Our dispute with the Mayor of London's St Mungo's service over enforced joint visits rages on. Pre-action letter to St Mungo's CEO Howard Sinclair (WITH UPDATE - DAY 4 23/8/2018)
This is a splendid posting which in its moderate and modest tone should encourage many others to join you!!
http://churchandstate.org.uk/about/
-Don 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)
Declan and I are tenants of the Clearing House, which is run by St Mungo's on behalf of the Mayor of London; see my blog post 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 (WITH UPDATE 24/7/2018). 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 Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) remains active, albeit in a different form. For almost four months we have been battling this charity to stabilise our tenancy. First it was problems with the renewal of our tenancy, which took 62 days and the threat of immediate court action to resolve. For almost two months (since 25 June), it has been problems with inaccurate personal data that got even more serious this month - St Mungo's Executive Director Dominic Williamson is knowingly (since Declan voicemailed him on 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 month (since 10 July), it has been enforced joint visits. This is Declan's second pre-action letter to St Mungo's CEO Howard Sinclair under the same two articles of the HRA:
20 August 2018
Pre-Action Letter
Dear Mr Sinclair,
Re: Non-compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998
On 23 July 2018, I wrote to St Mungo's Executive Director Dominic Williamson about an enforced joint visit(s). Almost a month has passed and no response has been received. I am sure that enforced joint visits are in contravention of Article 8 (protection of family life and home) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Since 1 August 2018, I have also repeatedly brought to Mr Williamson's attention the fact that he is retaining personal data against my wife that he assured the court last year had been rectified by him. I have received no response from Mr Williamson on this issue either.
Please could you provide me with a clear written explanation of why the decision has been made not to provide me with a like-for-like Tenancy Sustainment Team (TST) Worker (i.e., such as my wife was assigned last June), and to insist upon an enforced joint visit(s) against my expressed wishes. I would also insist upon a full explanation of Mr Williamson's retention of data against my wife that has already been the subject of court proceedings.
Time is of the essence, as any further delay in providing me with a like-for-like TST Worker before 12 September may have serious consequences in the long run. Therefore, if I do not receive a full response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue court proceedings without further notice.
Yours sincerely,
Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring
Last May 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 on 14 May, it left Declan gob smacked. He has 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
DAY 4 UPDATE 23 August (2.38pm): It never occurred to Declan to ask Williamson in court last year whether or not he had also rectified the same data under my name. But the cat is out of the bag now and could very well be on a very swift journey back to the Central London County Court in London's Royal Courts of Justice. Today Declan does not consider one issue resolved since his pre-action letter above (DAY 4). Yesterday he brought the issue of assigned TST Worker to the attention of St Mungo's complaints, so bad have the last couple of days been. And this afternoon he has brought the issue of data to the attention of the Information Commissioner's Office; see my blog post this afternoon, Information Commissioner's Office tells Declan that he should have received an auto-reply and to phone back tomorrow to enquire whether or not his email this afternoon has been received. Last Monday Declan received a phone call from St Mungo's TST Manager Robert Buck about the contents of his pre-action letter above. Buck effectively said (on tape) that he owns the issues to resolution!
Brief details of claim
Since 17 May 2014, the Claimant and his wife have been tenants of the Clearing House, which is run by the Defendant on behalf of the Mayor of London. For almost four months, the Claimant has been battling the Defendant to stabilise his tenancy. First it was problems with the renewal of his and his wife's tenancy agreement, which took 62 days from the renewal date and the threat of immediate court action to resolve. For two months, since 25 June 2018, it has been problems with inaccurate case notes, which got even more serious on 1 August 2018 when the Claimant discovered that notes the Defendant's Executive Director Dominic Williamson assured the court last year had been rectified by him were in fact held and are still being held under the Claimant's wife's name. The Defendant has also made the decision not to provide the Claimant with a like-for-like Tenancy Sustainment Team Worker (i.e., such as his wife was assigned last June), and insisted upon an enforced joint visit(s) against his expressed wishes. These serial breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 constitute a type of harassment, discrimination, 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.
Since 17 May 2014, the Claimant and his wife have been tenants of the Clearing House, which is run by the Defendant on behalf of the Mayor of London. For almost four months, the Claimant has been battling the Defendant to stabilise his tenancy. First it was problems with the renewal of his and his wife's tenancy agreement, which took 62 days from the renewal date and the threat of immediate court action to resolve. For two months, since 25 June 2018, it has been problems with inaccurate case notes, which got even more serious on 1 August 2018 when the Claimant discovered that notes the Defendant's Executive Director Dominic Williamson assured the court last year had been rectified by him were in fact held and are still being held under the Claimant's wife's name. The Defendant has also made the decision not to provide the Claimant with a like-for-like Tenancy Sustainment Team Worker (i.e., such as his wife was assigned last June), and insisted upon an enforced joint visit(s) against his expressed wishes. These serial breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 constitute a type of harassment, discrimination, 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.
Williamson (20/8/2018): "If you [sic] wife is [sic] wants to change what her record says she should speak to her TST worker in the first instance. If this does not resolve the issue then she can use the St Mungo’s complaints procedure."
The Central London County Court is located in the Royal Courts of Justice.
