Tuesday, August 28, 2018

St Mungo's: Discrimination; Declan's claim against the Mayor of London's service for the Central London County Court. Still no response from St Mungo's CEO Howard Sinclair to Declan's pre-action letter (WITH UPDATE 30/8/2018)

Let's hope that your beautifully reasoned and explained case will be reviewed by someone who is not out to get you.
-Don Collins, President of ISAF, an NGO dedicated to helping women


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)

Declan and I are tenants of the Clearing House, which is run by St Mungo's on behalf of the Mayor of London (see paragraph 1 in Particulars of claim below). 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 from the renewal date and the threat of immediate court action to resolve. For over two months (since 25 June), it has been problems with inaccurate case notes 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 notes 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 there's more besides. In the continued absence of a reply from St Mungo's CEO Howard Sinclair to Declan's pre-action letter dated 20 August 2018 (see here), Declan's claim against St Mungo's is on track to be filed in the Central London County Court next week. Such is the threat to our tenancy (see Particulars of Claim, para. 7):

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 over 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 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 Clearing House provides supported housing in London for people with a history of rough sleeping. The Claimant and his wife are living in a Clearing House property owned by Peabody Housing Association. 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. On 17 May 2014, the Claimant and his wife were housed by the Mayor of London's Housing First, an internationally acclaimed programme for rough sleepers, the core principle of which is the provision of permanent accommodation and non-compulsory support. GLA Housing First was a pilot project commissioned in March 2012 for a period of three years. When the Housing First pilot ended in March 2015, the Claimant and his wife "reverted to being standard Clearing House tenants" (GLA, 2015). According to the Defendant's website, support from TSTs was introduced in 2000 to "all new tenants and those already in tenancies who required support".

2. It has been acknowledged by the GLA that the Claimant and his wife can live independently – they do not have addictions or mental illness or behavioural issues. Their support needs are solely connected to the belief-related discrimination, harassment and victimisation they have encountered since moving to England in 2003 from Ireland to contact other victims of church abuse with a view to forming an organisation. They have been twice forced to sleep rough on the streets of London, for almost four years in total. Since February 2014, through funding from America, both the Claimant and his wife have been part-time employed by Network for Church Monitoring, a non-profit organisation the Claimant founded in 2011. The Claimant has recently challenged the violation of his rights under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by way of an updated complaint to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.[1]

3. For almost four months, since the beginning of May 2018, the Claimant has been battling the Defendant to stabilise his and his wife's tenancy. First it was problems with the renewal of their tenancy agreement which took two months (62 days) from the renewal date and the threat of immediate court action to resolve. On 15 May 2018, the Claimant issued the GLA with a letter before claim, in which he averred that the decision not to reissue another tenancy for two former rough sleepers with support needs amounted to a type of harassment and a death threat. The next day, on 16 May 2018, during a meeting with the Claimant and his wife at their home, representatives for the Defendant and Peabody agreed to a like-for-like renewal of tenancy. Subsequently, however, the Claimant and his wife received a tenancy agreement in serial breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), forcing the Claimant to issue Defendant CEO Howard Sinclair a pre-action letter on 22 May 2018. The Claimant did not receive a like-for-like tenancy agreement from Peabody until 17 July 2018, notwithstanding the Claimant's repeated protestations of a threat to his life (see paragraph 7 below).

4. For over two months, the Claimant and his wife have been dealing with problems with inaccurate case notes. This started following a first meeting on 25 June 2018 between the Claimant's wife and her newly assigned TST Worker. The problems got more serious on 1 August 2018 when the Claimant discovered that case 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. When the Claimant asked Mr. Williamson to rectify these notes, he replied: "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 Claimant contends that this response is wholly unacceptable and clearly shows that the Defendant has not been handling his and his wife's personal data in a transparent and fair manner.

5. During the meeting of 16 May 2018 referred to in paragraph 3 above, the Defendant also assured the Claimant that he would be assigned a TST Worker such as his wife would be assigned following the meeting. The Claimant had been requesting this like-for-like TST Worker since before his support case was opened with the Defendant on 22 April 2016. Nonetheless, on 2 July 2018, the Claimant was assigned Mark Farley, whom his line manager has defined as a TST Worker "in essence" only. The Claimant believes this is because Mr. Farley is at the very least a senior caseworker. The Claimant does not need or want a senior caseworker for the sort of straightforward support he requires. Further, Mr. Farley and his line manager have been insistent upon a joint visit(s) against the Claimant's own wishes and in clear breach of Article 8 (protection of family life and home) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the HRA. The Claimant's repeated requests to be assigned a like-for-like TST Worker, such as his wife was assigned on 8 June 2018, have all but been ignored by the Defendant; and this notwithstanding that the Claimant does not wish to work with Mr. Farley, who has been so willing to override his wishes and is therefore clearly not tailored to meet his needs.

6. On 20 August 2018, the Claimant issued the Defendant's CEO a second pre-action letter. In this letter, the Claimant asked the Defendant to provide him with a clear written explanation of why the decision has been made not to provide him with a like-for-like TST Worker (i.e., such as his wife was assigned last June), and to insist upon an enforced joint visit(s) against his expressed wishes. The Claimant also insisted upon a full explanation of Mr. Williamson's retention of case notes against his wife that had already been the subject of court proceedings. The Claimant advised the Defendant that any further delay in providing him with a like-for-like TST Worker before 12 September 2018 may have serious consequences for both him and his wife; and that for that reason, if he did not receive a full response within 14 days of the date of the letter, he would issue court proceedings without further notice. The Defendant has not replied to the Claimant's pre-action letter to this date.

7. The Defendant's decision to insist upon a senior caseworker who the Claimant does not wish to work with can result in his and his wife's eviction from their home. Their tenancy agreement with Peabody states: "We have granted this tenancy to help provide support services to you. If you refuse to co-operate in providing the support services or refuse to accept the services provided, we may treat this as you breaking your tenancy." The Defendant's insistence upon such an arrangement also poses a threat to life. The Claimant is in his late fifties and has a history of respiratory diseases. During the Claimant's first period of homelessness, he was twice hospitalised, once with pneumonia. Near the end of the Claimant's second period of homelessness, he was diagnosed with asthma. Back on the streets, the Claimant and his wife will be restricted to sleeping on night buses. 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, which included the Claimant's wife being threatened with arrest on the trumped-up charge of assaulting a police officer.

8. The Claimant contends that the Defendant has serially breached the HRA. First it was problems with the renewal of his and his wife's tenancy agreement, which took two months from the renewal date and the threat of immediate court action to resolve. For over 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 assured the court last year had been rectified are in fact being held under the Claimant's wife's name. And for almost two months (since 2 July 2018), the Defendant has not provided the Claimant with a like-for-like TST Worker nor a valid reason for an enforced joint visit(s) against his expressed wishes. These serial breaches of the HRA constitute 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. Alternatively, the Claimant asks that leave to appeal be granted.

_________________________________

[1] 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

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:


Update 30 August (11.30am): 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 the issue is currently on a very swift journey back to the Central London County Court. Declan has just been informed by the Information Commissioner's Office that his complaint to them last week against Williamson has been set up as a new case, but it hasn't been assigned to a case officer. The cases they are picking up this week are cases they received at the end of May, Declan was told. See my previous blog post of 23 August, 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 (WITH UPDATE 30/8/2018). This means that Declan's claim above is now fast tracked for filing in the court early next week. Meanwhile, category pages throughout our Church and State website continue to be hit hard. For example, the second article below has over 1/2 million Facebook likes/shares (not zero):






http://churchandstate.org.uk/honorary-associates/

at 5:31 pm