Particulars of Claim: Declan is forced to issue court proceedings against the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's without further notice (WITH UPDATE 31/1/2019)
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
Our Church and State website has no less than 47 Nobel Laureates on it; for details, see this blog's sidebar under "Church and State" (updated today).
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).
County Court at Central London, Royal Courts of Justice
Heavey v St Mungo's (2016)
Trial held in the Central London County Court, Royal Courts of Justice on 20 February 2017.
On 23 August 2018, Declan complained to the Information Commissioner's Office about case notes St Mungo's Executive Director Dominic Williamson assured the Court at trial in February 2017 had been rectified by him but were in fact being held under my name. It took the scheduling of a preliminary hearing in October 2016 to have case notes from two meetings so-called 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. DJ Avent's order dated 11 March 2017 does not state why he dismissed the claim at trial. Williamson: "The court case concerned your complaint about the notes on your record. My understanding is that following the court case it became apparent that the note in contention was mirrored on your wife's record - which I don't recall being aware of at the time - and this was subsequently amended to reflect the change we had made to yours. The court was therefore not misled." We do not accept that the court was not misled (see paragraph 4 of Particulars of Claim below).
20 February 2017: Central London County Court: District Judge Avent dismisses Declan's claim against the Mayor of London-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. Only last August, Declan came within days of filing in the Central London County Court a second claim against St Mungo's in two years; see my post of 28 August, 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). On 9 January Declan discovered to his shock and horror that St Mungo's were holding outrageous communication notes (as opposed to notes from meetings) against him that he never previously knew existed. Last Thursday these notes were deleted. Then no sooner had Declan received a screen shot of his record with agreed upon notes missing than he was informed that all requests had been responded to. And St Mungo's Executive Director Dominic Williamson has seemingly ruled out providing Declan with a fixed date by which time all agreed upon notes attached to his record will be provided to him. Taking into account the contents of our unfiled claim against St Mungo's last August, we contend that we have been engaged in an over eight-month battle with this charity to stabilise our tenancy. It is in the context of our supported housing tenancy that we claim that the serial breaching of the Human Rights Act 1998 that has occurred, and continues to occur, constitutes discrimination, a type of harassment, and a threat to life. Declan therefore has at the ready an application to the Central London County Court for a declaration that St Mungo's has acted unlawfully and in dereliction of its duty, to be filed at the drop of a hat and without further notice. This was his follow-up email to St Mungo's CEO Howard Sinclair last Thursday, hours before we received the screen shot with agreed upon notes missing:
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 14:41
Subject: Pre-Action Letter: Immediate Action Required - ICO update[Ref. RFA0779534]
For the attention of Geraldine Goreham, Lead Case Officer, Information Commissioner's Office
Howard Sinclair
CEO
St Mungo's
Address removed for email
24 January 2019
Dear Mr Sinclair,
I refer to my pre-action letter dated 10 January.
Please could you provide me with a clear written explanation of why communication notes sent to me on 9 January have not been erased in OPAL, the St Mungo's electronic case management system.
On 21 January I confirmed that I am not satisfied that any of the case notes in question be rectified to reflect the detail, as opposed to being recorded as an email or notes made where I had called the service office. St Mungo's had assured the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) that once in receipt of this confirmation from me, all communication notes (as opposed to notes from meetings) would be removed from my record.
I have also reached an agreement in writing with St Mungo's Tenancy Sustainment Team (TST) Service Manager Robert Buck that as per my Support Agreement, there will be "complete transparency" moving forward and that "any notes to be added to Opal to be agreed upon by both parties". (My wife's subsequent request for a full disclosure of her record in Opal has yet to be addressed by your IT team. She has heard nothing back from anyone since making her written request through Mr Buck on 9 January.)
The ICO is currently investigating a complaint of mine against St Mungo's regarding a Subject Access Request (SAR) issue. According to the Commissioner's Lead Case Officer, it would be quicker for me to pursue the erasure of communication notes through the courts rather than to start afresh with the ICO for a new case reference number and then wait three months or more for a caseworker to be allocated. I therefore restate that if I do not receive a satisfactory response from you by close of business today, I intend to issue court proceedings without further notice.
As stated in my pre-action letter, I find it deeply disturbing that communication notes commenced on my record without my knowledge or consent prior to my and my wife's tenancy review on 16 May 2018. I also remain dissatisfied with the response I received to my SAR of 16 November, as there were communication notes missing (the issue the ICO is currently investigating).
Yours sincerely,
Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring
10 January: Pre-Action Letter: The Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's hold communication notes against Declan in clear violation of his rights (WITH UPDATE 24/1/2019)
Claimant: Declan Heavey
Defendant: St Mungo's
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 over eight months, 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 over two months and the threat of court action to resolve. For over two months from late June 2018, it was problems with inaccurate case notes, which got even more serious on 1 August 2018 when the Claimant discovered that notes the Defendant had assured the court the year previous had been rectified were in fact being held under the Claimant's wife's name. This month, the Claimant first discovered that outrageous communication notes were being held without his knowledge or consent since immediately before their tenancy review last May. These notes were subsequently deleted but then, no sooner had the Claimant received a screen shot of his record with agreed-upon notes missing than he was informed that it was the Defendant's view that all requests had been responded to. These examples are by no means exhaustive. The Claimant contends that in the context of his and his wife's supported housing tenancy, the serial breaching of the Human Rights Act 1998 by the Defendant that has occurred, and continues to occur, 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.
Defendant: St Mungo's
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 over eight months, 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 over two months and the threat of court action to resolve. For over two months from late June 2018, it was problems with inaccurate case notes, which got even more serious on 1 August 2018 when the Claimant discovered that notes the Defendant had assured the court the year previous had been rectified were in fact being held under the Claimant's wife's name. This month, the Claimant first discovered that outrageous communication notes were being held without his knowledge or consent since immediately before their tenancy review last May. These notes were subsequently deleted but then, no sooner had the Claimant received a screen shot of his record with agreed-upon notes missing than he was informed that it was the Defendant's view that all requests had been responded to. These examples are by no means exhaustive. The Claimant contends that in the context of his and his wife's supported housing tenancy, the serial breaching of the Human Rights Act 1998 by the Defendant that has occurred, and continues to occur, 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 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", according to the GLA in court papers. The Defendant's website states that support from TSTs was introduced in 2000 to "all new tenants and those already in tenancies who required support".
2. It has been recognised by the GLA in court papers that the Claimant and his wife can live independently. Both are degree-holding professionals with a background in teaching and psychology respectively. 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 as joint survivors of church abuse with a view to forming a network organisation. They have been twice forced to sleep rough on the streets of London, and 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 organisation's 196 Honorary Associates include leading figures from around the world, including seven Nobel Laureates and seven knighted professors. The Claimant has most recently challenged the violation of his rights under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by means of an updated complaint to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights dated 8 May 2018*.
3. For more than eight 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 over two months and the threat of court action to resolve. On 15 May 2018, the Claimant issued the GLA with a letter before claim in judicial review proceedings 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 tenancy review meeting with the Claimant and his wife at their home, senior 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 (HRA), forcing the Claimant to issue the Defendant a pre-action letter. 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 from late June 2018, the Claimant and his wife were dealing with problems with inaccurate case notes. This commenced following a first meeting on 25 June 2018 between the Claimant's wife and her TST caseworker. Dominic Williamson is Executive Director of Strategy and Policy for the Defendant. The problems with the Claimant's wife's case notes got more serious on 1 August 2018 when the Claimant discovered that notes Mr. Williamson assured the court at both the preliminary hearing and at trial the year previous had been rectified by him were in fact held under the Claimant's wife's name. On 20 August 2018, Mr. Williamson responded: "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's previous court action was dismissed by the court. On 24 January 2019, Mr. Williamson wrote: "The court case concerned your complaint about the notes on your record. My understanding is that following the court case it became apparent that the note in contention was mirrored on your wife's record - which I don't recall being aware of at the time - and this was subsequently amended to reflect the change we had made to yours. The court was therefore not misled." The Claimant does not accept that the court was not misled.
5. For over two years both the Claimant and his wife were requesting a TST caseworker, i.e. since before their support case was opened with the Defendant on 22 April 2016. During the tenancy review meeting last year, referred to in paragraph 3 above, the Defendant assured the Claimant that he would be assigned a TST caseworker such as his wife would be assigned following the meeting. On 2 July 2018, the Claimant was assigned Mark Farley, whom his line manager defined as a TST caseworker "in essence" only. Both Mr. Farley and his line manager were further insistent upon a joint visit(s) against the Claimant's own wishes and in clear violation of his right to equal treatment under the law. On 20 August 2018, the Claimant issued the Defendant a second pre-action letter. It was not until 31 August 2018 that the Claimant was finally assigned a TST caseworker such as his wife had been assigned almost three months previous (on 8 June 2018). By this time, joint visits had also been taken off the table.
6. Only this month, the Claimant discovered that the Defendant was holding without his knowledge or consent outrageous communication notes in OPAL, the Defendant's electronic case management system. This notwithstanding that the Claimant and his wife have a support agreement which requires the Defendant to ensure that any notes to be added to Opal be agreed upon by both parties. In a third pre-action letter dated 10 January 2019, the Claimant pointed out that he found it particularly disturbing that communication notes (as opposed to notes from meetings) commenced prior to his and his wife's tenancy review on 16 May 2018. These notes have since been deleted but agreed upon notes from the Claimant and his caseworker's sole meeting in late 2018 are missing in a screen shot the Claimant has received from the Defendant. On 25 January 2019, Mr. Williamson responded to the Claimant's request for a fixed date by which time all agreed upon notes attached to his record will be provided to him. Mr. Williamson wrote: "I believe that we have responded to all your requests. I do hope we can get on to a more amicable basis on resolving these issues." Robert Buck is the TST North Service Manager for the Defendant. On 9 January 2019, the Claimant's wife wrote to Mr. Buck requesting all notes attached to her record (as the Claimant and his wife had always done). More than three weeks later, also on 25 January 2019, Mr. Williamson responded to the Claimant's wife's request: "Please ask her to write to infosec@mungos.org and cc Rob and her caseworker." The Claimant has asked Mr. Buck for an explanation of why agreed upon case notes from a meeting do not appear in the screen shot he has received but has not had an answer to this important question, and nor has he been informed that the notes in question have not been deleted.
7. The Claimant's on-going battle against the Defendant to stabilise his and his wife's tenancy can result in their 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." And there is a threat to life in this case. 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. For over eight months, the Claimant and his wife have been battling the Defendant from pillar to post to stabilise their tenancy and, as revealed in paragraph 6 above, with seemingly no end in sight. First it was problems with the renewal of their tenancy agreement, which took over two months and the threat of court action to resolve. For over two months, it was problems with inaccurate case notes, which got even more serious when the Claimant discovered that notes the Defendant assured the court had been rectified were in fact being held under the Claimant's wife's name. For almost three months, the Claimant battled the Defendant for a TST caseworker such as his wife was assigned, during which time he also had to stave off an inappropriate caseworker and enforced joint visits. And this last month, the Claimant first discovered that outrageous communication notes were being held without his knowledge or consent since before a tenancy review. Then no sooner had he received a screen shot of his record with agreed upon case notes missing than he was informed that it was the Defendant's view that all requests had been responded to. The Claimant contends that in the context of his and his wife's supported housing tenancy, the serial breaching of HRA Articles 8 (protection of family life and home) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) that has occurred, and continues to occur, 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. Alternatively, the Claimant asks that leave to appeal be granted.
_________________________________
* 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
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", according to the GLA in court papers. The Defendant's website states that support from TSTs was introduced in 2000 to "all new tenants and those already in tenancies who required support".
2. It has been recognised by the GLA in court papers that the Claimant and his wife can live independently. Both are degree-holding professionals with a background in teaching and psychology respectively. 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 as joint survivors of church abuse with a view to forming a network organisation. They have been twice forced to sleep rough on the streets of London, and 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 organisation's 196 Honorary Associates include leading figures from around the world, including seven Nobel Laureates and seven knighted professors. The Claimant has most recently challenged the violation of his rights under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by means of an updated complaint to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights dated 8 May 2018*.
3. For more than eight 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 over two months and the threat of court action to resolve. On 15 May 2018, the Claimant issued the GLA with a letter before claim in judicial review proceedings 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 tenancy review meeting with the Claimant and his wife at their home, senior 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 (HRA), forcing the Claimant to issue the Defendant a pre-action letter. 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 from late June 2018, the Claimant and his wife were dealing with problems with inaccurate case notes. This commenced following a first meeting on 25 June 2018 between the Claimant's wife and her TST caseworker. Dominic Williamson is Executive Director of Strategy and Policy for the Defendant. The problems with the Claimant's wife's case notes got more serious on 1 August 2018 when the Claimant discovered that notes Mr. Williamson assured the court at both the preliminary hearing and at trial the year previous had been rectified by him were in fact held under the Claimant's wife's name. On 20 August 2018, Mr. Williamson responded: "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's previous court action was dismissed by the court. On 24 January 2019, Mr. Williamson wrote: "The court case concerned your complaint about the notes on your record. My understanding is that following the court case it became apparent that the note in contention was mirrored on your wife's record - which I don't recall being aware of at the time - and this was subsequently amended to reflect the change we had made to yours. The court was therefore not misled." The Claimant does not accept that the court was not misled.
5. For over two years both the Claimant and his wife were requesting a TST caseworker, i.e. since before their support case was opened with the Defendant on 22 April 2016. During the tenancy review meeting last year, referred to in paragraph 3 above, the Defendant assured the Claimant that he would be assigned a TST caseworker such as his wife would be assigned following the meeting. On 2 July 2018, the Claimant was assigned Mark Farley, whom his line manager defined as a TST caseworker "in essence" only. Both Mr. Farley and his line manager were further insistent upon a joint visit(s) against the Claimant's own wishes and in clear violation of his right to equal treatment under the law. On 20 August 2018, the Claimant issued the Defendant a second pre-action letter. It was not until 31 August 2018 that the Claimant was finally assigned a TST caseworker such as his wife had been assigned almost three months previous (on 8 June 2018). By this time, joint visits had also been taken off the table.
6. Only this month, the Claimant discovered that the Defendant was holding without his knowledge or consent outrageous communication notes in OPAL, the Defendant's electronic case management system. This notwithstanding that the Claimant and his wife have a support agreement which requires the Defendant to ensure that any notes to be added to Opal be agreed upon by both parties. In a third pre-action letter dated 10 January 2019, the Claimant pointed out that he found it particularly disturbing that communication notes (as opposed to notes from meetings) commenced prior to his and his wife's tenancy review on 16 May 2018. These notes have since been deleted but agreed upon notes from the Claimant and his caseworker's sole meeting in late 2018 are missing in a screen shot the Claimant has received from the Defendant. On 25 January 2019, Mr. Williamson responded to the Claimant's request for a fixed date by which time all agreed upon notes attached to his record will be provided to him. Mr. Williamson wrote: "I believe that we have responded to all your requests. I do hope we can get on to a more amicable basis on resolving these issues." Robert Buck is the TST North Service Manager for the Defendant. On 9 January 2019, the Claimant's wife wrote to Mr. Buck requesting all notes attached to her record (as the Claimant and his wife had always done). More than three weeks later, also on 25 January 2019, Mr. Williamson responded to the Claimant's wife's request: "Please ask her to write to infosec@mungos.org and cc Rob and her caseworker." The Claimant has asked Mr. Buck for an explanation of why agreed upon case notes from a meeting do not appear in the screen shot he has received but has not had an answer to this important question, and nor has he been informed that the notes in question have not been deleted.
7. The Claimant's on-going battle against the Defendant to stabilise his and his wife's tenancy can result in their 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." And there is a threat to life in this case. 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. For over eight months, the Claimant and his wife have been battling the Defendant from pillar to post to stabilise their tenancy and, as revealed in paragraph 6 above, with seemingly no end in sight. First it was problems with the renewal of their tenancy agreement, which took over two months and the threat of court action to resolve. For over two months, it was problems with inaccurate case notes, which got even more serious when the Claimant discovered that notes the Defendant assured the court had been rectified were in fact being held under the Claimant's wife's name. For almost three months, the Claimant battled the Defendant for a TST caseworker such as his wife was assigned, during which time he also had to stave off an inappropriate caseworker and enforced joint visits. And this last month, the Claimant first discovered that outrageous communication notes were being held without his knowledge or consent since before a tenancy review. Then no sooner had he received a screen shot of his record with agreed upon case notes missing than he was informed that it was the Defendant's view that all requests had been responded to. The Claimant contends that in the context of his and his wife's supported housing tenancy, the serial breaching of HRA Articles 8 (protection of family life and home) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) that has occurred, and continues to occur, 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. Alternatively, the Claimant asks that leave to appeal be granted.
_________________________________
* 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, it left Declan gob smacked. He subsequently spoke with Diane Taylor, the journalist covering the story for the Guardian.
EU freedom for rough sleepers infringed - shock horror. https://t.co/RuJKrSEiTm
— Andrew Martin (@devonprof) May 14, 2018
Update 31 January (4.30pm): Declan's claim above never closes - the breaches of the HRA only accumulate! However, this afternoon there has been temporary respite with the rectification of opal records on Declan's opal account yesterday and on mine today. Over the last two days Declan has emailed the above Particulars of Claim to five out of ten members of the Board of Trustees of St Mungo's, including this afternoon to a partner in Linklaters, one of the UK's leading law firms. Amazingly, Declan's battle with the Information Commissioner's Lead Case Officer also concluded this afternoon and without a finding; see my post of 4 January, Information Commissioner: Declan battles the Commissioner's Lead Case Officer over the nature of his data complaint against the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's (WITH UPDATE 31/1/2019). What an experience that has been! And on another front, we are still not getting emails through to Nobel laureates or even to our closest colleagues; see my post of 30 December, Our emails now are getting through to no one, not to Nobel laureates or even our closest colleagues. Declan will keep trying to get through to Nobel laureates with the use of his mobile phone (WITH UPDATE 29/1/2019). The post reveals a letter in June 2010 from then Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone to now Prime Minister Theresa May about the interception of our emails. An American professor wrote at the time: "I am truly appalled by the unlawful violation of the Heavey's basic right to send and receive email without interference. I would be most grateful for anything you may be able to do by way of taking measures to correct this gross abuse."
Declan taught PE in Glenstal Abbey, one of Ireland's top schools.
Declan fought for almost two months for these case notes from his sole meeting on 30 October 2018 with his St Mungo's TST caseworker. Save the first line, every single piece of information here was missing in a screen shot of opal records on Declan's opal account that we received last Thursday from the service manager.
Declan and I met for the first time at his home today at 3pm on 30th October. During our meeting we discussed the following:
- Declan has a part-time job as an employee of Network for Church Monitoring. This is his main job. He is a former PE teacher and now holds a valid UK Athletics coaching licence with associated DBS. He wants a second part-time job with children, having given up on care work.
- For over two years, Declan has been fighting without success to secure a long-term volunteer position through Newham Council's Active Newham. Declan has made several complaints of unfair treatment against the Council, culminating in his recent complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (Ombudsman's Case ID: 18011204).
- For the last two months, Declan has been doing one-off events with Active Newham with a view to securing a long-term volunteer position working with children. He is scheduled to participate in his fifth one-off event with Active Newham on Saturday, 3 November.
- Declan has requested a copy of the action notes from our meetings in the form of a download from the organisation's information system.
- Declan has requested my support to elicit concrete information from the Bromley by Bow Centre with respect to their next Para-Legacy Agents 12-15 week training course.
Actions:
By Friday, 2 November 2018 Marc (TST Caseworker) to contact Declan about emailing the Bromley by Bow Centre.
Declan to continue with his one-off events with Active Newham.
Donald A.Collins, President
International Services Assistance Fund
5620 Oregon Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20015
[information withheld]
FAX [number withheld]
eMail [address withheld]
September 8, 2018
To Whom It May Concern:
I have become aware that my colleague, Declan Heavey, a highly educated professional, has come to need a reference for Newham Council (Active Newham) to find him voluntary work within Newham with children and adults with learning disabilities in a sport setting.
Declan's credentials for this sort of voluntary work are impressive. He is an accredited UK Athletics assistant coach with a DBS certificate for such a voluntary position. He is also a former physical education teacher, who has taught in one of Ireland's top schools (Glenstal Abbey) and set up and ran an unprecedented national network of 26 summer schools called Adventure Ireland that catered for over 4,000 children aged 6-14.
I have read with interest a Republic of Ireland newspaper article about Adventure Ireland that speaks of an admirable 'reconciliation scheme' for the involvement of a large number of children from Northern Ireland. Under this scheme, southern locations catered for children from Northern Ireland accompanied by experienced youth workers known by the children themselves. I understand and have no doubt that this scheme attracted considerable local media coverage both sides of the border between the two countries.
Declan manages an extensive website to which many contribute significant articles that bear on the general welfare of people everywhere. The site gets hundreds of thousands of hits and is a favorite of mine and many Nobelists. In fact, the site has no less than 40 Nobelists on it, as well as a distinguished list of 183 Honorary Associates to date that includes 2 Nobelists and 7 academics with knighthoods under the British royal honors system.
I have met Declan and known him for more than 7 years and I can attest to his strength of character. He is an outstanding and active citizen with a great commitment to community. He is highly responsible, loyal and trustworthy, and has exceptional organisational and management skills. I am pleased to report that my association with him has convinced me that he would provide a worthy addition to serving children and adults with learning disabilities in a sport setting.
Should you wish for more information from me, kindly email me at this address.
Sincerely,
Donald A. Collins
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
'Let me recommend an important web site churchandstate.org.uk. Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out.' Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty
http://churchandstate.org.uk/honorary-associates/
