Threat to life: Declan has beefed up these full pleadings against Peabody to make clear that their conduct has destabilised our tenancy, inhibits our ability to exercise our rights, and poses a threat to his life. We are in a flat that falls under the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative (WITH UPDATE 08/06/20)
With the background as provided above, the Heaveys now are facing an eviction notice from their landlord, Peabody Trust housing association. The tenancy is a flat, which falls under the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative. Pardoning my intrusion into English law, but in fairness there does not appear to be any reason for the eviction, relying apparently entirely on the discretion of the landlord.
Joseph R. Carvalko, Esq., American lawyer (full letter below)
Our Church and State website has no less than 59 Nobel Laureates on it despite the never-ending assault on our email; see paragraph 2 under "Church and State" on this blog's sidebar (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).
The Central London County Court is based at the Royal Courts of Justice. The hearing of the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's application to have Declan's claim struck out before Senior Circuit Judge Marc Dight CBE has been adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Declan and I are housed in a flat that falls under 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. This is typified by the behaviour of St Mungo's during proceedings in Declan's case against them. This week our landlord, Peabody housing association, confirmed that they will not be making any substantive changes to the appalling fixed-term tenancy that would run from 17 May if we signed it. The terms offered are on record as an "agreed decision" by Peabody and St Mungo's about the ongoing tenancy. So we continue to live in a weekly periodic tenancy because, as has become apparent from connective evidence gathered during proceedings, we cannot get St Mungo's to even vouch over the phone that we are clients of theirs. Further below are Declan's pleadings against Peabody for filing with the Central London County Court without further notice. They make clear that Peabody's conduct has destabilised our tenancy, inhibits our ability to exercise our rights, and poses a threat to Declan's life. This was the claim letter addressed to Peabody CEO Brendan Sarsfield four weeks ago:
4 May 2020
Brendan Sarsfield
Chief Executive
Peabody
45 Westminster Bridge Road
London SE1 7JB
Dear Mr Sarsfield
Letter before action: Failure to provide a like-for-like tenancy
I am writing under the Human Rights Act concerning Peabody's position in relation to the renewal of my and my wife's tenancy on 17 May; namely, that you will not be making any changes to the appalling tenancy on offer.
On 27 April I received an email from Rukia Khatun stating, "Further to your email sent on the 21st April I would like to confirm that after close revaluation there are no variances with the terms set out on the fixed-term tenancy we have offered you. We have sent you a copy to sign to securing your tenancy with Peabody to which you have refused to sign due to the discrepancies on the terms set out. I can confirm the terms are the same and a like for like as requested."
The new tenancy agreement is not even remotely a like-for-like document. I believe that it would be imprudent of me to negotiate or engage in any way about discrepancies on the terms set out, due to me being unrepresented by counsel. I might add that Ms Khatun grossly mispresents me by suggesting in her email of 1 May that my concerns are confined to the absence of the word 'renewed' in the tenancy on offer.
Our tenancy is a flat, which falls under the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative. I have repeatedly made a very clear request that we want to sign a document like the ones we signed twice before. Please could you provide me with a clear written explanation for why the decision has been made not to provide me with a genuine like-for-like tenancy such as has been issued twice before.
If I do not hear from you (allowing 14 days from the date 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
These pleadings have been prepared for filing with the court without further notice.
Claimant: Declan Heavey
Defendant: Peabody
Brief details of claim
Since 17 May 2014, the Claimant has been living in a Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) property that is owned by the Defendant. The Defendant has twice renewed the Claimant's tenancy like for like as requested. On 27 April 2020, the Defendant asserted in relation to the third renewal of the tenancy on 17 May 2020 that "the terms are the same and a like for like as requested". The Defendant further affirmed on 27 May 2020 that it will not be making any substantive changes to the tenancy on offer. The Claimant avers that the tenancy offered is not remotely a like-for-like agreement. He further contends that the Defendant's insistence that it has offered a tenancy "like for like as requested" confers an obligation on it to produce such a document. Instead, the Defendant has falsely accused the Claimant of not signing a like-for-like agreement. The Defendant's reply to the Claimant's pre-action letter dated 4 May 2020 is in effect a reiteration of its former and current position. Consequently, the Claimant has no legal protection from a 'no fault' eviction in a weekly periodic tenancy. This has destabilised his tenancy, inhibits his and his wife's ability to exercise their rights, and poses a threat to his life. The Claimant therefore makes an application to the court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unlawfully and in dereliction of its duty. The Claimant seeks damages for distress and costs.
Value
The Claimant expects to recover not more than £1,000.
Claimant: Declan Heavey
Defendant: Peabody
Brief details of claim
Since 17 May 2014, the Claimant has been living in a Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) property that is owned by the Defendant. The Defendant has twice renewed the Claimant's tenancy like for like as requested. On 27 April 2020, the Defendant asserted in relation to the third renewal of the tenancy on 17 May 2020 that "the terms are the same and a like for like as requested". The Defendant further affirmed on 27 May 2020 that it will not be making any substantive changes to the tenancy on offer. The Claimant avers that the tenancy offered is not remotely a like-for-like agreement. He further contends that the Defendant's insistence that it has offered a tenancy "like for like as requested" confers an obligation on it to produce such a document. Instead, the Defendant has falsely accused the Claimant of not signing a like-for-like agreement. The Defendant's reply to the Claimant's pre-action letter dated 4 May 2020 is in effect a reiteration of its former and current position. Consequently, the Claimant has no legal protection from a 'no fault' eviction in a weekly periodic tenancy. This has destabilised his tenancy, inhibits his and his wife's ability to exercise their rights, and poses a threat to his life. The Claimant therefore makes an application to the court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unlawfully and in dereliction of its duty. The Claimant seeks damages for distress and costs.
Value
The Claimant expects to recover not more than £1,000.
Particulars of Claim
1. Since 17 May 2014, the Claimant has been living in a Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) property that is owned by the Defendant. The original two-year term expired in 2016, and again in 2018 but the Defendant agreed to new tenancies on like-for-like terms on both occasions. On 27 April 2020, the Defendant asserted in relation to the third agreement granted that "the terms are the same and a like for like as requested" (Supporting Documents (SD), p. 14). On 27 May 2020, the Defendant affirmed that it will not be making any substantive changes to the tenancy on offer (SD, p. 2-3).
2. On 17 May 2020, the Claimant precisely set out for the Defendant what discrepancies exist between the three agreements hitherto granted and the one the Defendant has now offered. Substantial and/or adverse variations include: unspecified visiting support that neither the Claimant nor his wife needs; the removal from the agreement of the rent cap for social housing; the Claimant remaining liable for rent and service charges until the end of the fixed term if the Defendant does not agree to the termination of the tenancy despite the Claimant's one month's notice in advance; and the stipulation of a much shorter length of time in rent arrears for possession (SD, pp. 5-9). To take the last example, the stipulated time in arrears for possession has been reduced from 8 weeks to 14 days. This in itself renders unsignable the tenancy offered, thereby destabilising the Claimant's tenancy and inhibiting his and his wife's ability to exercise their rights. Newham Council has already twice suspended the Claimant's Housing Benefit because of erroneous notifications from the Department for Work and Pensions that he had vacated.
3. The Claimant contends that the Defendant's insistence that it has offered a tenancy "like for like as requested" confers an obligation on it to produce such a document. Instead, the Defendant has falsely accused the Claimant of not signing a like-for-like agreement (SD, p. 14). In a pre-action letter dated 4 May 2020, the Claimant asked for an explanation for why the decision has been made not to provide him with a like-for-like tenancy such as has been issued twice before (SD, p. 12). The Defendant's reply to this pre-action letter is in effect no more than a reiteration of its former and current position (SD, p. 10). Consequently, the Claimant has no legal protection from a 'no fault' eviction in a weekly periodic tenancy, which additionally poses a threat to his life. He is an asthmatic who is almost 60 with a long history of serious respiratory illness, thus placing him in the high-risk group for COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections. The Claimant therefore makes an application for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unlawfully and in dereliction of its duty. Alternatively, the Claimant asks that leave to appeal be granted.
________________________________
[1] Peabody continues to insist that we have been offered like-for-like terms. Really? Their new clause 24 from section D, by no means our only concern, could force any RSI tenant into declaring bankruptcy in any number of scenarios.
Like for like? More comparative screenshots:
3 May: Peabody: The appalling terms of tenancy on offer. Today Declan is working on a pre-action letter to Peabody CEO Brendan Sarsfield under the Human Rights Act 1998 (WITH UPDATE 08/06/20)
1. Since 17 May 2014, the Claimant has been living in a Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) property that is owned by the Defendant. The original two-year term expired in 2016, and again in 2018 but the Defendant agreed to new tenancies on like-for-like terms on both occasions. On 27 April 2020, the Defendant asserted in relation to the third agreement granted that "the terms are the same and a like for like as requested" (Supporting Documents (SD), p. 14). On 27 May 2020, the Defendant affirmed that it will not be making any substantive changes to the tenancy on offer (SD, p. 2-3).
2. On 17 May 2020, the Claimant precisely set out for the Defendant what discrepancies exist between the three agreements hitherto granted and the one the Defendant has now offered. Substantial and/or adverse variations include: unspecified visiting support that neither the Claimant nor his wife needs; the removal from the agreement of the rent cap for social housing; the Claimant remaining liable for rent and service charges until the end of the fixed term if the Defendant does not agree to the termination of the tenancy despite the Claimant's one month's notice in advance; and the stipulation of a much shorter length of time in rent arrears for possession (SD, pp. 5-9). To take the last example, the stipulated time in arrears for possession has been reduced from 8 weeks to 14 days. This in itself renders unsignable the tenancy offered, thereby destabilising the Claimant's tenancy and inhibiting his and his wife's ability to exercise their rights. Newham Council has already twice suspended the Claimant's Housing Benefit because of erroneous notifications from the Department for Work and Pensions that he had vacated.
3. The Claimant contends that the Defendant's insistence that it has offered a tenancy "like for like as requested" confers an obligation on it to produce such a document. Instead, the Defendant has falsely accused the Claimant of not signing a like-for-like agreement (SD, p. 14). In a pre-action letter dated 4 May 2020, the Claimant asked for an explanation for why the decision has been made not to provide him with a like-for-like tenancy such as has been issued twice before (SD, p. 12). The Defendant's reply to this pre-action letter is in effect no more than a reiteration of its former and current position (SD, p. 10). Consequently, the Claimant has no legal protection from a 'no fault' eviction in a weekly periodic tenancy, which additionally poses a threat to his life. He is an asthmatic who is almost 60 with a long history of serious respiratory illness, thus placing him in the high-risk group for COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections. The Claimant therefore makes an application for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unlawfully and in dereliction of its duty. Alternatively, the Claimant asks that leave to appeal be granted.
________________________________
[1] Peabody continues to insist that we have been offered like-for-like terms. Really? Their new clause 24 from section D, by no means our only concern, could force any RSI tenant into declaring bankruptcy in any number of scenarios.
Our existing tenancy specifies one month's notice or four weeks' rent when we want to end the tenancy:
The tenancy on offer states that if we do not give Peabody one month's notice before we want to move out, or they do not explicitly accept a surrender of our tenancy in writing after we have given them a month's notice, we will remain liable for rent and service charges until the end of the fixed term:
The tenancy on offer states that if we do not give Peabody one month's notice before we want to move out, or they do not explicitly accept a surrender of our tenancy in writing after we have given them a month's notice, we will remain liable for rent and service charges until the end of the fixed term:
Like for like? More comparative screenshots:
3 May: Peabody: The appalling terms of tenancy on offer. Today Declan is working on a pre-action letter to Peabody CEO Brendan Sarsfield under the Human Rights Act 1998 (WITH UPDATE 08/06/20)
In his fight for a reasonable degree of justice, this is the "To whom it may concern" letter by Joseph Carvalko that Declan will file with the court in due course in his case against St Mungo's:
In the Matter of: Mr. and Mrs. Declan Heavey
To whom it may concern:
I am a U.S. attorney writing to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Declan Heavey, publishing colleagues of mine, in their current struggle to avoid an eviction in London. Permit me to introduce myself and summarize the Heaveys' predicament.
For four decades I have practiced law in the U.S. I also have spent many years teaching law, where currently I am Adjunct Professor of Law, Science and Technology, Quinnipiac University, School of Law. I also hold other positions in academia and professional organizations such as Chairman, Yale Technology and Ethics working group, Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics, member of the Community Bioethics Forum, Yale School of Medicine, and a member of Publications Board, IEEE Transactions on the Implications of Technology in Society.
In my various roles I have written many books and articles, this last point connecting me to the Heaveys, who are engaged in an important project that deals with the publication of issues significant to social policy in a number of key areas, e.g., population, climate change, futurism, atheism, and free speech. Established as Network for Church Monitoring, a nonprofit company limited by guarantee, their main publication, found at the website, Church and State, has no less than 59 Nobel Laureates on it, 16 of whom signed on as Honorary Associates. I might add that the list of 276 associates also includes 10 recipients of the U.S. National Medal of Science, 12 knighted professors. There are contributions to the site by six members of the House of Lords, 29 knighted professors.
The Heaveys have aided my publication efforts, vis-à-vis articles about bioethics and technology law, principally the role these fields play in conserving humanity in an era of hyper-technological progress. Mine is not a particularly controversial topic, but the Heaveys have courageously undertaken to call attention to other subjects, not the least which have been critical of the interaction between religious and secular institutions. The Heaveys have been the target of numerous threats and actions, e.g., the former resulting in "threats to Mr. Heavey's life," and the latter, which have led to vandalism. The various incidents are on record with the police and other official agencies.
With the background as provided above, the Heaveys now are facing an eviction notice from their landlord, Peabody Trust housing association. The tenancy is a flat, which falls under the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative. Pardoning my intrusion into English law, but in fairness there does not appear to be any reason for the eviction, relying apparently entirely on the discretion of the landlord.
The eviction matter has come before His Honour Senior Circuit Judge Marc Dight at the County Court at Central London. The Court will notify of remote hearing details in due course, when both the legal representative for St. Mungo's (the charity in effective control of the tenancy) and Mr. Heavey would present their positions. Both Mr. Heavey and St. Mungo's had written to the court explaining that an adjournment would be appropriate, and that it is not a matter which could be conducted by telecon due to Mr. Heavey being unrepresented. I might add the Heaveys do not have the funds to hire a solicitor in this matter. The problem as perceived by the Heaveys is that Peabody Trust, under a Section 21, which they fully expect to receive on or about 17 May, will force them to vacate. Vacating would be consequential as they have no means by which they can secure housing at this time.
I appreciate that as we are undergoing the Covid-19 pandemic, so are you, which may present obstacles in representation. However, especially during this pandemic, an eviction, especially into the streets, might well pose an unimaginable threat to the Heaveys' well-being.
Thank you for the opportunity to call your attention to this urgent matter. If you can assist please let me know, or reach out directly to the Heaveys at dheavey@gmail.com.
Very truly yours,
Joseph R. Carvalko, Jr. Esq.
Update 8 June 2020
This is DAY 23 for us in a weekly periodic tenancy under the threat to life of a 'no fault' Section 21 eviction notice. In summation, Declan contends that the appalling fixed-term tenancy offered is not remotely a like-for-like agreement. He further contends that Peabody's insistence that they have offered a tenancy "like for like as requested" confers an obligation on them to produce such a document. Instead, we have been falsely accused of not signing a like-for-like agreement and in a weekly periodic tenancy have no legal protection from a 'no fault' eviction. Declan has yet to make his case against St Mungo's in front of Senior Circuit Judge Marc Dight CBE for the support we need. St Mungo's are still prepared to take their chances in court rather than the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's Tenancy Sustainment Team in North London (TST North) even take a phone call to confirm that we are clients of theirs. It has become apparent from connective evidence gathered during these proceedings that we currently live in a weekly periodic tenancy because of this effective withdrawal of support. We are making a calculated decision on a daily basis as to whether or not Declan will file against Peabody on the day. We may be left with no choice on this should HHJ Dight dismiss evidence connecting St Mungo's to the destabilisation of our tenancy that inhibits our ability to exercise our rights and poses a threat to his life. Declan has already been forced to suspend his voluntary work in the community. This morning I have done the same due to the ongoing destabilisation of our tenancy.
Mayor of London RSI property
DAY 23 in a weekly periodic tenancy
Subject to a Section 21 notice
This is DAY 23 for us in a weekly periodic tenancy under the threat to life of a 'no fault' Section 21 eviction notice. In summation, Declan contends that the appalling fixed-term tenancy offered is not remotely a like-for-like agreement. He further contends that Peabody's insistence that they have offered a tenancy "like for like as requested" confers an obligation on them to produce such a document. Instead, we have been falsely accused of not signing a like-for-like agreement and in a weekly periodic tenancy have no legal protection from a 'no fault' eviction. Declan has yet to make his case against St Mungo's in front of Senior Circuit Judge Marc Dight CBE for the support we need. St Mungo's are still prepared to take their chances in court rather than the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's Tenancy Sustainment Team in North London (TST North) even take a phone call to confirm that we are clients of theirs. It has become apparent from connective evidence gathered during these proceedings that we currently live in a weekly periodic tenancy because of this effective withdrawal of support. We are making a calculated decision on a daily basis as to whether or not Declan will file against Peabody on the day. We may be left with no choice on this should HHJ Dight dismiss evidence connecting St Mungo's to the destabilisation of our tenancy that inhibits our ability to exercise our rights and poses a threat to his life. Declan has already been forced to suspend his voluntary work in the community. This morning I have done the same due to the ongoing destabilisation of our tenancy.
Mayor of London RSI property
DAY 23 in a weekly periodic tenancy
Subject to a Section 21 notice
Who can say that Declan does not have opposition?
Declan currently has the Royal Bank of Scotland (along with NatWest Bank) before the Financial Ombudsman for the cancellation of a standing order on the Network for Church Monitoring business account without his knowledge or consent. And this after he received £100 compensation from the RBS in recognition of his time, travel costs and inconvenience in setting up this and another standing order on 12 February. He has been waiting since 25 February for NatWest to confirm who subsequently cancelled the standing order and why his salary wasn't paid. His salary continues to be paid online by quick transfer from the business account to his personal account.
15 May: Royal Bank of Scotland: Despite his earlier dealings with the RBS Executive Response Team, Declan has been waiting almost three months to learn from Natwest Bank who cancelled a standing order on the Network for Church Monitoring business account without his knowledge or consent (Financial Ombudsman case ref. PNX-3576860-D6B8)
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Headquarters in Gogarburn. The RBS owns National Westminster Bank (NatWest).
Declan currently has the Royal Bank of Scotland (along with NatWest Bank) before the Financial Ombudsman for the cancellation of a standing order on the Network for Church Monitoring business account without his knowledge or consent. And this after he received £100 compensation from the RBS in recognition of his time, travel costs and inconvenience in setting up this and another standing order on 12 February. He has been waiting since 25 February for NatWest to confirm who subsequently cancelled the standing order and why his salary wasn't paid. His salary continues to be paid online by quick transfer from the business account to his personal account.
15 May: Royal Bank of Scotland: Despite his earlier dealings with the RBS Executive Response Team, Declan has been waiting almost three months to learn from Natwest Bank who cancelled a standing order on the Network for Church Monitoring business account without his knowledge or consent (Financial Ombudsman case ref. PNX-3576860-D6B8)
St Mungos management were repeatedly warned by their staff via Unite that their actions weere unethical, damaged the work of front line staff and were likley to be unlawful. The same senior managers remain in place https://t.co/ZSXwq3Xd81 #homelessness #ukhousing @labhomeless_cam
— UniteHousingWorkers (@UniteHousing) November 5, 2019
UPDATE 8 June 2020
Claimant: Declan Heavey
Defendant: St Mungo's
What the issue in these court proceedings boils down to is whether the court will decide that Declan and I should live in a destabilised tenancy that inhibits our ability to exercise our rights and poses a threat to his life, simply because the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's Tenancy Sustainment Team in North London (TST North) will not even take a phone call to confirm that we are clients of theirs. The court must surely find that this is not proportionate and lawful.
3 April: Declan's claim against the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's before Senior Circuit Judge Marc Dight CBE has been adjourned to a date to be fixed. St Mungo's TST is still unwilling to even take a phone call to confirm that we are clients of theirs (WITH UPDATE 08/06/20)
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan
Claimant: Declan Heavey
Defendant: St Mungo's
What the issue in these court proceedings boils down to is whether the court will decide that Declan and I should live in a destabilised tenancy that inhibits our ability to exercise our rights and poses a threat to his life, simply because the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's Tenancy Sustainment Team in North London (TST North) will not even take a phone call to confirm that we are clients of theirs. The court must surely find that this is not proportionate and lawful.
3 April: Declan's claim against the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's before Senior Circuit Judge Marc Dight CBE has been adjourned to a date to be fixed. St Mungo's TST is still unwilling to even take a phone call to confirm that we are clients of theirs (WITH UPDATE 08/06/20)
From My Picks
2 June: In the Matter of: Mr. and Mrs. Declan Heavey. Declan receives a character reference from America for the court and this blog that completely and utterly discredits the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's smear documentation against him in particular. We are in a flat that falls under the Mayor's Rough Sleepers Initiative
Declan taught PE in Glenstal Abbey, one of Ireland's top schools.
2 June: In the Matter of: Mr. and Mrs. Declan Heavey. Declan receives a character reference from America for the court and this blog that completely and utterly discredits the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's smear documentation against him in particular. We are in a flat that falls under the Mayor's Rough Sleepers Initiative
"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 (1930-2020), (then) President, Americans for Religious Liberty
http://churchandstate.org.uk/about/
