Declan replies to Andrew McCarthy, Head of Quality and Information Security at St Mungo's about the defamatory information being held him (WITH UPDATE 31/08/20)

27 August 2020

Dear Mr McCarthy,

I refer to your letter and respectfully request that you deal only in writing with me about this complaint.

This allegation against me has caused and is causing distress and I do not wish to compound the situation with another phone call. I might add that the seriousness of the allegation is not just that it is a fabricated lie that undermines both my and my wife's supported housing tenancy and me personally. It also raises the serious question of what I am going to be falsely accused of next. This is deeply concerning.

The fabricated lie is now presented as what I could have said (it's your word against ours). This is wholly unacceptable. My complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office is another matter entirely. I would be willing to deal with you about my ICO complaint, but only after I have received assurance from you that "the record" to which you refer has been deleted. I have been informed by the ICO that it could take an investigator three months to get back to me. This would give us some time to "put things right", as you say.

Please note that I will not deal with any aspect of my complaint with the ICO so long as this defamatory statement remains on the record.

Yours sincerely,

Declan Heavey

31 August: Declan is currently battling the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's for the removal of defamatory information from their database. His complaint has been assigned to Andrew McCarthy, Head of Quality and Information Security at St Mungo's

HM Revenue and Customs (day 11): Declan has written to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Will he be able today to submit his return online without facing prosecution, when he could have done so last February (WITH UPDATE 28/08/20)

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).

For the first time in the life of Network for Church Monitoring, Declan has been prevented from delivering a Company Tax Return (CT600) for Corporation Tax with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) using their online services. Since 16 August, every time he tries to submit his return online, the company's gross profit figures for the accounting period to 31 January 2020 and the previous accounting period are deleted in the accounts before submission. This was not a problem last February when he could have filed with HMRC accounts that were accepted by Companies House earlier this month. He has heard back from HMRC this morning. He has been asked to delete his submission and to create a new submission. No issue has been identified as an explanation for what has happened and the inconvenience caused. Last Friday he brought to the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Rt Hon Jesse Norman MP, this recorded letter to Jim Harra, Chief Executive and First Permanent Secretary at HMRC:

21 August 2020

Mr Jim Harra
Chief Executive and First Permanent Secretary
HM Revenue and Customs
100 Parliament Street
London
SW1A 2BQ

UTR: ****************

Dear Mr Harra

I have been unable to submit my return online for the past six days. I sent my complaint using your online form on 17/08/2020. The complaint is still being processed (ref: ASV-BPR7-650).

I respectfully request that I be permitted to submit online the return that I could have filed on 16/02/2020, including accounts that were accepted by Companies House on 09/08/2020. On 17/08/2020 I paid the corporation tax that HMRC calculated in that return at https://www.scribd.com/document/472712505/Company-Tax-Return-CT600.

Yours sincerely


Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring



Only this month has Declan been prevented from submitting the return above because the draft accounts produced for his approval prior to filing are prosecutable. The gross profit figures go from this (correct):



... to this for his approval prior filing (incorrect):



UPDATE 28 August (10.50am): Two days ago, Declan deleted his submission and created a new submission. This was the 11th day in a row that he tried to get HMRC to accept his return for Corporation Tax. At last he was successful and HMRC accepted his accounts this morning. He does not have to pay one penny more or less in corporation tax based on HMRC's calculation in the return last February. This is his email to HMRC highlighting that no issue has been identified by them as an explanation for what has happened and the inconvenience caused:

For the attention of Lesley Regan, HMRC Ministerial Correspondence Team, Solicitors Office and Legal Services (ref. CETO/28239/2020)

Pauline Parker 
Complaints Manager
HMRC Digital Complaints Team

Address removed for email


26 August 2020

Dear Ms Parker,

Thank you for your email about the problem I am having with the submission of my return online for Corporation Tax. 

Before I commence the workaround you suggest by selecting the 'Create a new submission' button on the 'Track your submissions' page, please find attached a screenshot of the 'Track your submissions' page that you have no access to.

The 'Track your submissions' page reveals that I selected the 'HMRC only' filing option (as in previous years), although I note that you have not identified this or any other issue as the explanation for what has happened and the inconvenience caused.

I will now start a new return by selecting the 'Create a new submission' button on the 'Track your submissions' page. I will also be sure to make a screenshot of every page as I progress through your submission process.

If after trying the workaround I am still unable to submit my company return, I will then provide you with a file containing all of these screenshots for your further investigation.

Yours sincerely,

Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring

Who can say that Declan does not have opposition?

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Headquarters in Gogarburn. The RBS owns National Westminster Bank (NatWest).

Declan currently has NatWest Bank (owned by The Royal Bank of Scotland) before the Financial Ombudsman Service for the cancellation of a replacement standing order on the Network for Church Monitoring business account without his knowledge or consent. And this after he received an email from RBS on 17 February confirming that this standing order was active, as well as £100 compensation in recognition of his "time, travel costs and inconvenience" in setting up this and another replacement standing order on 12 February. He has been waiting since 25 February for NatWest Complaints to confirm who cancelled the standing order between this email on 17 February and the non-payment of his salary on 24 February. His salary continues to be paid online by quick transfer from the business account to his personal account pending this explanation.

25 August: Facebook's first quadruple block (day 22). Declan may have to ask an ombudsman to look at his complaint against NatWest afresh. It seems that the bank are still saying, in effect, that there was no active Standing order payable to himself on 17 February despite RBS's email to the contrary

The vast majority of my emails seeking permission to republish material on Church and State have been blocked since last March. This applies in particular to articles relating to space travel. What's so special about space travel?



24 May: Excessively targeted category: One of these 24 emails Declan sent to knighted professors yesterday has been read this morning. The only one read! Today Declan will try getting through to 21 Nobel Prize laureates (WITH UPDATE 27/05/20)

"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

Facebook's first quadruple block (day 22). Declan may have to ask an ombudsman to look at his complaint against NatWest afresh. It seems that the bank are still saying, in effect, that there was no active standing order payable to himself on 17 February despite RBS's email to the contrary

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).

Financial Ombudsman Service complaint

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Headquarters in Gogarburn. The RBS owns National Westminster Bank (NatWest).

Declan currently has NatWest Bank (owned by The Royal Bank of Scotland) before the Financial Ombudsman Service for the cancellation of a replacement standing order on the Network for Church Monitoring business account without his knowledge or consent. And this after he received an email from RBS on 17 February confirming that this standing order was active, as well as £100 compensation in recognition of his "time, travel costs and inconvenience" in setting up this and another replacement standing order on 12 February. He has been waiting since 25 February for NatWest Complaints to confirm who cancelled the standing order between this email on 17 February and the non-payment of his salary on 24 February. His salary continues to be paid online by quick transfer from the business account to his personal account pending this explanation.

On 3 August an investigator at the Financial Ombudsman Service came back to Declan much the same way as before and since. "I have now gone back to NatWest and asked them for further clarification about who cancelled the standing order." she wrote. "I can't seem to understand why the standing order was set up for both of you on the 11 Feb 2020 and then the standing order in your name cancelled on the 12th Feb 2020." So RBS still got it wrong on 17 February when they assured Declan that there were two active replacement standing orders on the Network for Church Monitoring account payable to himself and me? See the full email from RBS here. Perhaps Declan will have to ask for an ombudsman to make a decision on his complaint. The case will then be referred to an ombudsman who will look at the matter afresh. He replied to the investigator on 3 August as follows:

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 19:04, Declan Heavey wrote:
Dear Ms Darbar,

Thank you for your email. Please find below an email from RBS Executive Case Manager Mandy Durkin dated 17 February. She writes:

"All previous lapsed and incorrect standing orders have been cancelled. There are now two remaining active standing orders that have been set up as you requested, one payable to yourself and one payable to Mrs Heavey, for the amount of £140 fortnightly. The instructions are set up with an initial payment date of 24 February 2020 and a final payment date of 8 February 2021, against the reference *****400."

Two things are indisputable in light of this email from the RBS. (1) Two replacement standing orders were set up at NatWest Stratford Broadway branch in February 2020 (this was in fact done on 12 February). (2) The replacement standing order to myself had been successfully actioned before it was cancelled by NatWest sometime between 17-24 February. The replacement standing order to myself that was set up on 12 February could not have been cancelled before 17 February, since Ms Durkin's email is dated 17 February. It also could not have been cancelled after the non-payment of my salary on 24 February.

It seems that NatWest have repeatedly attempted to mislead you into thinking that there was no active standing order to myself on 17 February. This is plainly false. Two replacement standing orders were evidently both still active on 17 February (the date of Ms Durkin's email).

I am still waiting to learn from NatWest who cancelled without my knowledge or consent the replacement standing order to myself that was active on 17 February (NatWest case ref. PHO-0265369320). My salary continues to be paid online every two weeks by quick transfer from the business account to my personal account pending this explanation. It was only last Thursday that a cashier at NatWest Stratford Broadway branch manually changed my name to D * Henry without my knowledge before I transferred £1,850 to St Mungo's Broadway. I am also waiting for NatWest to acknowledge receipt of my in-branch complaint in this regard (please see attachment).

I trust the above together with Ms Durkin's email answers your questions.

Yours sincerely,

Declan Heavey

Declan has started a new campaign using his mobile phone to try to get his emails through to people in America in particular.

24 May: Excessively targeted category: One of these 24 emails Declan sent to knighted professors yesterday has been read this morning. The only one read! Today Declan will try getting through to 21 Nobel Prize laureates (WITH UPDATE 27/05/20)

Facebook's quadruple block updated:

Facebook's first quadruple block: (1) I can't scroll after seeing 4-5 posts in groups I belong to (22 days); (2) I can't post in these groups (38 days); (3) I can't post in our Page (39 days); (4) I can't access a list of my groups (481 days). On 18 July, I was threatened with the termination of my account without reason or cause.

Facebook's 78th block (day 22): This makes their first quadruple block against Church and State

04/08/20: "Since this morning, I haven't been able to scroll after seeing 4-5 posts in groups I belong to. Please see screenshot attached."

I can't scroll after seeing 4-5 postings in groups I belong to (22 days). This is Facebook's 78th block against Church and State since 1 December 2015, and their 17th block this year. I also can't post in these groups (38 days). I can't post in our Page (39 days). And I can't access a list of my groups (481 days). Facebook's first quadruple block against Church and State continues unabated!

Facebook's 77th block (day 38): This is now part of their first quadruple block against Church and State

"We limit how often you can post, comment or do other things in a given amount of time in order to help protect the community from spam." 19/07/20: "I wish to appeal your decision this evening to block me from posting in groups. Every time I attempt to post in a group I belong to, I am blocked with your notification titled 'You can't use this feature at the moment'. It seems that I am now being falsely accused of posting spam. Please note that I do not and never have posted spam in groups I belong to. To the best of my knowledge, my postings comply with Facebook's policies. I always take care to ensure that my postings comply with all applicable laws, statutes and regulations, and not one of my postings has been identified as failing any of these standards."

I am unable to post in groups I belong to (38 days). I am blocked with a notification seemingly falsely accusing me of posting spam. This is Facebook's 77th block against Church and State since 1 December 2015, and their 16th block this year. I also can't scroll after seeing 4-5 postings in these groups (22 days). I can't post in our Page (39 days). And I can't access a list of my groups (481 days). Facebook's first quadruple block against Church and State continues unabated!

Facebook's 76th block (day 39): Having threatened to terminate my account without reason or cause, now I am blocked from posting in our Page. We received District Judge Ruth Fine's Order eight days after the 21-day time limit for appeal had expired

DAY 101 IN A WEEKLY PERIODIC TENANCY
SUBJECT TO A 'NO FAULT' SECTION 21 NOTICE
MAYOR OF LONDON RSI PROPERTY

14/04/20

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 here)

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).

18/07/20: "I wish to appeal your decision today to block me without explanation from posting in my Page, Network for Church Monitoring. I have no notification in my Support Inbox about this block. All I did receive this morning was a warning that my account is at risk of being disabled (see attachment). This warning was issued without reason or cause and came with no specific information about what I am supposed to be doing wrong. To the best of my knowledge, my postings comply with Facebook's policies. I always take care to ensure that my postings comply with all applicable laws, statutes and regulations, and not one of my postings has been identified as failing any of these standards."

Currently we are up to Facebook's 78th block against Church and State since 1 December 2015, and as usual without an explanation. The 76th block above, which has prevented me from posting in our Page for the past 39 days, records as their 15th block this year and as one of four blocks. I also can't scroll after seeing 4-5 posts in groups I belong to (22 days); I can't post in these groups (38 days); and I can't access a list of my groups (481 days). Declan and I are housed in a flat, owned by Peabody Trust, that is part of the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative programme. Alongside our tenancy is access to the Mayor's Tenancy Sustainment Team at St Mungo's (the charity in effective control of our tenancy). On 28 July we received District Judge Fine's Order eight days after the 21-day time limit for appeal had expired. A publishing colleague in America had cleared the Judge's costs order within 24 hours of my blog post about this hearing of St Mungo's application for strike out.

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.

Heavey v St Mungo's (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 25/08/20)

__________________________

[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.

Who can say that Declan does not have opposition?

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Headquarters in Gogarburn. The RBS owns National Westminster Bank (NatWest).

Declan currently has NatWest Bank (owned by The Royal Bank of Scotland) before the Financial Ombudsman Service for the cancellation of a replacement standing order on the Network for Church Monitoring business account without his knowledge or consent. And this after he received an email from RBS on 17 February confirming that this standing order was active, as well as £100 compensation in recognition of his "time, travel costs and inconvenience" in setting up this and another replacement standing order on 12 February. He has been waiting since 25 February for NatWest Complaints to confirm who cancelled the standing order between this email on 17 February and the non-payment of his salary on 24 February. His salary continues to be paid online by quick transfer from the business account to his personal account pending this explanation.

25 August: Facebook's first quadruple block (day 22). Declan may have to ask an ombudsman to look at his complaint against NatWest afresh. It seems that the bank are still saying, in effect, that there was no active Standing order payable to himself on 17 February despite RBS's email to the contrary

It has to be indisputable that with any sort of level playing field Church and State would have far exceeded the 5.7 million hits we had last year, as well as our 2 million hits this year (see the last paragraph under "Church and State" on this blog's sidebar). Our top five articles have 6.5 million Facebook likes/shares between them.

One of C's roles is as managing director of Network for Church Monitoring. Neither C nor his wife have the vulnerabilities of those presenting with addictions or mental illness.

Skeleton Argument, Counsel for St Mungo's

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

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

Our list of 281 Honorary Associates includes 16 Nobel Prize laureates, 11 US National Medal of Science laureates and 12 knighted professors notwithstanding the excessive targeting of these three categories of emails in particular.

http://churchandstate.org.uk/honorary-associates/

"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

Housing Ombudsman Service: Declan has written to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. We're still waiting for Peabody to respond to his Stage 1 complaint of over two months ago

DAY 100 IN A WEEKLY PERIODIC TENANCY
SUBJECT TO A 'NO FAULT' SECTION 21 NOTICE
MAYOR OF LONDON RSI PROPERTY

14/04/20

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 here)

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.

Heavey v St Mungo's (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 the 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 24/08/20)

__________________________

[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 Trust, that is part of the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative programme. Alongside our tenancy is access to the Mayor's Tenancy Sustainment Team (TST) at St Mungo's. On 28 July we received District Judge Ruth Fine's Order from the hearing on 30 June (see above). 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)). This is day 100 for us in a weekly periodic tenancy under the threat to life of a 'no fault' Section 21 eviction notice. Less than a week after the hearing on 30 June, St Mungo's TST North had agreed to take the phone call that was the essence of Declan's claim. They are now willing to vouch over the phone that we are both clients of this Mayor of London TST service. But Peabody will not renew our tenancy like for like as twice before, thereby preventing us from engaging TST North due to the ongoing destabilisation of our tenancy. This month the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) reneged on a commitment to write to Peabody, five weeks after they last sought a response to Declan's Stage 1 complaint below about the appalling terms of tenancy on offer. He subsequently wrote to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP. The next day HOS wrote, "A request has been sent to the Landlord today that it respond to your complaint by 28 August 2020." We're still waiting for Peabody to respond to the complaint of 15 June.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 14:29, Declan Heavey wrote:
For the attention of Richard Blakeway, Housing Ombudsman

Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP
Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Address removed for email

BY MHCLG CONTACT FORM

13 August 2020

Dear Secretary of State,

I wish to bring to your attention my email yesterday to the Housing Ombudsman below.

I am still none the wiser today whether my case is being handled by the Housing Ombudsman Service or not.

Yours sincerely,

Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring

This was an email Declan received on behalf of Peabody CEO Brendan Sarsfield three weeks before HOS first wrote to them on 9 July for a response to his complaint:

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 his Stage 1 complaint to Peabody two weeks before the hearing of St Mungo's application for strike out. This is that complaint that still requires a response:

What is your complaint (Please add as much detail as possible including any reference numbers you may have)?

Ref: 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.

Submitted 15/06/20

Comparative screenshots

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:

Like for like? More comparative screenshots:

3 May: Peabody Trust: The appalling terms of tenancy on offer. Declan will seek from the Housing Ombudsman a declaration of incompatibility pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998 (WITH UPDATE 24/08/20)

Who can say that Declan does not have opposition?

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Headquarters in Gogarburn. The RBS owns National Westminster Bank (NatWest).

Declan currently has NatWest Bank (owned by The Royal Bank of Scotland) before the Financial Ombudsman Service for the cancellation of a replacement standing order on the Network for Church Monitoring business account without his knowledge or consent. And this after he received an email from RBS on 17 February confirming that this standing order was active, as well as £100 compensation in recognition of his "time, travel costs and inconvenience" in setting up this and another replacement standing order on 12 February. He has been waiting since 25 February for NatWest Complaints to confirm who cancelled the standing order between this email on 17 February and the non-payment of his salary on 24 February. His salary continues to be paid online by quick transfer from the business account to his personal account pending this explanation.

24 August: Facebook's first quadruple block (day 21). Declan may have to ask an ombudsman to look at his complaint against NatWest afresh. It seems that the bank are still saying, in effect, that there was no active Standing order payable to himself on 17 February despite RBS's email to the contrary

One of C's roles is as managing director of Network for Church Monitoring. Neither C nor his wife have the vulnerabilities of those presenting with addictions or mental illness.

Skeleton Argument, Counsel for St Mungo's

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

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

"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

This week St Mungo's wrote to Declan that the customer reference on his payment of £1,850 by court order could not be changed. Will the Financial Ombudsman Service uphold his complaint against NatWest for what happened and what it has cost him to resolve it?

10/08/20

I have sent email correspondence today addressed to St Mungo's Chief Executive, Steve Douglas CBE confirming that the error was entirely NatWest's fault ... I have therefore requested that St Mungo's confirm with you directly that the payment has been correctly allocated on their records in the customer name of Mr Declan * Heavey, in respect of the Court Order dated 30 June 2020.

Julie Whittaker, Complaint Specialist, NatWest Complaints Team

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).

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.

Heavey v St Mungo's (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 12/08/20)

__________________________

[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.

On Monday NatWest Complaints wrote to St Mungo's CEO Steve Douglas CBE about the Bank's error in the electronic transfer on 30 July of Declan's payment of £1,850 to St Mungo's by court order - a cashier at NatWest Stratford Broadway branch manually changed his name from Mr Declan * Heavey to Mr D * Henry without his knowledge. Within possibly a couple of hours of NatWest's email to Steve Douglas, Declan was informed by St Mungo's that the customer reference on the payment could not be changed by them. Yesterday we were still waiting for St Mungo's to provide Declan with the confirmation NatWest sought at the highest level of this charity; namely, that "the payment has been correctly allocated on their records in the customer name of Mr Declan * Heavey", to quote from NatWest's subsequent email letter to him. So yesterday afternoon Declan referred his complaint against NatWest to the Financial Ombudsman Service (see further below), and then sent a copy of the complaint to all and sundry. Yesterday evening (at 6.31pm) he received an email from St Mungo's seemingly indicating that he now has an account with St Mungo's. That's new! But at least we have the equivalent of some sort of receipt. The question now is will the Financial Ombudsman Service uphold Declan's complaint against NatWest yesterday for what happened and what it has cost him in terms of time, effort and inconvenience (not to mention distress) to resolve it?

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 18:31, Andrew Smith wrote:
Dear Mr Heavey, 

I acknowledge receipt of £1,850 from you and have allocated this against your account. 

Yours sincerely, 

Andrew Smith ACA
Financial Controller
St Mungo's



Tell us about your complaint - what happened?
On 10 August 2020, NatWest Complaints wrote to St Mungo's CEO Steve Douglas about the Bank's error in the electronic transfer on 30 July 2020 of my payment of £1,850 to St Mungo's by court order - a cashier at NatWest Stratford Broadway branch manually changed my name from Mr Declan * Heavey to Mr D * Henry without my knowledge. Within possibly a couple of hours of NatWest's email to Mr Douglas, I was informed by St Mungo's that the customer reference on the payment cannot be changed by them. I am still seeking from St Mungo's the confirmation NatWest sought from Mr Douglas; namely, that "the payment has been correctly allocated on their records in the customer name of Mr Declan * Heavey", to quote from NatWest's subsequent email letter to me (attached).

How have you been affected - financially or otherwise?
This matter continues to cause me distress and inconvenience because I am still dealing with St Mungo's for the confirmation sought to put things right for me. I have been dealing with this particular matter continually since 30 July 2020 and still there has been no resolution of my complaint against NatWest because of the absence of this confirmation from St Mungo's. There can be no resolution of my complaint against NatWest without this confirmation because of the increased concern generated by the absence of it. The question is raised: why wouldn't St Mungo's provide the confirmation sought by the bank at the highest level of the charity?

How would you like the business to put things right for you?
I would like NatWest to re-open my complaint until such time as it has been resolved and I have received from St Mungo's the confirmation sought to put things right for me. It is not inconceivable that this may involve NatWest having to write to Mr Douglas again. I do not believe that the £30 compensation that I have received from NatWest adequately compensates me for what has happened. Once my case has been resolved (and I have received from St Mungo's the confirmation sought to put things right for me), I would hope for a better acknowledgement of the bank's failure to deliver the level of service I am entitled to expect.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Headquarters in Gogarburn. The RBS owns National Westminster Bank (NatWest).

Declan also currently has NatWest (owned by The Royal Bank of Scotland) before the Financial Ombudsman Service for the cancellation of a replacement standing order on the Network for Church Monitoring business account without his knowledge or consent. And this after he received an email from RBS on 17 February confirming that this standing order was active, as well as £100 compensation in recognition of his "time, travel costs and inconvenience" in setting up this and another replacement standing order on 12 February. He has been waiting since 25 February for NatWest Complaints to confirm who cancelled the standing order between this email on 17 February and the non-payment of his salary on 24 February. His salary continues to be paid online by quick transfer from the business account to his personal account pending this explanation.

12 August: Facebook's first quadruple block (day 9). Declan may have to ask an ombudsman to look at his complaint against NatWest afresh. It seems that the bank are still saying, in effect, that there was no active Standing order payable to himself on 17 February despite RBS's email to the contrary

The vast majority of my emails seeking permission to republish material on Church and State have been blocked since last March. This applies in particular to material relating to space travel, including all three of my permission emails to America yesterday.

24 May: Excessively targeted category: One of these 24 emails Declan sent to knighted professors yesterday has been read this morning. The only one read! Today Declan will try getting through to 21 Nobel Prize laureates (WITH UPDATE 27/05/20)

"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

The Information Security Manager at St Mungo’s refuses to remove any smear documents this Mayor of London-commissioned charity is holding against Declan (and me). This case is now before the Information Commissioner's Office for a ruling on whether support plans without Declan's signature, knowledge or consent are indeed valid under the Data Protection Act 2018

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).

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.

Heavey v St Mungo's (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 07/08/20)

__________________________

[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 Trust 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 (the charity in effective control of our tenancy). On 28 July we received District Judge Ruth Fine's Order from the hearing on 30 June (see above). 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)). This is day 83 for us in a weekly periodic tenancy under the threat to life of a 'no fault' Section 21 eviction notice. Less than a week after the hearing on 30 June, St Mungo's TST North had agreed to take the phone call that was the essence of Declan's claim. They are now willing to vouch over the phone that we are both clients of this Mayor of London TST service. But Peabody will not renew our tenancy like for like as twice before, thereby preventing us from engaging TST North due to the ongoing destabilisation of our tenancy (see here). Also, the Information Security Manager at St Mungo's refuses to remove any of the smear documents she is currently holding against Declan (and me). This case is now before the Information Commissioner's Office for a ruling on whether support plans without Declan's signature, knowledge or consent are indeed valid under the Data Protection Act 2018. The only two things this manager has done is properly re-date a letter and retract a statement she made on 24 July that we are no longer clients of TST North (see her reply email further below).

On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 at 11:01, Declan Heavey wrote:
For the attention of Steve Douglas CBE, Chief Executive, St Mungo's

Maya Kotecha
Information Security Manager
St Mungo's

Address removed for email

27 July 2020

Dear Ms Kotecha,

Please can you provide me with a properly dated DH STEN response letter? Your erroneously dated letter is attached. The correct date for this letter would have to be 24 July 2020 or earlier. It certainly cannot be 24 August 2020 (as dated) and it also cannot be after 24 July because I received it from you by email on 24 July. 

Please also find attached my Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) complaint dated 25 July 2020. I note that you state in your letter that I am no longer a TST client. I can only assume the same applies to my wife. I was not previously made aware of this situation but, for the reason presented in my email earlier this month to TST North Service Manager Ilyas Hussein (i.e., the stabilisation of my tenancy), I am not in a position to re-engage the Mayor of London's TST service at this time. Please see that email of 2 July below.

Also presented below is Mr Hussein's email to me earlier that day in response to my request for confirmation that he would be willing to vouch over the phone that I am a client of TST North. "I would ask that you send me a written confirmation/letter that you want me/TST to speak to 3rd party to confirm that you are a TST Client," Mr Hussein wrote. "I would also like for you to email me beforehand so I know whom I am expecting to call me. I wouldn't want any random person to call me asking me to confirm you are a TST Client."  

The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) has asked Peabody to respond to my Stage 1 complaint about the appalling new terms of tenancy on offer. It is my hope that HOS, the Equality and Human Rights Commission or some other national representative organisation will help with my tenancy case. Certainly, my pleadings in this regard will include the fact that my wife and I cannot re-engage the Mayor's TST service due to the ongoing destabilisation of our tenancy.

Yours sincerely,

Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring

https://www.mungos.org/team/steve-douglas/

On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 at 11:11, Information Security wrote:
Dear Mr Heavey, 

Please accept my sincere apologies for the errors in my initial letter. 

I have attached the corrected letter to this email, with the correct date and I have removed the part which states you are no longer a client of TST. Again, I apologise for any distress caused by this. 

Thank you for notifying me that you have complained to the ICO, as is your right. We will wait to hear from them and of course respond to any queries or concerns they may have. I will respond to your other email separately. 

Best wishes, 

Maya Kotecha
Information Security Manager
St Mungo’s

Information Commissioner's Office complaint

About your complaint

What is your complaint about?
Ticked: The way an organisation is handling/processing my personal information

What is your complaint? The organisation...
Ticked: won't delete or remove information it holds about me

Please give details
I have asked St Mungo's Information Security Manager Maya Kotecha to remove all support plans that have been processed without my signature, knowledge or consent. Ms Kotecha has not done this and yesterday wrote, "you can contact the ICO: https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/" (see supporting document).

Supporting document type
Response from organisation

Supporting evidence summary
This supporting evidence shows that support plans have been processed without my signature, knowledge or consent. It also reveals that these support plans are being used to undermine my tenancy and me personally (smear documents).

What more could the organisation you're complaining about do to resolve your complaint?
Ms Kotecha could start by removing all support plans that have been processed without my signature, knowledge or consent. This would be done in accordance with: (a) my support agreement which states that there "will be no support plan"; and (b) a written assurance that St Mungo's gave the county court in 2016 that "the records our staff keep are agreed by him". I would then seek the re-closure of the offending support-related categories and the rectification of all other information that is inaccurate and potentially harmful.

Organisation your complaint is about

St Mungo's

Submitted 25/07/20

Who can say that Declan does not have opposition?

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Headquarters in Gogarburn. The RBS owns National Westminster Bank (NatWest).

Declan currently has NatWest Bank (owned by The Royal Bank of Scotland) before the Financial Ombudsman Service for the cancellation of a replacement standing order on the Network for Church Monitoring business account without his knowledge or consent. And this after he received an email from RBS on 17 February confirming that this standing order was active, as well as £100 compensation in recognition of his "time, travel costs and inconvenience" in setting up this and another replacement standing order on 12 February. He has been waiting since 25 February for NatWest Complaints to confirm who cancelled the standing order between this email on 17 February and the non-payment of his salary on 24 February. His salary continues to be paid online by quick transfer from the business account to his personal account pending this explanation.

12 August: Facebook's first quadruple block (day 9). Declan may have to ask an ombudsman to look at his complaint against NatWest afresh. It seems that the bank are still saying, in effect, that there was no active Standing order payable to himself on 17 February despite RBS's email to the contrary

One of C's roles is as managing director of Network for Church Monitoring. Neither C nor his wife have the vulnerabilities of those presenting with addictions or mental illness.

Skeleton Argument, Counsel for St Mungo's

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

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

"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