regarded as inoffensive, or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population." Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see Cliteur, 2010).
Heavey v St Mungo's (2016)
St Mungo's Executive Director Dominic Williamson successfully had Declan's claim for £400 (in costs alone) dismissed by writing in a Witness Statement to the Central London County Court that St Mungo's were "keen to work with Mr Heavey to ensure that he remains securely housed and does not face homelessness again". (He also maintained and argued the point in two court hearings before two different District Court judges.) It took the scheduling of a preliminary hearing in October 2016 to have case notes from two meetings rectified by Williamson as Declan had requested all along; and that rectification only took place after a failed attempt by an international firm of solicitors, Osborne Clarke, to have Declan's claim struck out on the papers. The judge at the preliminary hearing dismissed St Mungo's application to strike out Declan's claim for compensation, and District Judge Avent's order dated 11 March 2017 does not state why he dismissed the claim.
20 February 2017: The Central London County Court: District Judge Avent dismisses Declan's claim against the Greater London Authority-commissioned St Mungo's that alleged the falsification and fabrication of data against us (WITH UPDATE 16/3/2017)
St Mungo's Executive Director Dominic Williamson successfully had Declan's claim for £400 (in costs alone) dismissed by writing in a Witness Statement to the Central London County Court that St Mungo's were "keen to work with Mr Heavey to ensure that he remains securely housed and does not face homelessness again". (He also maintained and argued the point in two court hearings before two different District Court judges.) It took the scheduling of a preliminary hearing in October 2016 to have case notes from two meetings rectified by Williamson as Declan had requested all along; and that rectification only took place after a failed attempt by an international firm of solicitors, Osborne Clarke, to have Declan's claim struck out on the papers. The judge at the preliminary hearing dismissed St Mungo's application to strike out Declan's claim for compensation, and District Judge Avent's order dated 11 March 2017 does not state why he dismissed the claim.
20 February 2017: The Central London County Court: District Judge Avent dismisses Declan's claim against the Greater London Authority-commissioned St Mungo's that alleged the falsification and fabrication of data against us (WITH UPDATE 16/3/2017)
This is DAY 59 for us living in a limbo state, subject to a section 21 eviction notice being served (a death threat). The tenancy agreement we were asked to sign on 18 May is a shocking document (see here). Now Declan has worked my problems with inaccurate personal data into his claim against the Greater London Authority-commissioned St Mungo's for filing in the Central London County Court next week (see paragraph 5 below). Declan is seeking damages for distress and costs:
Brief details of claim
The Claimant and his wife are tenants of the Clearing House, which is run by the Defendant on behalf of the Mayor of London. They are living in a Clearing House property owned by Peabody Trust since 17 May 2014, and first had their fixed term tenancy for two years renewed on 16 May 2016. On 16 May 2018, during a meeting with the Claimant and his wife at their home, representatives for the Defendant and Peabody agreed to the 'like-for-like' renewal of tenancy. However, the Claimant then received a tenancy agreement that not only is far from a like-for-like contract, but that breaches the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). In reply to the Claimant's pre-action letter dated 22 May 2018, the Defendant wrote that the Claimant needed to address his concerns to Peabody. The Claimant had already made a formal complaint to Peabody, but to no avail to date. For two months (since 17 May 2018), the Claimant and his wife have been living in a limbo state, subject to a section 21 eviction notice being served. This limbo state in itself constitutes discrimination, a type of harassment, and a threat to life. The Claimant is therefore making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unlawfully and in dereliction of its duty. The Claimant seeks damages for distress and costs.
Value
The Claimant expects to recover not more than £1,000.
Particulars of Claim
1. The Claimant and his wife are tenants of the Clearing House, which is run by the Defendant on behalf of the Mayor of London. The Greater London Authority (GLA) funds and commissions the Clearing House and related Tenancy Sustainment Teams (TSTs) to the tune of £2.6 million per year. The Claimant adduces quotations from two sources of information to show that he and his wife are tenants of the Clearing House: the GLA in High Court papers in 2015 and the Defendant's 9-page report entitled "Clearing House at 25" (see Supporting Documents (SD), p. 10). They are living in a Clearing House property (with reference to the Defendant's report), having been "referred for support to the TST like all other Clearing House tenants" (to quote the GLA). The Defendant's report uses the word 'tenant' no less than six times.
2. The Claimant and his wife have been living in a flat owned by Peabody Trust since 17 May 2014, and first had their fixed term tenancy for two years renewed on 16 May 2016. The Claimant had repeatedly requested the reissue of another tenancy before Peabody wrote on 10 May 2018 that: "[I]t would be the Tenancy Sustainment Team at St Mungo's who you would need to speak to about your renewal of tenancy." In a subsequent email to the Defendant's CEO Howard Sinclair, the Claimant challenged the decision of the Clearing House not to reissue another tenancy (see SD, pp. 32-36). On 15 May 2018, the Claimant issued the GLA with a Letter Before Claim, in which he averred that the Defendant's decision for two former entrenched rough sleepers with high support needs amounted to a type of harassment and a death threat (see SD, pp. 23-31). (GLA Legal replied on 24 May 2018, stating that the decision to rule out the reissue of another tenancy "is not a decision of the GLA or the Mayor".)
3. On 16 May 2018, the day after the Claimant issued the GLA his Letter Before Claim, the Defendant's TST Manager Gemma Goacher and Peabody Neighbourhood Manager Chantelle Mitchell agreed (on tape) to the 'like-for-like' renewal of tenancy during a meeting with the Claimant and his wife at their home. Ms. Goacher also assured the Claimant and his wife that they would each be allocated their own 'TST Worker'. The Claimant's wife was so encouraged by these developments that she applied that evening to take an End of Life Care Level 2 course with Vision2Learn. However, two days later, on 18 May 2018, the Claimant received through the post a tenancy agreement that not only is far from a like-for-like contract, but that breaches Article 8 (protection of family life and home) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the HRA (see SD, pp. 20-22).
4. The Claimant sent a pre-action letter to the Defendant on 22 May 2018 (see SD, pp. 18-19). In this letter, the Claimant informed the Defendant that he and his wife have been effectively living in limbo since 17 May 2018, subject to the section 21 procedure – whereby a landlord can evict a tenant without having to give any valid reason, so long as the proper procedure has been followed. The Defendant responded on 8 June 2018, stating that the Clearing House does not have tenants and that the Claimant needed to address his concerns to Peabody (see SD, pp. 11-17). The Claimant had already made a formal Stage 1 complaint to Peabody, which he submitted on 22 May 2018. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) wrote to Peabody on 18 June 2018 seeking a response for the Claimant to his complaint by 2 July 2018. Peabody did not respond to the HOS or the Claimant until 9 July 2018, and then provided the Claimant with an amended tenancy agreement that is potentially even more dangerous than the former, missing four schedules, including 'special terms', for a start.
5. The Defendant's assertion that the Clearing House does not have tenants is a straw man argument. What is indisputable from the two sources of information cited in paragraph 1 above is that the Defendant bears responsibility for a tenancy agreement between the individual and the landlord. On 5 July 2018, the Claimant's wife wrote to her newly assigned TST Worker, Sofia Pires. She explained at length why another meeting with representatives for the Defendant and Peabody is not a reasonable proposal (see SD, pp. 1-6). (The Claimant's wife has subsequently had to request the rectification of case notes from her first meeting with Ms. Pires on 25 June 2018, which she has been informed will be uploaded in amended form and without first seeking her approval.[1]) A reasonable course of action is for Peabody to provide the Claimant with the like-for-like tenancy that was agreed upon on 16 May 2018; or alternatively, to adhere to its own formal complaints process.
6. The Claimant can refer the matter to a Designated Person (that is an MP, councillor or recognised tenants panel) with Peabody's final response to his complaint, or can go directly to the Housing Ombudsman eight weeks after Peabody has given him the final response. However, Peabody has shown no inclination to consider this matter as a formal complaint and provide a response to the Claimant in line with their complaints procedure. For two months (since 17 May 2018), the Claimant and his wife have been living in a limbo state, subject to a section 21 notice being served. This limbo state in itself constitutes discrimination, a type of harassment, and a death threat. The Defendant, therefore, has acted unlawfully and in dereliction of its duty. For the Defendant to claim that it bears no responsibility for the breaches of the HRA that have occurred and continue to occur is nothing but an exercise in empty rhetoric.
_________________________________
[1] 11 July: Declan will have worked my ongoing problems with case notes into his court claim against the Greater London Authority-commissioned St Mungo's by the end of the week (WITH UPDATE 14/7/2018)
St Mungo's recently 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 on 14 May, 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 update article on the scandal:
EU freedom for rough sleepers infringed - shock horror. https://t.co/RuJKrSEiTm
— Andrew Martin (@devonprof) May 14, 2018
UPDATE 3 August (9.15am): Declan's claim against St Mungo's in pursuance of Article 8 (protection of family life and home) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the HRA remains active, albeit in a different form. For over two months we have been battling this charity to stabilise our tenancy. On 17 July we finally received a like-for-like renewal of tenancy from Peabody, i.e. on DAY 62 living in a limbo state (a threat to life). However, my problems with inaccurate personal data for over a month got even more serious this week - St Mungo's Executive Director Dominic Williamson is knowingly (since 1 August) holding against me data he assured the court last year had been rectified by him as someone with "senior responsibility in St Mungo's for information security and governance". And for over a week it has been enforced joint visits from the St Mungo's TST, in clear breach of the same two articles of the HRA; see my newer blog post this morning, Our dispute with the Mayor of London's St Mungo's service over enforced joint visits rages on. St Mungo's CEO Howard Sinclair remains vague on the issue. 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/
