St Mungo's: Declan files his pleadings today. He is forced to take action against this Mayor of London-commissioned charity to even get our caseworkers to vouch over the phone that we are clients of theirs (WITH UPDATE 16/12/2019)
Included in Declan's court bundle:
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).
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 strongly disagree 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)
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 almost a year and a half, we have been battling St Mungo's to stabilise our tenancy. Most recently, Declan has been dealing with a failure to provide satisfactory support that poses a threat to property and life. He has this afternoon filed his pleadings with the Central London County Court. Paragraphs 8-9 (under "Unconscionable behavior") reveal that he has been forced to take this action to even get our TST caseworkers to vouch over the phone that we are clients of theirs. This was his claim letter to St Mungo's CEO Howard Sinclair last August:
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 2019, the Claimant has fought for a personal reference for learning disability (LD) volunteering, and that he believes should be issued to put things right. As matters stand, there is a failure by the Defendant to provide the Claimant with satisfactory support in respect of a personal referee for LD volunteering (either in writing or over the phone), which poses an ongoing threat to property and life. The Claimant contends that this constitutes a failure to provide satisfactory support; and this, notwithstanding his almost four months of dialogue with the Defendant on this issue. The Defendant's conduct, culminating in an absence of the most basic support (meaning the willingness of the Claimant's Tenancy Sustainment Team caseworker to vouch over the phone that the Claimant is a client of his), is unreasonable and comes on foot of a string of violations of the legal rights and interests of the Claimant that have had a destabilising effect upon his tenancy since the beginning of May 2018. 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 2019, the Claimant has fought for a personal reference for learning disability (LD) volunteering, and that he believes should be issued to put things right. As matters stand, there is a failure by the Defendant to provide the Claimant with satisfactory support in respect of a personal referee for LD volunteering (either in writing or over the phone), which poses an ongoing threat to property and life. The Claimant contends that this constitutes a failure to provide satisfactory support; and this, notwithstanding his almost four months of dialogue with the Defendant on this issue. The Defendant's conduct, culminating in an absence of the most basic support (meaning the willingness of the Claimant's Tenancy Sustainment Team caseworker to vouch over the phone that the Claimant is a client of his), is unreasonable and comes on foot of a string of violations of the legal rights and interests of the Claimant that have had a destabilising effect upon his tenancy since the beginning of May 2018. 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
Background
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). 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 related to the belief-related harassment, discrimination, intimidation and victimisation they have encountered since moving to England in 2003 from Ireland with the then-aim of forming a network organisation for those abused by church. They have been twice forced to sleep rough on the streets of London for almost four years in total. Since February 2014, through funding from America, both the Claimant and his wife have been part-time employed by Network for Church Monitoring, a non-profit the Claimant founded in 2011. The organisation's 240 Honorary Associates include leading figures from around the world, including 15 Nobel Laureates and nine 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.[1]
Failure to provide satisfactory support
3. On 10 July 2019, the Claimant complained to the Defendant's TST in north London (TST North) about his TST caseworker's supporting email to Active Newham of Newham London Borough Council, which bounced back as undeliverable because it was sent with a full stop at the end of the address (see Supporting Documents (SD), p. 20). The Claimant's stage two complaint relating to the entire week commencing 8 July 2019 was not only not upheld by the Defendant's Quality team, but it was superseded during the complaints process by his complaint against TST North for creating an immediate threat to his tenancy (see paragraph 7). On 17 September 2019, the Claimant was informed by TST North that he will not be provided with a reference for learning disability (LD) volunteering, and that he believes should be issued to put things right. The explanation reads: "This is not something that St Mungo's would usually provide to any client. You are not being treated differently or unfairly in this respect. TST North will not be providing this to you" (SD, p. 18). As matters stand, there is a failure by the Defendant to provide the Claimant with satisfactory support in respect of a personal referee for LD volunteering (either in writing or over the phone), which poses an ongoing threat to property and life (see paragraph 6). The Claimant contends that this constitutes a failure to provide satisfactory support. And this, notwithstanding his almost four months of dialogue with the Defendant on this issue, plus almost four weeks of silence from the Defendant which has made the Claimant's situation unsustainable and unsafe.
4. This issue of a failure to provide satisfactory support comes on foot of a string of violations of the legal rights and interests of the Claimant month-in, month-out since the beginning of May 2018 that have had a continual destabilising effect upon his tenancy. First it was problems with the renewal of his 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. Then, 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, TST North provided written assurance that any and all future notes would be agreed upon by both parties. The Claimant was then forced to engage in a four-month battle over false and misleading notes that were inputted on the system without his authority or consent. This was followed the next month by the Claimant's complaint to the Quality team, referred to in paragraph 3, and his preceding and ongoing battle for satisfactory support.
5. 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 (SD, pp. 34-36). 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 (DBS checked), and has a high-quality written recommendation from his professional referee (SD, pp. 35-36). Last year the Claimant became an accredited UK Athletics assistant coach to further enhance his volunteering applications. Nonetheless, supporting emails that TST North 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.
Continual threat to property and life
6. As matters stand, the failure of the Defendant to provide the Claimant with satisfactory support in respect of a personal referee for LD volunteering (either in writing or over the phone), poses an ongoing threat to property and life. In an email to Active Newham regarding the Claimant's case of unfair treatment against the leisure trust for Newham London, it has been acknowledged by the Defendant that "this matter [of volunteering in the community] will impact on the sustainment of Mr. Heavey's tenancy in the long term". Clearly, voluntary work is a tenancy sustainment issue and the Claimant is expected to be volunteering in the community. His tenancy agreement with Peabody states at Section B, paragraph 5 that: "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:
a. 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 (59), 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.
b. 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 subsequent complaint to the Police Professional Standards Directorate was not upheld.
c. 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 (NHS). 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. In March 2018, NHS England did not uphold his complaint about emergency dental treatment. He was only prescribed antibiotics after his tooth erupted within days of the treatment. He did not receive until 19 October 2019 his HC2 certificate (full help with health costs) valid from 18 September 2019 for twelve months. A previous HC2 certificate was invalidated by use of the surname Heaven instead of Heavey.
Ineffective, unfair and biased complaints procedure
7. 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's Quality team did not uphold the Claimant's complaint about his TST caseworker's supporting email to Active Newham, referred to in paragraph 3, but sent it back to stage one of its complaints procedure for further investigation on two peripheral points (only one of which was partially upheld). Moreover, the Claimant's original complaint was superseded during the complaints process by a complaint against TST North which triggered his claim letter dated 12 August 2019 addressed to the Defendant's CEO Howard Sinclair (SD, pp. 25-26). It was TST North's then position that no reference would be issued, or an explanation for its non-issue provided, before a meeting had taken place between the Claimant and his TST caseworker "to discuss your support moving forward", thereby posing an immediate threat to his tenancy. The Claimant has repeatedly informed the Defendant that he will not engage further with its complaints procedure, which he has found to be ineffective, unfair and biased, having been forced to overcome an immediate threat to his tenancy the first time he did so.
"Unconscionable behavior"
8. In an email dated 4 October 2019, the Defendant's Executive Director Dominic Williamson wrote: "I continue to assure you that any issues that you have in relation to working with St Mungo's can be addressed through dialogue with the TST team, and does not need the continual threat of legal action" (SD, p. 12). This statement is both disingenuous and misleading. The Claimant's almost four months of dialogue with the Defendant on the issue of its failure to provide satisfactory support commenced immediately following the most recent rectification of his case notes on 14 June 2019, and culminated in lengthy telephone conversations with the Defendant's TST North Service Manager Ilyas Hussein and Mr. Williamson on 3 and 4 October 2019, respectively. In both of these conversations, the Claimant made clear that by way of resolution both he and his wife would accept as personal referees TST caseworkers who would be willing to do no more than vouch over the phone that they are clients of TST North. Mr. Williamson could not provide the Claimant with an explanation for why this was not possible and subsequently left a phone message assuring the Claimant that he would talk with his TST team for resolution. The Claimant has heard nothing further from the Defendant on this or any other issue. Mr. Williamson is also currently ignoring the Claimant's wife in regard to her case notes. On 3 October 2019, speaking in reference to these notes, Mr. Hussein told the Claimant: "That's Dom's decision to make, it's not my decision to make. It wouldn't be my decision, to be honest." The decision now to make is whether or not to ratify the amends the Claimant's wife made before her TST caseworker's alleged departure from TST North on 4 October 2019.
9. Mr. Williamson's indecision over the Claimant's wife's case notes precludes the Claimant from even meeting with his TST caseworker. It has become apparent from his indecision over the Claimant's wife's amends that Mr. Williamson is not playing with a straight hand and wants only to accuse her and/or the Claimant of not wanting the support that TST can provide as a service, which would provide Peabody with grounds for the termination of tenancy (SD, pp. 1-6). Since 4 October 2019, the Claimant has also effectively been prevented from contacting TST North by phone. Mr. Hussein has not responded to an email the Claimant sent to him that day. It reads: "Further to our emails and telephone conversation yesterday, please can you confirm that no notes have been added on Opal this past week under my name without my authorisation and consent" (SD, p. 8). Following the removal in January 2019 of outrageous communication notes that were being held against the Claimant since May 2018, TST North Service Manager Robert Buck wrote: "Moving forward all and any notes will be agreed upon by you and TST before inputting into our Opal system." Subsequent to and despite this assurance, the Claimant's TST caseworker inputted notes on the system without the Claimant's knowledge or consent, including, inter alia, a false and misleading note that the Claimant wanted to explore 'training' as well as LD volunteering. (The Claimant has repeatedly explained that TST North's Employment, Training and Education service is irrelevant, illogical and inappropriate in his circumstances.) The Claimant does not wish to trigger another protracted battle over phone communication in the absence of an up-to-date assurance from the Defendant that there have been no more notes added on Opal other than those previously shown to him; that is, if Mr. Hussein has not already created such a battle for him.
10. The Claimant's lawful rights and interests have been repeatedly infringed upon by the Defendant. This is a view shared by Donald A. Collins, Sr., Founder and Treasurer of the Washington, D.C.-based International Services Assistance Fund. Mr. Collins states that: "My organization has had many dealings with Declan and his wife Maria for well over a decade. Their good works and help to so many have been a source of great satisfaction to all of us at our non profit which was given its letter of governance in 1977 and has with help from the Heaveys been able to do good work." On 13 June 2019, with reference to the Claimant's then battle with his TST caseworker over case notes, Mr. Collins wrote: "This obscene disregard for your rights seems to continue unresolved!" Two days after the Claimant's claim letter dated 12 August 2019, Mr. Collins wrote: "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" (SD, p. 21). These are but two of Mr. Collins's many comments concerning correspondence regarding the Claimant's tenancy, and are quoted here with his permission. Mr Collins additionally states that: "Obviously the sterling record of the Heaveys as model tenants and as desirable neighbors has been evident to everyone with whom they have dealings." In the circumstances, and in particular taking into account the unreasonable absence of the support he needs to stabilise his tenancy, the Claimant believes that he must seek relief in court.
Relief sought
11. The Defendant has a duty to provide the Claimant with the support he needs to stabilise his tenancy. Nonetheless, it took the Defendant over a month and a half to even mention the Claimant's claim letter dated 12 August 2019, in a clarification email from TST North dated 3 October 2019 (SD, p. 13). As matters stand, there is a failure by the Defendant to provide the Claimant with satisfactory support in respect of a personal referee for LD volunteering (either in writing or over the phone), which poses an ongoing threat to property and life. The Claimant's TST caseworker's supporting email to KEEN London dated 15 March 2019 commences: "I am writing to recommend my client Mr. Declan Heavey for a KEEN volunteer coach role" (SD, pp. 37-38). It is evident from this email that the Claimant's expectations for TST support are reasonable. He has made it clear to the Defendant at senior management level that, by way of resolution, he is even willing to accept his TST caseworker doing no more than vouching over the phone that he is a client of TST North. This is a very long way short of the support that had been agreed upon between the Claimant and the Defendant on 1 February 2019 (SD, p. 39). The Defendant's conduct, culminating in an absence of the most basic support (meaning the willingness of the Claimant's TST caseworker to vouch over the phone that the Claimant is a client of his), is unreasonable and comes on foot of a string of violations of the legal rights and interests of the Claimant that have had a continual destabilising effect upon his tenancy since the beginning of May 2018. After almost four months of dialogue on the issue of the Defendant's failure to provide satisfactory support, the Defendant's additional almost four weeks of silence since Mr. Williamson's phone message on Friday, 4 October 2019 has made the Claimant's situation unsustainable and unsafe. 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.
_________________________________
1. 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
Background
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). 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 related to the belief-related harassment, discrimination, intimidation and victimisation they have encountered since moving to England in 2003 from Ireland with the then-aim of forming a network organisation for those abused by church. They have been twice forced to sleep rough on the streets of London for almost four years in total. Since February 2014, through funding from America, both the Claimant and his wife have been part-time employed by Network for Church Monitoring, a non-profit the Claimant founded in 2011. The organisation's 240 Honorary Associates include leading figures from around the world, including 15 Nobel Laureates and nine 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.[1]
Failure to provide satisfactory support
3. On 10 July 2019, the Claimant complained to the Defendant's TST in north London (TST North) about his TST caseworker's supporting email to Active Newham of Newham London Borough Council, which bounced back as undeliverable because it was sent with a full stop at the end of the address (see Supporting Documents (SD), p. 20). The Claimant's stage two complaint relating to the entire week commencing 8 July 2019 was not only not upheld by the Defendant's Quality team, but it was superseded during the complaints process by his complaint against TST North for creating an immediate threat to his tenancy (see paragraph 7). On 17 September 2019, the Claimant was informed by TST North that he will not be provided with a reference for learning disability (LD) volunteering, and that he believes should be issued to put things right. The explanation reads: "This is not something that St Mungo's would usually provide to any client. You are not being treated differently or unfairly in this respect. TST North will not be providing this to you" (SD, p. 18). As matters stand, there is a failure by the Defendant to provide the Claimant with satisfactory support in respect of a personal referee for LD volunteering (either in writing or over the phone), which poses an ongoing threat to property and life (see paragraph 6). The Claimant contends that this constitutes a failure to provide satisfactory support. And this, notwithstanding his almost four months of dialogue with the Defendant on this issue, plus almost four weeks of silence from the Defendant which has made the Claimant's situation unsustainable and unsafe.
4. This issue of a failure to provide satisfactory support comes on foot of a string of violations of the legal rights and interests of the Claimant month-in, month-out since the beginning of May 2018 that have had a continual destabilising effect upon his tenancy. First it was problems with the renewal of his 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. Then, 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, TST North provided written assurance that any and all future notes would be agreed upon by both parties. The Claimant was then forced to engage in a four-month battle over false and misleading notes that were inputted on the system without his authority or consent. This was followed the next month by the Claimant's complaint to the Quality team, referred to in paragraph 3, and his preceding and ongoing battle for satisfactory support.
5. 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 (SD, pp. 34-36). 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 (DBS checked), and has a high-quality written recommendation from his professional referee (SD, pp. 35-36). Last year the Claimant became an accredited UK Athletics assistant coach to further enhance his volunteering applications. Nonetheless, supporting emails that TST North 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.
Continual threat to property and life
6. As matters stand, the failure of the Defendant to provide the Claimant with satisfactory support in respect of a personal referee for LD volunteering (either in writing or over the phone), poses an ongoing threat to property and life. In an email to Active Newham regarding the Claimant's case of unfair treatment against the leisure trust for Newham London, it has been acknowledged by the Defendant that "this matter [of volunteering in the community] will impact on the sustainment of Mr. Heavey's tenancy in the long term". Clearly, voluntary work is a tenancy sustainment issue and the Claimant is expected to be volunteering in the community. His tenancy agreement with Peabody states at Section B, paragraph 5 that: "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:
a. 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 (59), 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.
b. 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 subsequent complaint to the Police Professional Standards Directorate was not upheld.
c. 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 (NHS). 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. In March 2018, NHS England did not uphold his complaint about emergency dental treatment. He was only prescribed antibiotics after his tooth erupted within days of the treatment. He did not receive until 19 October 2019 his HC2 certificate (full help with health costs) valid from 18 September 2019 for twelve months. A previous HC2 certificate was invalidated by use of the surname Heaven instead of Heavey.
Ineffective, unfair and biased complaints procedure
7. 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's Quality team did not uphold the Claimant's complaint about his TST caseworker's supporting email to Active Newham, referred to in paragraph 3, but sent it back to stage one of its complaints procedure for further investigation on two peripheral points (only one of which was partially upheld). Moreover, the Claimant's original complaint was superseded during the complaints process by a complaint against TST North which triggered his claim letter dated 12 August 2019 addressed to the Defendant's CEO Howard Sinclair (SD, pp. 25-26). It was TST North's then position that no reference would be issued, or an explanation for its non-issue provided, before a meeting had taken place between the Claimant and his TST caseworker "to discuss your support moving forward", thereby posing an immediate threat to his tenancy. The Claimant has repeatedly informed the Defendant that he will not engage further with its complaints procedure, which he has found to be ineffective, unfair and biased, having been forced to overcome an immediate threat to his tenancy the first time he did so.
"Unconscionable behavior"
8. In an email dated 4 October 2019, the Defendant's Executive Director Dominic Williamson wrote: "I continue to assure you that any issues that you have in relation to working with St Mungo's can be addressed through dialogue with the TST team, and does not need the continual threat of legal action" (SD, p. 12). This statement is both disingenuous and misleading. The Claimant's almost four months of dialogue with the Defendant on the issue of its failure to provide satisfactory support commenced immediately following the most recent rectification of his case notes on 14 June 2019, and culminated in lengthy telephone conversations with the Defendant's TST North Service Manager Ilyas Hussein and Mr. Williamson on 3 and 4 October 2019, respectively. In both of these conversations, the Claimant made clear that by way of resolution both he and his wife would accept as personal referees TST caseworkers who would be willing to do no more than vouch over the phone that they are clients of TST North. Mr. Williamson could not provide the Claimant with an explanation for why this was not possible and subsequently left a phone message assuring the Claimant that he would talk with his TST team for resolution. The Claimant has heard nothing further from the Defendant on this or any other issue. Mr. Williamson is also currently ignoring the Claimant's wife in regard to her case notes. On 3 October 2019, speaking in reference to these notes, Mr. Hussein told the Claimant: "That's Dom's decision to make, it's not my decision to make. It wouldn't be my decision, to be honest." The decision now to make is whether or not to ratify the amends the Claimant's wife made before her TST caseworker's alleged departure from TST North on 4 October 2019.
9. Mr. Williamson's indecision over the Claimant's wife's case notes precludes the Claimant from even meeting with his TST caseworker. It has become apparent from his indecision over the Claimant's wife's amends that Mr. Williamson is not playing with a straight hand and wants only to accuse her and/or the Claimant of not wanting the support that TST can provide as a service, which would provide Peabody with grounds for the termination of tenancy (SD, pp. 1-6). Since 4 October 2019, the Claimant has also effectively been prevented from contacting TST North by phone. Mr. Hussein has not responded to an email the Claimant sent to him that day. It reads: "Further to our emails and telephone conversation yesterday, please can you confirm that no notes have been added on Opal this past week under my name without my authorisation and consent" (SD, p. 8). Following the removal in January 2019 of outrageous communication notes that were being held against the Claimant since May 2018, TST North Service Manager Robert Buck wrote: "Moving forward all and any notes will be agreed upon by you and TST before inputting into our Opal system." Subsequent to and despite this assurance, the Claimant's TST caseworker inputted notes on the system without the Claimant's knowledge or consent, including, inter alia, a false and misleading note that the Claimant wanted to explore 'training' as well as LD volunteering. (The Claimant has repeatedly explained that TST North's Employment, Training and Education service is irrelevant, illogical and inappropriate in his circumstances.) The Claimant does not wish to trigger another protracted battle over phone communication in the absence of an up-to-date assurance from the Defendant that there have been no more notes added on Opal other than those previously shown to him; that is, if Mr. Hussein has not already created such a battle for him.
10. The Claimant's lawful rights and interests have been repeatedly infringed upon by the Defendant. This is a view shared by Donald A. Collins, Sr., Founder and Treasurer of the Washington, D.C.-based International Services Assistance Fund. Mr. Collins states that: "My organization has had many dealings with Declan and his wife Maria for well over a decade. Their good works and help to so many have been a source of great satisfaction to all of us at our non profit which was given its letter of governance in 1977 and has with help from the Heaveys been able to do good work." On 13 June 2019, with reference to the Claimant's then battle with his TST caseworker over case notes, Mr. Collins wrote: "This obscene disregard for your rights seems to continue unresolved!" Two days after the Claimant's claim letter dated 12 August 2019, Mr. Collins wrote: "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" (SD, p. 21). These are but two of Mr. Collins's many comments concerning correspondence regarding the Claimant's tenancy, and are quoted here with his permission. Mr Collins additionally states that: "Obviously the sterling record of the Heaveys as model tenants and as desirable neighbors has been evident to everyone with whom they have dealings." In the circumstances, and in particular taking into account the unreasonable absence of the support he needs to stabilise his tenancy, the Claimant believes that he must seek relief in court.
Relief sought
11. The Defendant has a duty to provide the Claimant with the support he needs to stabilise his tenancy. Nonetheless, it took the Defendant over a month and a half to even mention the Claimant's claim letter dated 12 August 2019, in a clarification email from TST North dated 3 October 2019 (SD, p. 13). As matters stand, there is a failure by the Defendant to provide the Claimant with satisfactory support in respect of a personal referee for LD volunteering (either in writing or over the phone), which poses an ongoing threat to property and life. The Claimant's TST caseworker's supporting email to KEEN London dated 15 March 2019 commences: "I am writing to recommend my client Mr. Declan Heavey for a KEEN volunteer coach role" (SD, pp. 37-38). It is evident from this email that the Claimant's expectations for TST support are reasonable. He has made it clear to the Defendant at senior management level that, by way of resolution, he is even willing to accept his TST caseworker doing no more than vouching over the phone that he is a client of TST North. This is a very long way short of the support that had been agreed upon between the Claimant and the Defendant on 1 February 2019 (SD, p. 39). The Defendant's conduct, culminating in an absence of the most basic support (meaning the willingness of the Claimant's TST caseworker to vouch over the phone that the Claimant is a client of his), is unreasonable and comes on foot of a string of violations of the legal rights and interests of the Claimant that have had a continual destabilising effect upon his tenancy since the beginning of May 2018. After almost four months of dialogue on the issue of the Defendant's failure to provide satisfactory support, the Defendant's additional almost four weeks of silence since Mr. Williamson's phone message on Friday, 4 October 2019 has made the Claimant's situation unsustainable and unsafe. 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.
_________________________________
1. 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
Updated 16 December 2019
Extract from Declan's letter of 16 December to the Court Manager following the slanderous results of a subject access request from St Mungo's: "I wish to bring to the Court's attention a serious development in this case almost immediately following my filing in Court and service of Claimant's Reply to Witness Statement of Ilyas Hussein on 11 December 2019."
16 December: We're still in disbelief. This is how the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's behaves during court proceedings
St Mungo's is funded by Mayor of London Sadiq Khan to run a number of his rough sleepers initiatives.
Extract from Declan's letter of 16 December to the Court Manager following the slanderous results of a subject access request from St Mungo's: "I wish to bring to the Court's attention a serious development in this case almost immediately following my filing in Court and service of Claimant's Reply to Witness Statement of Ilyas Hussein on 11 December 2019."
16 December: We're still in disbelief. This is how the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's behaves during court proceedings
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 who covered the story for the Guardian.
EU freedom for rough sleepers infringed - shock horror. https://t.co/RuJKrSEiTm
— Andrew Martin (@devonprof) May 14, 2018
'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/
