St Mungo's: Pleadings for filing with the Central London County Court. No response from this Mayor of London-commissioned charity's Chief Executive to Declan's letter before action on Monday of last week (WITH UPDATE 1/10/2019)
8/14/19
Dears,
I have looked at the long correspondence regarding your tenancy and clearly you have made a powerful case for the unconscionable behavior of the agency in control of your tenancy.
I do not use that adjective loosely. As Wikipedia tells us, "Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate."
In my many decades of observation, this example stands out as distinctive for the obvious reasons you have already so fully documented.
With hopes that resolution can ensue,
Donald A. Collins
Founder, International Services Assistance Fund
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).
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan
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 we can live independently – we do not have addictions or mental illness or behavioural issues. Our needs are solely related to the harassment, discrimination, intimidation and victimisation we routinely face. For well over a year, we have been battling St Mungo's to stabilise our tenancy. Now the tenancy itself is under immediate threat. Declan already has his pleadings for filing with the Central London County Court. This is his letter before action to St Mungo's CEO Howard Sinclair on Monday of last week:
12 August 2019
Howard Sinclair
Chief Executive
St Mungo's
3 Thomas More Square
London
E1W 1YW
Dear Mr Sinclair
Letter before action: Failure to provide satisfactory support
I am writing under the Human Rights Act (HRA) concerning St Mungo's position in relation to my Tenancy Sustainment Team (TST) support.
For the entire week commencing 8 July 2019, my TST caseworker failed to uphold his end of our agreement for support. Since 6 August, I have been refused an explanation for the non-issue of a to-whom-it-may-concern letter ("the letter") that I can use as a reference for learning disability volunteering, and that I believe should be issued to put things right.
Indeed, it is the stated position of St Mungo's TST that no such letter, or explanation for its non-issue, will be provided by my TST caseworker before a meeting has taken place between me and him "to discuss your support moving forward", to quote from an email his manager sent me last week.
I do not believe that it is fair or reasonable for St Mungo's to expect me to arrange a meeting with any member of staff without the letter or an explanation for its non-issue, particularly in light of my recent four-month battle over case notes, including a false and misleading note stating that I want to explore "training" as well as LD volunteering. I have repeatedly explained that your Employment, Training and Education (ETE) service is completely inappropriate in my circumstances.
I do not wish to vary, change or alter any of the terms of my support under my tenancy agreement. I believe that not only is your position unfair and unreasonable, but it poses an immediate threat to my tenancy in breach of my human rights. It also comes on foot of a string of other violations of the HRA that have had a destabilising effect upon my tenancy month in, month out for well over a year now.
Please could you provide me with a clear written explanation for why the decision has been made not to immediately issue me with the letter. If there is information my TST caseworker requires to issue it, I am more than happy to provide him with this information in writing or over the phone.
If I do not hear from you or we are unable to come to a reasonable agreement by 26 August (allowing 14 days from your receipt of this letter), I will issue court proceedings in the county court without further notice. I will also be asking for an order to cover my costs. I will be relying on court rules for pre-action conduct that say you may have to pay more in costs if you ignore this letter.
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 complete its end of 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 he believes should be issued to put things right. It is the repeatedly stated position of the Defendant that no such reference, or an explanation for its non-issue, will be issued before a meeting has taken place between the Claimant and the Defendant "to discuss your support moving forward", to quote from 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 the Claimant's tenancy (a threat to life). 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. The Claimant is, therefore, making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unreasonably and in breach of duty towards him. 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 complete its end of 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 he believes should be issued to put things right. It is the repeatedly stated position of the Defendant that no such reference, or an explanation for its non-issue, will be issued before a meeting has taken place between the Claimant and the Defendant "to discuss your support moving forward", to quote from 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 the Claimant's tenancy (a threat to life). 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. The Claimant is, therefore, making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unreasonably and in breach of duty towards him. 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 (Johnsen and Teixeira, 2010). 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 harassment, discrimination, intimidation 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 235 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 12 July 2019[*].
3. On 10 July 2019, the Claimant complained to the Defendant in respect of the specific issue of his TST caseworker's supporting email to Active Newham (Newham Council), which on a correct email address "bounced back not deliverable" earlier that day, according to the Defendant. Although no evidence has been produced to support this claim, the Claimant's complaint relating to the entire week commencing 8 July 2019 did not progress to a stage two of the Defendant's complaints process for want of sufficient evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the Claimant has been refused an explanation for the non-issue of a reference for learning disability volunteering, and that he believes should be issued to put things right. It is the repeatedly stated position of the Defendant that no such reference, or an explanation for its non-issue, will be issued before a meeting has taken place between the Claimant and his TST caseworker "to discuss your support moving forward", to quote from an email the Claimant received from the TST caseworker's manager on 6 August 2019.
4. The Claimant contends that it is unfair and unreasonable for the Defendant to insist upon a meeting with any member of staff without him having been issued a reference or an explanation for its non-issue, particularly in light of his recent four-month battle over case notes, including a false and misleading note stating that he wants to explore 'training' as well as LD volunteering. The Claimant has repeatedly explained that the Defendant's Employment, Training and Education (ETE) service is completely inappropriate in his circumstances; and that he does not wish to vary, change or alter any of the terms of his support under his tenancy agreement. The Claimant further contends that not only is the Defendant's position in relation to a reference unfair and unreasonable, but it poses an immediate threat to his tenancy (a threat to life). It also comes on foot of a string of other violations of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) that have had a destabilising effect upon the Claimant's tenancy month in, month out for well over a year.
5. As stated, the Defendant's insistence that the Claimant must meet with his TST caseworker to discuss ways forward without a reference, or an explanation for its non-issue, poses an immediate threat to his tenancy. The Claimant has a tenancy agreement with Peabody which 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." There is also a threat to life in this case considering the following range of factors as applicable:
(i) The Claimant has a history of respiratory diseases such as pneumonia, bronchitis and other lung infections. Both he and his wife doubt he has the respiratory health to survive even another year or two on the streets. The Claimant is in his late fifties (58), and during their first period of homelessness, he was hospitalised with pneumonia in December 2006 and with a viral infection in October 2007. Near the end of their second period of homelessness, in April 2014, he was diagnosed with asthma as well as a chest infection.
(ii) Back on the streets the Claimant and his wife will be restricted to sleeping on night buses in all sorts of weather (money permitting), notwithstanding the Claimant's asthma and now increased susceptibility to respiratory disease. They were forced into this predicament prior to coming off the streets the second time because of an excessive use of force by police officers to move them out of where they were sleeping. This included the Claimant's wife being threatened with arrest on the trumped-up charge of assaulting a police officer. The Claimant's complaint to the Police Professional Standards Directorate was not upheld.
(iii) The Claimant and his wife have serious concerns about the health care the Claimant has or has not received over the years from the National Health Service. Prior to his hospitalisation with pneumonia in 2006, he lost consciousness while vomiting. He was discharged from Chelsea and Westminster Hospital 42 hours after admission whilst still unwell. Most recently, in 2018, NHS England did not uphold his complaint about emergency dental treatment. He was only prescribed antibiotics after the tooth had erupted within days of the treatment.
6. For well over a 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. Then, 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 the year previous 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 against him since May 2018. After these case notes were removed, the Defendant provided written assurance that all and any future notes would be agreed upon by both parties. The Claimant was then forced to engage in a four-month battle over case notes. This included having removed from the record the false and misleading note regarding training referred to in paragraph 4 above.
7. Also relevant to this case is a complaint the Claimant made on 8 April 2019 to Mayor of London Sadiq Khan about a blockade across London on his volunteer applications. The Claimant is a former physical education teacher who has taught in Glenstal Abbey, one of Ireland's top schools. He is cleared by the police to work with children and adults, and has a high-quality written recommendation from his professional referee. Last year the Claimant became an accredited UK Athletics assistant coach to further enhance his volunteering applications. Nonetheless, the supporting emails that the Defendant has written to Active Newham, Bromley by Bow Centre, Sense and KEEN London have either been ignored or overlooked by the recipients. The case notes most recently rectified by the Defendant relate to his TST caseworker's supporting emails to learning disability organisations for voluntary roles that require no specialist skills or experience. For example, in the case of KEEN London, this TST caseworker's supporting email of 15 March 2019 and follow-up phone calls on 22 March and 2 April 2019 were in effect all ignored. The Claimant has had no contact with KEEN London. It cannot, therefore, be suggested that he compromised this support.
8. In a Witness Statement dated 14 December 2016, the Defendant wrote: "St Mungo's has an effective complaints procedure, which our clients can use to address problems they are having. Mr Heavey has bypassed this process and instigated litigation". The Defendant did not uphold the Claimant's complaint on the specific issue of his TST caseworker's supporting email to Active Newham, referred to in paragraph 3 above, but sent it back to stage one of its complaints process for further investigation on two peripheral points. The Claimant responded that he believes that the complaint was dealt with unfairly and with bias and that he will not engage further with the complaints investigation on the specific issue raised. He has advised the Defendant that his position in this regard in no way constitutes a retraction of his original complaint and that nor does it prejudice his repeated requests for a reference to put things right. The Claimant's original complaint was superseded during the complaints process by the Defendant's insistence that no reference will be issued, or an explanation for its non-issue provided, before a meeting has taken place between the Claimant and his TST caseworker to discuss ways forward; thereby posing an immediate threat to his tenancy.
9. The Defendant has not responded to the Claimant's letter before action dated 12 August 2019. And this notwithstanding that the Defendant has a duty to provide the Claimant with the support he needs to stabilise his tenancy. Time is of the essence in this matter, as the Defendant has not retracted its insistence that the Claimant meet with his TST caseworker to discuss ways forward without a reference or an explanation for its non-issue. This decision is unfair and unreasonable, particularly in light of the Claimant's recent four-month battle over false and misleading case notes. It has been shown in paragraph 5 above that the decision can also result in the Claimant and his wife's eviction from their home (a threat to life). 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. It also comes on foot of a string of other violations of HRA Articles 8 (protection of family life and home) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) that have had a destabilising effect upon the Claimant's tenancy for well over a year. The Claimant is, therefore, making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unreasonably and in breach of duty towards him. Alternatively, the Claimant asks that leave to appeal be granted.
_________________________________
* 12 July: Threat to life: Updated complaint to the United Nations under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's highlighted
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 (Johnsen and Teixeira, 2010). 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 harassment, discrimination, intimidation 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 235 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 12 July 2019[*].
3. On 10 July 2019, the Claimant complained to the Defendant in respect of the specific issue of his TST caseworker's supporting email to Active Newham (Newham Council), which on a correct email address "bounced back not deliverable" earlier that day, according to the Defendant. Although no evidence has been produced to support this claim, the Claimant's complaint relating to the entire week commencing 8 July 2019 did not progress to a stage two of the Defendant's complaints process for want of sufficient evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the Claimant has been refused an explanation for the non-issue of a reference for learning disability volunteering, and that he believes should be issued to put things right. It is the repeatedly stated position of the Defendant that no such reference, or an explanation for its non-issue, will be issued before a meeting has taken place between the Claimant and his TST caseworker "to discuss your support moving forward", to quote from an email the Claimant received from the TST caseworker's manager on 6 August 2019.
4. The Claimant contends that it is unfair and unreasonable for the Defendant to insist upon a meeting with any member of staff without him having been issued a reference or an explanation for its non-issue, particularly in light of his recent four-month battle over case notes, including a false and misleading note stating that he wants to explore 'training' as well as LD volunteering. The Claimant has repeatedly explained that the Defendant's Employment, Training and Education (ETE) service is completely inappropriate in his circumstances; and that he does not wish to vary, change or alter any of the terms of his support under his tenancy agreement. The Claimant further contends that not only is the Defendant's position in relation to a reference unfair and unreasonable, but it poses an immediate threat to his tenancy (a threat to life). It also comes on foot of a string of other violations of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) that have had a destabilising effect upon the Claimant's tenancy month in, month out for well over a year.
5. As stated, the Defendant's insistence that the Claimant must meet with his TST caseworker to discuss ways forward without a reference, or an explanation for its non-issue, poses an immediate threat to his tenancy. The Claimant has a tenancy agreement with Peabody which 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." There is also a threat to life in this case considering the following range of factors as applicable:
(i) The Claimant has a history of respiratory diseases such as pneumonia, bronchitis and other lung infections. Both he and his wife doubt he has the respiratory health to survive even another year or two on the streets. The Claimant is in his late fifties (58), and during their first period of homelessness, he was hospitalised with pneumonia in December 2006 and with a viral infection in October 2007. Near the end of their second period of homelessness, in April 2014, he was diagnosed with asthma as well as a chest infection.
(ii) Back on the streets the Claimant and his wife will be restricted to sleeping on night buses in all sorts of weather (money permitting), notwithstanding the Claimant's asthma and now increased susceptibility to respiratory disease. They were forced into this predicament prior to coming off the streets the second time because of an excessive use of force by police officers to move them out of where they were sleeping. This included the Claimant's wife being threatened with arrest on the trumped-up charge of assaulting a police officer. The Claimant's complaint to the Police Professional Standards Directorate was not upheld.
(iii) The Claimant and his wife have serious concerns about the health care the Claimant has or has not received over the years from the National Health Service. Prior to his hospitalisation with pneumonia in 2006, he lost consciousness while vomiting. He was discharged from Chelsea and Westminster Hospital 42 hours after admission whilst still unwell. Most recently, in 2018, NHS England did not uphold his complaint about emergency dental treatment. He was only prescribed antibiotics after the tooth had erupted within days of the treatment.
6. For well over a 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. Then, 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 the year previous 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 against him since May 2018. After these case notes were removed, the Defendant provided written assurance that all and any future notes would be agreed upon by both parties. The Claimant was then forced to engage in a four-month battle over case notes. This included having removed from the record the false and misleading note regarding training referred to in paragraph 4 above.
7. Also relevant to this case is a complaint the Claimant made on 8 April 2019 to Mayor of London Sadiq Khan about a blockade across London on his volunteer applications. The Claimant is a former physical education teacher who has taught in Glenstal Abbey, one of Ireland's top schools. He is cleared by the police to work with children and adults, and has a high-quality written recommendation from his professional referee. Last year the Claimant became an accredited UK Athletics assistant coach to further enhance his volunteering applications. Nonetheless, the supporting emails that the Defendant has written to Active Newham, Bromley by Bow Centre, Sense and KEEN London have either been ignored or overlooked by the recipients. The case notes most recently rectified by the Defendant relate to his TST caseworker's supporting emails to learning disability organisations for voluntary roles that require no specialist skills or experience. For example, in the case of KEEN London, this TST caseworker's supporting email of 15 March 2019 and follow-up phone calls on 22 March and 2 April 2019 were in effect all ignored. The Claimant has had no contact with KEEN London. It cannot, therefore, be suggested that he compromised this support.
8. In a Witness Statement dated 14 December 2016, the Defendant wrote: "St Mungo's has an effective complaints procedure, which our clients can use to address problems they are having. Mr Heavey has bypassed this process and instigated litigation". The Defendant did not uphold the Claimant's complaint on the specific issue of his TST caseworker's supporting email to Active Newham, referred to in paragraph 3 above, but sent it back to stage one of its complaints process for further investigation on two peripheral points. The Claimant responded that he believes that the complaint was dealt with unfairly and with bias and that he will not engage further with the complaints investigation on the specific issue raised. He has advised the Defendant that his position in this regard in no way constitutes a retraction of his original complaint and that nor does it prejudice his repeated requests for a reference to put things right. The Claimant's original complaint was superseded during the complaints process by the Defendant's insistence that no reference will be issued, or an explanation for its non-issue provided, before a meeting has taken place between the Claimant and his TST caseworker to discuss ways forward; thereby posing an immediate threat to his tenancy.
9. The Defendant has not responded to the Claimant's letter before action dated 12 August 2019. And this notwithstanding that the Defendant has a duty to provide the Claimant with the support he needs to stabilise his tenancy. Time is of the essence in this matter, as the Defendant has not retracted its insistence that the Claimant meet with his TST caseworker to discuss ways forward without a reference or an explanation for its non-issue. This decision is unfair and unreasonable, particularly in light of the Claimant's recent four-month battle over false and misleading case notes. It has been shown in paragraph 5 above that the decision can also result in the Claimant and his wife's eviction from their home (a threat to life). 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. It also comes on foot of a string of other violations of HRA Articles 8 (protection of family life and home) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) that have had a destabilising effect upon the Claimant's tenancy for well over a year. The Claimant is, therefore, making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unreasonably and in breach of duty towards him. Alternatively, the Claimant asks that leave to appeal be granted.
_________________________________
* 12 July: Threat to life: Updated complaint to the United Nations under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's highlighted
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 1 October (10.25am): Declan's claim against St Mungo's strengthens by the week! On 23 August, St Mungo's Executive Director Dominic Williamson got back to Declan; however, he made no mention of Declan's letter before action but wrote he would talk to his colleagues in the quality team the following week. This was and continues as no more than a delaying tactic, which would explain why Williamson never responded to the claim letter. Declan's original complaint was not only not upheld by the quality team, but it was superseded during the complaints process by his complaint against the tenancy sustainment team (TST) for creating an immediate threat to our tenancy (see paragraph 8 of the particulars above). Declan informed Williamson that he found his complaints process to be ineffective, unfair and biased; and that he will not engage further with the complaints investigation on the specific issue raised in his original complaint, and nor will he refer his superseding complaint to the quality team now or at any time in the future. Declan also informed him that it is his TST team that needs to come to a reasonable agreement with him, not his quality team. But Williamson seems to have no intention of talking to his TST team for resolution, at least not until Declan has taken proceedings against St Mungo's for the second time in three years.
3/16/17
How you manage to do what you do is simply amazing!! And with the pressure on to adjudicate what seems more and more like attacks from a personality from 1984!
Donald A. Collins
Founder, International Services Assistance Fund
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.
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)
DJ Avent's order revealed in this post.
Declan taught PE in Glenstal Abbey, one of Ireland's top schools.
Declan most recently 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 his previous Particulars of Claim here).
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.
Donald A. Collins is 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 237 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
24 September: DACS's attempt last week to retrieve a fee from us for copyright infringement reminds us of the last time Declan took the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's to court
The Design and Artists Copyright Society (DACS) is the UK's premier rights management organisation for visual artists.
'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/
