How can you create a support plan without participation from a client? The Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's are using a standard Privacy Notice as a licence to do just that in any manner they deem fit (WITH UPDATE 01/10/20)
DAY 138 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
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 01/10/20)
__________________________
[1] On 23 June Batchelors Solicitors sent Declan a £3,407.50 bill of costs. St Mungo's counsel asked the Judge for this exact amount even though, at the time of submitting these costs to the court before the hearing for strike out, St Mungo's had never once mentioned the phone call that was the essence of Declan's claim against this taxpayer-funded charity. In 2017/18, St Mungo's turnover was £89.6 million. Declan's debt to them was cleared by a publishing colleague within 24 hours of my blog post above. Having averted bankruptcy, we now consider that to seek pro se (in person) access to justice in the courts has become far too dangerous for us.
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 01/10/20)
__________________________
[1] On 23 June Batchelors Solicitors sent Declan a £3,407.50 bill of costs. St Mungo's counsel asked the Judge for this exact amount even though, at the time of submitting these costs to the court before the hearing for strike out, St Mungo's had never once mentioned the phone call that was the essence of Declan's claim against this taxpayer-funded charity. In 2017/18, St Mungo's turnover was £89.6 million. Declan's debt to them was cleared by a publishing colleague within 24 hours of my blog post above. Having averted bankruptcy, we now consider that to seek pro se (in person) access to justice in the courts has become far too dangerous for us.
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" that we routinely face (Skeleton Argument, Counsel for St Mungo's, para. 19(a)). This is day 138 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. On 23 September, St Mungo's finally removed slanderous and defamatory information about Declan from their database. However, they have not removed support plans that stand in flagrant breach of our support agreement (stating inter alia that there "will be no support plan"), that we never even knew existed, that are riddled with gross inaccuracies, and that add to the destabilisation of our tenancy. How can you create a support plan without participation from a client? We are still waiting for the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to engage with Declan about this. St Mungo's even allege in these documents that Declan is not working, which is false and they know it. Today he is going after a piece of information that is misleading and suggests that he has declined support offered to him by their employment support team.
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 at 13:58, Declan Heavey
Andrew McCarthy
Head of Quality and Information Security
St Mungo's
Address removed for email
1 October 2020
Dear Mr McCarthy,
I am sorry that you were not available to take or return my call yesterday. I therefore hereby request the removal of information on your organisation's database that is causing distress.
Please can you immediately remove from the record the following: "not willing to engage with ETE" (Support Overview, 19/11/2019; Work and Learning, Brief description of client's strengths and support needs). This information is misleading and suggests that I have declined support offered to me by your employment support team.
St Mungo's made clear to the court in 2019 that your employment service "is more of a sign-posting service (pointing clients in the right direction of employment which suits their skills)", later stating where St Mungo's does support clients to get into work "this is where clients cannot find that work or approach those potential employers themselves". I confirmed in writing on 18 March 2019 an arrangement I struck with my support worker in respect of auxiliary support; namely, that if anyone from the employment support team were to suggest possible volunteer opportunities in a learning disability organisation, my support worker would let me know the name of the organisation.
There is a false narrative throughout this and other support documents that I am independent and do not require St Mungo's support. Nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to the latter (see below). Unfortunately, I cannot get from St Mungo's the level of support I require - but this is through no fault of my own. I do not participate in support plans because I have a support agreement that states there "will be no support plan". The suggestion throughout these support documents that no such agreement exists is also false and runs contrary to written assurances St Mungo's gave the court in 2016.
The issue of support plans being processed without my signature, knowledge or consent is currently before the Information Commissioner's Office. I find it deeply problematic that the standard TST North Privacy Notice is being used to seemingly provide my support worker with a licence to basically write what he wants behind my back. It is then up to me to make a subject access request for this information and then seek the rectification of personal data that may be riddled with gross inaccuracies, as in this case, or even slanderous and defamatory information such as was removed by you last week.
I fail to comprehend how you can create a support plan without participation from a client even as a very last resort (because the client is in possession of a support agreement stating that there will be no support plan). The undermining of my tenancy and me personally in this way is apparently of no consequence, and that is profoundly disturbing because it poses a threat to my life.
Yours sincerely,
Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring
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 1 October (5.56pm): Perhaps Andrew McCarthy or the Information Commissioner's Office will be able to explain how you can you create a support plan without participation from a client even as a very last resort (because the client is in possession of a support agreement stating that there will be no support plan). We will have a better idea by close of Monday:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 at 17:38, Andrew McCarthy
Dear Mr. Heavey,
Thank you for your email. I will review your queries and respond to you by the close of Monday.
Kind regards,
Andy
Andy McCarthy
Head of Quality and Information Security
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[1]
__________________________
[1] Update 01/10/20: For two weeks after Declan submitted this complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office, he was told by them to phone the following week for a reference number. Then he was told to phone in two weeks time; but when he did so, he was told that it could take three months for his complaint to be set up with a reference number. When he asked about phoning again the next week, he was told: "That's up to you."
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[1]
__________________________
[1] Update 01/10/20: For two weeks after Declan submitted this complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office, he was told by them to phone the following week for a reference number. Then he was told to phone in two weeks time; but when he did so, he was told that it could take three months for his complaint to be set up with a reference number. When he asked about phoning again the next week, he was told: "That's up to you."
Who can say that Declan does not have opposition?
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 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
We no longer have pro se access to the courts
The following is the full content of paragraph 4 under "Church and State" on this blog's sidebar.
4. This eviction matter previously came before District Judge Fine at the Central London County Court on 30 June, when both counsel for St. Mungo's (the charity in effective control of our tenancy) and Declan presented their positions. Declan lost the case and was ordered to pay £1,850 in costs. A publishing colleague in America cleared these costs within 24 hours of my blog post about this hearing for strike out on a related issue that was the essence of Declan's claim, i.e., that St Mungo's would take a phone call to confirm that we are clients of the Mayor of London's RSI programme. Within a week of the hearing, St. Mungo's had agreed to take this phone call for us both, the Court having ruled that they were not obliged to do so despite our circumstances. This time we escaped bankruptcy (counsel for St. Mungo's asked for £3,407.50 in costs), but consider that to seek pro se access to justice in the courts has become far too dangerous for us.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan
The following is the full content of paragraph 4 under "Church and State" on this blog's sidebar.
4. This eviction matter previously came before District Judge Fine at the Central London County Court on 30 June, when both counsel for St. Mungo's (the charity in effective control of our tenancy) and Declan presented their positions. Declan lost the case and was ordered to pay £1,850 in costs. A publishing colleague in America cleared these costs within 24 hours of my blog post about this hearing for strike out on a related issue that was the essence of Declan's claim, i.e., that St Mungo's would take a phone call to confirm that we are clients of the Mayor of London's RSI programme. Within a week of the hearing, St. Mungo's had agreed to take this phone call for us both, the Court having ruled that they were not obliged to do so despite our circumstances. This time we escaped bankruptcy (counsel for St. Mungo's asked for £3,407.50 in costs), but consider that to seek pro se access to justice in the courts has become far too dangerous for us.
This Mailtrack report relates to Declan's email address.
It's not just my permission emails on space travel (see here). This year we have also had major problems getting through by email to a close colleague in Washington DC. This particularly applies to the past two months. This week has been no exception in this regard. A couple of weeks ago five different emails did not get through to this colleague, and one email only got through after six resends. We also know of emails from him and at least two of his op-eds that have also been blocked in the past few months. We were actually surprised that another close colleague in America received Declan's email in relation to his return for Corporation Tax, after all the trouble he had filing the return online with HM Revenue and Customs free of prosecution.
26 August: 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)
14/08/19
I have looked at the long correspondence regarding your tenancy and clearly you have made a powerful case for the unconscionable behavior of the agency in control of your tenancy [St Mungo's].
Donald A. Collins
Founder, International Services Assistance Fund
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
Our list of 284 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
