The Greater London Authority-commissioned St Mungo's still have not rectified inaccurate personal data that could destabilise our new tenancy
Your brilliant web site is a beacon for all seeking truthful insights to knotty problems with governance.
-Donald Collins, President of ISAF, an NGO dedicated to helping women
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)
For over two months Declan and I have been engaged in a life-and-death battle to stabilise our tenancy with the Mayor of London's St Mungo's service; see my blog of 14 July, 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. Last Tuesday we finally received a like-for-like 2 year fixed term tenancy from our landlord, Peabody Trust. However, we're still waiting for a download of rectified case notes from a meeting I had with Tenancy Sustainment Team Worker Sofia Pires on 25 June. Last week Declan brought the email below to the attention of St Mungo's Executive Director Dominic Williamson. In a Witness Statement in 2016, Williamson wrote: "I have senior responsibility in St Mungo's for information security and governance."
Sofia Pires
TST Worker
St Mungo's
Address removed for email
10 July 2018
Dear Sofia,
I note that you have chosen only to amend my truthful and accurate statement relating to my reference to living in a limbo state. First you wrote:
- Maria [aka Lola] said that at the moment she feels "living in a constant limbo state" due to the housing situation.
I asked you to amend this inaccurate and ambiguous statement to read as follows:
- Maria said that at the moment she and her husband are living in a limbo state, subject to a section 21 eviction notice being served (a threat to life).
You have instead provided me with an even more inaccurate and ambiguous statement (subject to even more and more serious interpretations):
- Maria said that at the moment she and her husband are "living in a limbo state", subject to their current housing situation.
I regret that this latest statement of yours is unlawful under the Data Protection Act 2018 as it would be in breach of one or more of the Data Protection Principles for being inaccurate and vague hearsay information subject to multiple interpretations. Further, it is not an action note. You also suggest omitting from your upload other notes we have agreed upon relating to at least one action and two updates.
Please could you send me the grand total of the information you wish to upload. At this point I am not insisting upon action notes and updates only. However, I cannot possibly accept unlawful wording. I would be willing to accept the following wording relating to my reference to living in a limbo state:
- Maria said that at the moment she and her husband are living in a limbo state, subject to a section 21 eviction notice being served.
Limbo is defined as "a condition of prolonged uncertainty". It is indisputable that to be living in a periodic tenancy subject to a section 21 eviction notice is a condition of prolonged uncertainty. Only the unreasonable or prejudicial could see it otherwise. The omission of a section 21 eviction notice here is not an option to be lawful.
And I must say that I am somewhat perplexed as to why you would focus on this one sentence, but would suggest omitting any reference to the additional voluntary work I have applied for with Newham Council's Active Newham (an action), my ongoing job as an employee of Network for Church Monitoring (an update), and my voluntary work on Fridays in a day centre through Active Newham for over two years (an update).
I await the grand total of the information you wish to upload under my name taking into account the above.
Regards,
Maria Heavey
Webmaster
Network for Church Monitoring
cc Gemma Goacher, St Mungo's TST Service Manager
Ola Pedro, St Mungo's TST Line Manager
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 up-date piece on the scandal:
EU freedom for rough sleepers infringed - shock horror. https://t.co/RuJKrSEiTm
— Andrew Martin (@devonprof) May 14, 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/
