St Mungo's: This Mayor of London-commissioned charity has breached protocol by not replying to Declan's pre-action letter. The pleadings in this post to be filed in court without further notice (WITH UPDATE 14/6/2019)
From the update below:
"This obscene disregard for your rights seems to continue unresolved!"
-Don Collins, President of ISAF, an NGO dedicated to helping women
Our Church and State website has no less than 57 Nobel Laureates on it; for details, see this blog's sidebar under "Church and State" (updated today).
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).
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!
Declan and I are housed in a flat that is part of the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative. Alongside our tenancy is access to the Mayor's Tenancy Sustainment Team (TST) at St Mungo's. It has been acknowledged by the Greater London Authority in court papers that both Declan and I can live independently – we do not have addictions or mental illness or behavioural issues. Our needs are solely related to the harassment, discrimination and intimidation we routinely face. St Mungo's are currently refusing without explanation to input into their electronic case management system five short notes dating back to last February that were agreed upon. This is the latest in a string of violations that have had a destabilising effect upon our tenancy month in, month out for an entire year. St Mungo's CEO Howard Sinclair has breached protocol by not replying to Declan's pre-action letter dated 26 April. In fact, all Declan received within days of the letter is a shocking image attachment of notes that is incomplete, barely legible and contains inaccurate and misleading information (see para. 7 of particulars below). Declan is therefore once again ready to issue court proceedings against this charity without further notice. His preaction letter reads:
Howard Sinclair
Chief Executive
St Mungo's
3 Thomas More Square
London
E1W 1YW
26 April 2019
Pre-Action Letter
Dear Mr Sinclair
In re Breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998
I have been fighting for over two months for notes from the first of two unrecorded meetings, held on 18 February, to be inputted into your Opal system as agreed with the St Mungo's Tenancy Sustainment Team (TST) during the second unrecorded meeting over a month ago. The withholding of these and other notes is done in clear violation of my rights under the Human Rights Act (HRA), which compels charities such as St Mungo's to treat everyone equally, with fairness, dignity and respect.
This withholding of information comes on foot of a string of other violations of the HRA that have had a destabilising effect upon my and my wife's tenancy month in, month out for almost a year. Please could you provide me with a clear written explanation of why the decision has now been made not to immediately input into your Opal system agreed-upon notes from five different dates, and in a manner that does not violate my rights under the HRA. For example, my wife and I do not agree to emails (and/or their attachments) from any party being used as notes.
I have seen and fought the awful results of email and other forms of communication, such as my calls in to the TST duty line, being turned into notes without my knowledge or consent. There should, however, be no reason why the five agreed-upon notes currently at issue cannot be inputted into Opal in the same manner as those notes already on the system. Please note that it is both unfair and unreasonable for St Mungo's to expect me to attend a meeting to discuss this matter when the charity will not explain to me in writing why agreed-upon notes from two meetings this year, and more besides, are currently being withheld.
Time is of the essence in this matter, as the ongoing withholding of this information could have serious consequences for me in the short term, depending on why these notes are being withheld. 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
Claimant: Declan Heavey
Defendant: St Mungo's
Brief details of claim
The Claimant is a tenant of the Defendant's Clearing House. For the entire week commencing 8 July 2019, the Defendant failed to honour an agreement for support that it had with the Claimant. Since 6 August, the Claimant has been refused an explanation for the non-issue of a reference for learning disability volunteering, and that the Claimant believes should be issued to put things right. It is the repeatedly stated position of the Defendant that no such letter, or an explanation for its non-issue, will be provided before a meeting has taken place between the Claimant and the Defendant "to discuss your support moving forward", to quote an email from the Defendant. It is unfair and unreasonable for the Defendant to insist upon such a meeting without having issued a reference, or an explanation for its non-issue, particularly in light of the Claimant's recent four-month battle over false and misleading case notes. The Defendant's position poses an immediate threat to his tenancy in breach of his human rights. It also comes on foot of a string of other violations of the Human Rights Act 1998 that have had a destabilising effect upon the Claimant's tenancy month in, month out for well over a year now. The Claimant is, therefore, making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unreasonably 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
The Claimant is a tenant of the Defendant's Clearing House. For the entire week commencing 8 July 2019, the Defendant failed to honour an agreement for support that it had with the Claimant. Since 6 August, the Claimant has been refused an explanation for the non-issue of a reference for learning disability volunteering, and that the Claimant believes should be issued to put things right. It is the repeatedly stated position of the Defendant that no such letter, or an explanation for its non-issue, will be provided before a meeting has taken place between the Claimant and the Defendant "to discuss your support moving forward", to quote an email from the Defendant. It is unfair and unreasonable for the Defendant to insist upon such a meeting without having issued a reference, or an explanation for its non-issue, particularly in light of the Claimant's recent four-month battle over false and misleading case notes. The Defendant's position poses an immediate threat to his tenancy in breach of his human rights. It also comes on foot of a string of other violations of the Human Rights Act 1998 that have had a destabilising effect upon the Claimant's tenancy month in, month out for well over a year now. The Claimant is, therefore, making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unreasonably 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 this 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 215 Honorary Associates include leading figures from around the world, including 15 Nobel Laureates and eight knighted professors. The Claimant 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 the past year, 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 received a tenancy agreement in serial breach of the Human Rights Act (HRA), forcing him 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 his repeated protestations of a threat to his life (see paragraph 10 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 being held under the Claimant's wife's name. On 20 August 2018, Mr. Williamson responded: "If you wife is wants to change what her record says she should speak to her TST worker in the first instance [sic]. 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, since before their support case was opened with the Defendant on 22 April 2016, both the Claimant and his wife had been requesting a TST caseworker. During their tenancy review meeting in May 2018, 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 this 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, enforced joint visits had also been taken off the table.
6. In January 2019, 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. 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 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 by Mr. Williamson that it was the Defendant's view that all requests had been responded to. 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 would be provided to him. He 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." On 30 January 2019, with court proceedings appearing imminent, the Claimant saw in full his notes on Opal as of that date. The following day the Claimant's wife received opal records on her opal account with all other notes deleted.
7. The Claimant has currently been fighting for almost three months for notes from the first of two unrecorded meetings, held on 18 February 2019, to be inputted into Opal as agreed with the Claimant's TST caseworker during the second unrecorded meeting on 15 March 2019. In total there are five short notes agreed upon between the Claimant and his TST caseworker. The first two notes were agreed upon during the second unrecorded meeting, and all five notes were agreed upon in subsequent email correspondence. In a fourth pre-action letter dated 26 April 2019, the Claimant protested the withholding of these notes in violation of his rights under the HRA. The Claimant also asked to be provided with a written explanation for the withholding of notes that were agreed upon. Previously, on 24 January 2019, Mr. Buck had written: "Moving forward all and any notes will be agreed upon by you and TST before inputting into our Opal system." Nonetheless, the Claimant received on 1 May 2019 an image attachment of notes that is incomplete, barely legible and contains inaccurate and misleading information. It reveals, inter alia, prejudicially selected and edited email correspondence in direct contravention of the Claimant's expressed wishes relating to emails and/or their attachments being used as notes. The Claimant has seen and fought the awful results of email and other forms of communication, such as his calls in to the TST duty line, being turned into notes without his knowledge or consent. Now the Claimant is engaged in the same battle to have notes deleted, and with seemingly no end in sight for the use of conjecture and hearsay as evidence.
8. If these notes have already been inputted into Opal, the Claimant's Support Agreement has clearly been breached. This Agreement not only establishes that the Claimant's support is voluntary, but specifies that "any notes recorded from our meetings will be action notes, these will be brief notes recording any actions agreed by all parties in the meeting". The Claimant fought the GLA through the courts for almost two years for this Agreement. It was struck following a round table meeting including the Claimant and the Defendant's CEO Howard Sinclair in February 2016, and was subsequently acknowledged by the Defendant in a Witness Statement dated 14 December 2016. Mr. Williamson wrote, at paragraph 9 of the Statement, that: "When St Mungo's took over responsibility for providing support for Mr Heavey, we respected his wish to set out parameters for how we would work with him in a 'support agreement'." Nonetheless, the Claimant received an email on 25 April 2019 from his TST caseworker stating that his Team Leader wanted "to arrange a meeting and ways forward". Neither the Claimant nor his wife is willing to vary, change or alter any of the terms of their support under their tenancy agreement. In fact, this is not the first time the Defendant has attempted to meet the Claimant rather than delete notes. On 10 January 2019, the Claimant responded to Mr. Williamson, saying in part: "It is both unfair and unreasonable for you to expect me to meet with you when you will not explain what is preventing you from deleting notes that are held in clear violation of my rights." These notes were eventually deleted without a meeting having taken place.
9. The outstanding five short agreed-upon notes relate to the Claimant's unsuccessful attempts, even with the support of the Defendant's TST, to obtain meaningful long-term voluntary work that requires no specialist skills or experience. The Claimant is a former physical education teacher who has taught in Glenstal Abbey, one of Ireland's top schools. He also has a high-quality written recommendation from his professional referee and is cleared by the police to work with children and adults (enhanced DBS checked). Last year the Claimant became an accredited UK Athletics assistant coach to further enhance his volunteering applications. Supporting emails that the Defendant's TST have written to Active Newham (Newham Council), Bromley by Bow Centre, Sense and KEEN London have either been ignored or overlooked by the recipients. For example, in the case of KEEN London, the Claimant's TST caseworker's supporting email of 15 March 2019 and follow-up phone calls on 22 March and 2 April 2019 have in effect all been ignored. In the image attachment of notes the Claimant received on 1 May 2019, the agreed-upon notes relating to this TST caseworker's two phone calls to KEEN London are omitted from entries most recently dated that same date. The Claimant has had no contact with KEEN London. It cannot, therefore, be suggested that the Claimant compromised this support.
10. The Claimant's ongoing 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 were sleeping. This included the Claimant's wife being threatened with arrest on the trumped-up charge of assaulting a police officer (City of London Police PSD reference: CO/0021/14).
11. The Claimant contends that the Defendant has serially breached the HRA. For the past year, the Claimant has been battling the Defendant from pillar to post to stabilise his and wife's tenancy and, as revealed in paragraph 7 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 would eventually be assigned, during which time he also had to stave off enforced joint visits. In January of this year, the Claimant discovered that outrageous communication notes were being held without his knowledge or consent since before a tenancy review the year previous. 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 Defendant is currently refusing without explanation to input into its Opal system agreed-upon notes dating back to February 2019.
12. There has been no reply to the Claimant's pre-action letter of 26 April 2019 referred to in paragraph 7 above; and this notwithstanding that it is the duty of the Defendant to provide the Claimant with the support he needs to first and foremost stabilise his tenancy for both his wife and himself. Time is of the essence in this matter, as the ongoing breaching of the HRA by the Defendant could have serious consequences for the Claimant and his wife in the short term, depending on why agreed-upon notes are being withheld. As shown in paragraph 10 above, the Claimant's ongoing battle against the Defendant to stabilise his and his wife's tenancy can result in their eviction from their home. The Claimant contends that he cannot be expected to accept the continuance of such uncertainty since at the very least it impedes both his and his wife's freedom of action. He further contends that in the context of their 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. He 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 this 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 215 Honorary Associates include leading figures from around the world, including 15 Nobel Laureates and eight knighted professors. The Claimant 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 the past year, 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 received a tenancy agreement in serial breach of the Human Rights Act (HRA), forcing him 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 his repeated protestations of a threat to his life (see paragraph 10 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 being held under the Claimant's wife's name. On 20 August 2018, Mr. Williamson responded: "If you wife is wants to change what her record says she should speak to her TST worker in the first instance [sic]. 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, since before their support case was opened with the Defendant on 22 April 2016, both the Claimant and his wife had been requesting a TST caseworker. During their tenancy review meeting in May 2018, 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 this 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, enforced joint visits had also been taken off the table.
6. In January 2019, 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. 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 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 by Mr. Williamson that it was the Defendant's view that all requests had been responded to. 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 would be provided to him. He 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." On 30 January 2019, with court proceedings appearing imminent, the Claimant saw in full his notes on Opal as of that date. The following day the Claimant's wife received opal records on her opal account with all other notes deleted.
7. The Claimant has currently been fighting for almost three months for notes from the first of two unrecorded meetings, held on 18 February 2019, to be inputted into Opal as agreed with the Claimant's TST caseworker during the second unrecorded meeting on 15 March 2019. In total there are five short notes agreed upon between the Claimant and his TST caseworker. The first two notes were agreed upon during the second unrecorded meeting, and all five notes were agreed upon in subsequent email correspondence. In a fourth pre-action letter dated 26 April 2019, the Claimant protested the withholding of these notes in violation of his rights under the HRA. The Claimant also asked to be provided with a written explanation for the withholding of notes that were agreed upon. Previously, on 24 January 2019, Mr. Buck had written: "Moving forward all and any notes will be agreed upon by you and TST before inputting into our Opal system." Nonetheless, the Claimant received on 1 May 2019 an image attachment of notes that is incomplete, barely legible and contains inaccurate and misleading information. It reveals, inter alia, prejudicially selected and edited email correspondence in direct contravention of the Claimant's expressed wishes relating to emails and/or their attachments being used as notes. The Claimant has seen and fought the awful results of email and other forms of communication, such as his calls in to the TST duty line, being turned into notes without his knowledge or consent. Now the Claimant is engaged in the same battle to have notes deleted, and with seemingly no end in sight for the use of conjecture and hearsay as evidence.
8. If these notes have already been inputted into Opal, the Claimant's Support Agreement has clearly been breached. This Agreement not only establishes that the Claimant's support is voluntary, but specifies that "any notes recorded from our meetings will be action notes, these will be brief notes recording any actions agreed by all parties in the meeting". The Claimant fought the GLA through the courts for almost two years for this Agreement. It was struck following a round table meeting including the Claimant and the Defendant's CEO Howard Sinclair in February 2016, and was subsequently acknowledged by the Defendant in a Witness Statement dated 14 December 2016. Mr. Williamson wrote, at paragraph 9 of the Statement, that: "When St Mungo's took over responsibility for providing support for Mr Heavey, we respected his wish to set out parameters for how we would work with him in a 'support agreement'." Nonetheless, the Claimant received an email on 25 April 2019 from his TST caseworker stating that his Team Leader wanted "to arrange a meeting and ways forward". Neither the Claimant nor his wife is willing to vary, change or alter any of the terms of their support under their tenancy agreement. In fact, this is not the first time the Defendant has attempted to meet the Claimant rather than delete notes. On 10 January 2019, the Claimant responded to Mr. Williamson, saying in part: "It is both unfair and unreasonable for you to expect me to meet with you when you will not explain what is preventing you from deleting notes that are held in clear violation of my rights." These notes were eventually deleted without a meeting having taken place.
9. The outstanding five short agreed-upon notes relate to the Claimant's unsuccessful attempts, even with the support of the Defendant's TST, to obtain meaningful long-term voluntary work that requires no specialist skills or experience. The Claimant is a former physical education teacher who has taught in Glenstal Abbey, one of Ireland's top schools. He also has a high-quality written recommendation from his professional referee and is cleared by the police to work with children and adults (enhanced DBS checked). Last year the Claimant became an accredited UK Athletics assistant coach to further enhance his volunteering applications. Supporting emails that the Defendant's TST have written to Active Newham (Newham Council), Bromley by Bow Centre, Sense and KEEN London have either been ignored or overlooked by the recipients. For example, in the case of KEEN London, the Claimant's TST caseworker's supporting email of 15 March 2019 and follow-up phone calls on 22 March and 2 April 2019 have in effect all been ignored. In the image attachment of notes the Claimant received on 1 May 2019, the agreed-upon notes relating to this TST caseworker's two phone calls to KEEN London are omitted from entries most recently dated that same date. The Claimant has had no contact with KEEN London. It cannot, therefore, be suggested that the Claimant compromised this support.
10. The Claimant's ongoing 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 were sleeping. This included the Claimant's wife being threatened with arrest on the trumped-up charge of assaulting a police officer (City of London Police PSD reference: CO/0021/14).
11. The Claimant contends that the Defendant has serially breached the HRA. For the past year, the Claimant has been battling the Defendant from pillar to post to stabilise his and wife's tenancy and, as revealed in paragraph 7 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 would eventually be assigned, during which time he also had to stave off enforced joint visits. In January of this year, the Claimant discovered that outrageous communication notes were being held without his knowledge or consent since before a tenancy review the year previous. 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 Defendant is currently refusing without explanation to input into its Opal system agreed-upon notes dating back to February 2019.
12. There has been no reply to the Claimant's pre-action letter of 26 April 2019 referred to in paragraph 7 above; and this notwithstanding that it is the duty of the Defendant to provide the Claimant with the support he needs to first and foremost stabilise his tenancy for both his wife and himself. Time is of the essence in this matter, as the ongoing breaching of the HRA by the Defendant could have serious consequences for the Claimant and his wife in the short term, depending on why agreed-upon notes are being withheld. As shown in paragraph 10 above, the Claimant's ongoing battle against the Defendant to stabilise his and his wife's tenancy can result in their eviction from their home. The Claimant contends that he cannot be expected to accept the continuance of such uncertainty since at the very least it impedes both his and his wife's freedom of action. He further contends that in the context of their 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. He 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 year 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 14 June (4.50pm): Declan brought the pleadings above to the attention of all 11 members of the Board of Trustees of St Mungo's; see my post of 5 June, St Mungo's: Declan's email to CEO Howard Sinclair of this Mayor of London-commissioned charity further to pre-action letter dated 26 April 2019 (WITH UPDATE 14/6/2019). The update to the post reveals that five days after Declan's pre-action letter, on 1 May, St Mungo's once again inputted outrageous notes into their system without his knowledge or consent. It also quotes Don Collins, President of the Washington DC-based International Services Assistance Fund, who observed: "This obscene disregard for your rights seems to continue unresolved!" The notes were only removed by this Mayor of London-commissioned charity this afternoon, and the notes below that were agreed upon last April updated on their system. The assault on our email too is unrelenting; see my post of 22 April, Email interception: Immediately after this complaint to our local MP a test email to two close colleagues has been blocked. A 2010 parliamentary letter to now Prime Minister Theresa May revealed in this post (WITH UPDATE 14/6/2019). The post also reveals details of the sabotage of Declan's emails to Nobel laureates since 21 February; the details are eye-watering.
Declan taught PE in Glenstal Abbey, one of Ireland's top schools.
Declan fought for four months over case notes. Among a whole host of other problems (including one false and fabricated claim of 15 February that he "wants to explore training"), the last two action notes relating to learning disability volunteering were missing from a barely legible image attachment of notes that he received on 1 May (see para. 9 of particulars above).
18 February 2019[1]
Met with Declan at his home today at 3pm on 18 February. On 1 February Declan and TST North came to an agreement regarding support going forward. Marc: Send supporting email to Sense.
6 March 2019[2]
Marc: Supporting email sent to Sense.
15 March 2019[3]
Met with Declan at his home today at 3.30pm on 15 March. Meeting following Declan's interview with Sense on 7 March. Marc: Enhanced supporting email sent to KEEN London containing up-front reference to Declan's former homelessness.
22 March 2019[4]
Marc: Contacted KEEN London. Volunteer coordinator is due to return next week and shall contact regarding supporting email.
2 April 2019[5]
Marc: Contacted KEEN London. Spoke with volunteer coordinator and waiting for application to be forwarded.
____________________________
1-3 These three notes were agreed upon during said meeting of 15 March 2019.
4-5 The wording of these latter two action notes was agreed upon by email on 17 April 2019.
Don Collins is also Declan's professional referee. Below is Don's reference dated 8 September 2018. It is somewhat understated, in that our Church and State website now has 57 Nobel Laureates on it, as well as a distinguished list of 232 Honorary Associates that includes 15 Nobel Laureates and eight knighted professors. (These figures were lower last September when, for example, we had two Nobel Laureates listed as associates.)
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: Greater London Authority: The Mayor of London's Rough Sleeping Team at City Hall breach the GLA's Code of Conduct by contacting St Mungo's on Declan's behalf without his authority or consent (WITH UPDATE 14/6/2019)
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan
'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/about/
