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).
DJ Ruth Fine orders Declan to pay £1,850 in costs
02/07/20
Looks like they could use a bit more money—another $300 would no doubt be a big lift.
There must be a large handling fee for the money transfer!
The poor apparently are still treated in London like Oliver Twist!
So glad you made the transfer so promptly.
These are remarkable people!
Donald A. Collins, Sr.
Founder, International Services Assistance Fund
The Central London County Court is based at the Royal Courts of Justice.
(2020)
Application hearing for strike out held by conference call before the Central London County Court on 30 June 2020.
What the issue in these court proceedings boiled down to was whether the Court would 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) would not even take a phone call to confirm that we are clients of theirs. Declan argued that this was not proportionate and lawful. But District Judge Ruth Fine agreed with counsel for St Mungo's that TST North was not obliged to take such a phone call and ordered him to pay £1,850 in costs. Declan had asked the Judge to take into consideration that St Mungo's had clocked up exorbitant legal fees without mentioning this phone call in their application for strike out.[1] Less than a week later, TST North had agreed to take this phone call for us both. But our landlord Peabody Trust will not renew our tenancy like for like as twice before, thereby preventing us from engaging the Mayor's TST service due to the ongoing destabilisation of our tenancy (Housing Ombudsman ref: 202002510).
30 June:
District Judge Ruth Fine orders Declan to pay £1,850 in costs. St Mungo's are under no obligation to even vouch over the phone that we are clients of the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's TST programme (WITH UPDATE 05/08/20)
__________________________
[1] Bankruptcy averted! On 23 June
Batchelors Solicitors sent Declan their costs amounting to £3,407.50. The counsel for St Mungo's asked the Judge to make him pay that exact amount even though, at the time of submitting these costs to the court, St Mungo's had never mentioned the phone call which was the essence of Declan's claim against this taxpayer-funded charity (who's turnover in 2017/18 came to
£89.6 million). Declan's debt to St Mungo's was cleared by a publishing colleague within 24 hours of my blog post above.
Declan and I are housed in a flat owned by
Peabody that is part of the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) programme. Alongside our tenancy is access to the Mayor's Tenancy Sustainment Team (TST) at
St Mungo's. We are still waiting for District Judge Ruth Fine's Order from the hearing on 30 June (see above). According to the Court on Wednesday of last week, "The Judge has probably done the order but nothing has been drawn up and sent out at the moment." It has come at a cost, but two things are now indisputable: (1) Neither Declan nor I have "the vulnerabilities of those presenting with addictions or mental illness" (Skeleton Argument, Counsel for St Mungo's, para. 5). (2) It is presented as a statement of fact by St Mungo's that our support needs are "solely related to the belief-related harassment, discrimination, intimidation and victimisation" we routinely face (Skeleton Argument, Counsel for St Mungo's, para. 19(a)). In accordance with its complaints procedure, our landlord Peabody has 10 working days to provide a response to a complaint from the date of its submission. After 18 of these working days had passed a week ago to the day, on 9 July, the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) gave Peabody an additional 21 days to respond to his Stage 1 complaint about the appalling new terms of tenancy on offer. This is day 61 for us in a weekly periodic tenancy under the threat to life of a 'no fault' Section 21 eviction notice. If Declan has exhausted Peabody's formal complaints procedure, HOS has asked them to send him the final response. This email on behalf of Peabody CEO
Brendan Sarsfield last month has yet to be honoured in any way despite HOS's intervention last week:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 11:47, Chelsey Smith wrote:
Good Morning Mr Heavey
Thank you for your form and comparison screenshots. Our Customer Hub have passed these over to us as your case and response you received from Rosealeen was as a result of your contact with us.
I have escalated this to a Stage 1 complaint for you, your reference number will remain the same as before CAS-506345-C3J0K0. Your case officer will be Sonia Palfrey. She is currently away from the office until the 22nd, but will investigate and respond to you on her return.
Please be advised that we aim to provide a response to Stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, however if that will not be possible for any reason, your case officer will advise you and will let you know when you can expect to receive her reply.
Kind regards
Chelsey Smith | sent on behalf of CEO | Brendan Sarsfield
Declan submitted this complaint on 15 June:
What is your complaint (Please add as much detail as possible including any reference numbers you may have)?
CAS-506345-C3J0K0
My wife and I have been living in a Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiate (RSI) property that is owned by Peabody. Our tenancy has been twice renewed like for like as requested. The original two-year term expired in 2016, and again in 2018 but Peabody agreed to new tenancies on like-for-like terms on both occasions. In an email of 27 April, Housing Officer Rukia Khatun asserted in relation to the third agreement granted that "the terms are the same and a like for like as requested". In a further email of 1 May, Ms Khatun falsely accused me of not signing a like-for-like agreement.
On 27 May I received an email from Area Housing Manager Rosealeen Sogunro about the third renewal of our tenancy. I responded to this email the next day. Taking both of these emails into consideration, together with an updated document titled 'Comparative Screenshots', please can you formally respond to me under your complaints process (stage one). As requested, these documents to support my complaint will be emailed to you after I have submitted this form. It remains my contention that Ms Sogunro's apparent insistence that I have been offered a tenancy "like for like as requested" confers an obligation on her to produce such a document. Instead, my wife and I have been falsely accused by Ms Khatun of not signing a like-for-like agreement, and I have been provided by Ms Sogunro with assurances that are not reflected in the template agreement to which she refers.
My wife and I are currently not protected from a 'no fault' eviction in a weekly periodic tenancy. Despite Ms Sogunro's assurance that no action of this sort will be taken, our legal position in respect to Section 21 possession poses a 'threat to life'. It also has a destabilising effect on our tenancy and inhibits our ability to exercise our rights. For example, my wife cannot resume a volunteer position she held in the community for four years. I am also forced to maintain a suspension on my voluntary work in the community.
There is too much pressure and uncertainty for us to be even able to volunteer in the community. In addition to holding down two part-time jobs, we are battling St Mungo's (in court) and Peabody to stabilise our tenancy under the threat to life of a 'no fault' Section 21 eviction notice. Last week I had to deal with both Newham Benefits Service and Peabody because our weekly rent transactions have not been appearing in your customers' portal since 18 May (the day after our fixed-term tenancy ended). This level of pressure and uncertainty is not only unfair to us, but also is unfair to the community centre my wife has been volunteering in since June 2016.
How would you like us to resolve your complaint?
To resolve my complaint I request a tenancy like for like as requested, as has been issued twice before, and not a tenancy agreement that is not remotely the same document. Substantial and/or adverse variations include: unspecified visiting support that neither I nor my wife needs; the removal from the agreement of the rent cap for social housing; the both of us remaining liable for rent and service charges until the end of the fixed term if Peabody does not agree to the termination of the tenancy despite our one month's notice in advance; and the stipulation of a much shorter length of time in rent arrears for possession.
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 our tenancy and inhibiting our ability to exercise our rights. Newham Council has already twice suspended my housing benefit because of erroneous notifications from the Department for Work and Pensions that we had vacated. We have not had any contact with the Department during our tenancy due to being part-time employed.
I reiterate in conclusion that I have no legal protection from a 'no fault' eviction in a weekly periodic tenancy, which poses a threat to my life. I am an asthmatic who is almost 60 with a long history of serious respiratory illness, thus placing me in the high-risk group for COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections. That my wife and I should be forced to live under the threat to life of a 'no fault' Section 21 eviction notice in an RSI designated property in these circumstances is wholly unacceptable. There is no question that such an eviction would return us to the streets for the third time through no fault of our own, and this time with little or no prospect of ever being housed again.
"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
