Tuesday, November 24, 2020

For the fourth time Pixsy chase payment without a claim letter for the past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website. We're still waiting for Peabody Trust's final decision letter for the Housing Ombudsman to investigate appalling new terms of tenancy

11/11/20

The more I look at this the more inclined I am to say ignore it and see what they do next. You stated your actions and your limited financial condition and if they want to pursue a likely not rich entity they may well decide not to.

If they do then we can seek help but small claims would seem to be not something they may want to pursue.

Ignore for now as these people are scammers in my view.

I have gotten so many great responses to my last op ed!!!!!!!!!!

Donald A. Collins, Sr., publishing colleague

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 poses a threat to his life and inhibits our ability to exercise our rights, 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 23/11/20)

__________________________

[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.



This afternoon Declan received a fourth email from Pixsy. Once again they are chasing payment for the past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website. I found the image at https://www.bygonely.com/london-1976/, and didn't know it was copyright-protected and needed a license. I removed the image within minutes of Pixsy's first contact with us on 10 November. Declan has been advised by a top copyright lawyer here in London that if Pixsy are so aggressive that they actually take proceedings against us, then he should "dig in", contact the Law Society pro bono unit, and at the first opportunity have this case transferred to the small claims part of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court to limit our liability. He has yet to speak with a pro bono lawyer. He has to wait for a claim letter from Pixsy to do that. This was his reply on 11 November to their second email in as many days:

James (no surname)
Case Management Team
Pixsy
120 High Road
London
N2 9ED

11 November 2020

Use of image by Klaus Hiltscher 002-110889

Dear James,

Thank you for your email.

I have discussed this matter with my wife and she is quite satisfied that she could not have possibly known that the image was copyright-protected and needed a license. I have stated our actions and our limited financial condition.

We do not understand why you would feel that you must receive a license fee from me even on a payment plan and we must state that any proceedings which you intend to issue will be strenuously defended.

Yours sincerely,

Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring

11 November: Pixsy tell Declan this evening that he will pay £249 for the past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website and we dig in for their claim letter. Peabody Trust miss yet another deadline to respond to his complaint about appalling new terms of tenancy

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


Declan has had RBS's NatWest before the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) since 25 February following the non-payment of his salary by standing order. The Financial Ombudsman has effectively found in a provisional decision that the Executive Case Manager at RBS wouldn't have been reasonably aware when she paid Declan compensation on 17 February - in recognition of issues he had experienced in setting up two replacement standing orders on the Network for Church Monitoring business account - that there had been some error previously made by NatWest in setting up the replacement standing order for the payment of his salary. Declan's complaint about the subsequent cancellation of the standing order without his knowledge or consent that resulted in the non-payment of his salary on 24 February was passed by the investigator to an ombudsman, who is the former Team Manager at FOS and has held roles at Alliance and Leicester (now Santander). His salary continues to be paid online by quick transfer from the business account to his personal account pending this ombudsman's final decision that will be published on their website. Below is a link to Declan's response to the ombudsman's provisional decision.

FOS investigator: "NatWest have said although the cancellation was processed on the 12th February 2020, it wasn't uploaded for processing until later – so it didn't actually cancel until the 19 February 2020."


24 November: NatWest Bank: Declan responds to the Financial Ombudsman's provisional decision for their website. Pixsy had just chased for the fourth time in two weeks payment for the past use of one image on the Church and State website (previous post)


Metropolitan Police Crime Reference No. 5330050/20. On 16 October, our flat door on the 2nd floor was vandalised by two thugs with a crowbar. Declan and I were in the flat at the time and fortunately our double locked door held firm. It's my opinion that they just wanted to break the door lock but didn't have enough time. The communal door lock downstairs wasn't broken. On 11 November, the communal door lock was changed and on that same day we were informed that a carpenter will complete the repair to our flat door on 1 December.


17 October: Part 1: Housing Ombudsman Service. Two days ago Declan complained to Lyn Brown MP about this statutory service. Yesterday our flat door was vandalised. And ISAF's letter to Facebook's COO last month has gotten no results

We have perfect reception on free view channels using our aerial, but seldom with our second BT YouView box. Today is no exception, and includes unwatchable subscription channels. The screenshot above was taken on 21 October and lasted six days despite a strong internet connection throughout the period. This month I have recorded the same wipeout on free view channels for two days in a row.


"I do not wish to have a fourth BT engineer in my flat. Nor do I believe that a third YouView box will make the slightest bit of difference. I have spent an extraordinary amount of time over the years dealing with BT on this issue and internet cuts."

- Extract from an email of Declan's to BT Executive Level Complaints on 28 September 2020

1 November: Day 2: Will we ever know a good BT TV service? We now pay the British telecom giant over £800 a year. The Police have closed their investigation into crime reference 5330050/20 for want of evidence






Our list of 287 Honorary Associates includes 17 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

NatWest Bank: Declan responds to the Financial Ombudsman's provisional decision for their website. Pixsy had just chased for the fourth time in two weeks payment for the past use of one image on the Church and State website

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).

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


Declan has had RBS's NatWest before the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) since last February following the non-payment of his salary by standing order. The Financial Ombudsman has effectively found that the Executive Case Manager at RBS wouldn't have been reasonably aware when she paid Declan £100 compensation on 17 February - in recognition of issues he had experienced in setting up two replacement standing orders on the Network for Church Monitoring business account - that there had been some error previously made by NatWest in setting up the replacement standing order for the payment of his salary (an additional £75 was paid on 18 March). Declan's complaint about the subsequent cancellation of the standing order without his knowledge or consent that resulted in the non-payment of his salary on 24 February was passed by the investigator to the Ombudsman last month. His salary continues to be paid online by quick transfer from the business account to his personal account pending the ombudsman's final decision that will be published on their website. Below is his response this evening to Ombudsman Cathy Bovan's provisional decision. She is the former Team Manager at FOS and has held roles at Alliance and Leicester (now Santander). Declan's response was addressed to the investigator:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 17:18, Declan Heavey wrote:
Dear Ms Darbar,

Thank you for the ombudsman's provisional decision about the cancellation of the standing order without my permission that resulted in the non-payment of my salary on 24 February 2020.

The ombudsman writes: "My provisional decision is that National Westminster has already paid N £175 in recognition of the issues of setting up this standing order, and I currently think that represents fair settlement to this complaint."

On 25 February 2020, I submitted my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). Since that day, I had been waiting for NatWest to explain why my salary wasn't paid the day previous. I only first received this explanation from FOS on 8 October 2020, more than four months after NatWest had paid the £175 mentioned above. I repeat that I had not received a copy of NatWest's response to this complaint, which they say had been sent to me in March 2020.

It seems clear from the ombudsman's findings that NatWest could have updated FOS far sooner that they had responded to my complaint and they did not. I think this falls short of the service they ought to have provided, but this is not recognised in the ombudsman's provisional decision.

Yours sincerely,

Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring

FOS investigator: "NatWest have said although the cancellation was processed on the 12th February 2020, it wasn't uploaded for processing until later – so it didn't actually cancel until the 19 February 2020."


The FOS investigator (not the ombudsman) wrote that "when the executive team wrote to you, they wouldn't have been reasonably aware a cancellation was in the system and would've seen two standing orders set up - one for your [sic] and one for your wife". This is that email from RBS Executive Case Manager Mandy Durkin:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 17:02, Durkin, Mandy (Executive Response Team) wrote:
Our Ref: PHO-0264121920
17 February 2020

Dear Mr Heavey

Re: Network for Church Monitoring Ltd.

Thank you for your recent emails addressed to Alison Rose, our Chief Executive. Alison has passed your correspondence to me and asked that I contact you on her behalf.

Please accept my apologies for the recent issues and poor service you have described in connection with setting up replacement standing orders. You have outlined that the instructions were taken incorrectly by Tom McKeon on your initial visit to NatWest Stratford Broadway Branch on 11 February 2020 and that you have had need to duplicate the request and visited another branch as a result.

I have discussed your concerns with Tom, who conveyed his apologies and confirmed that he had set up the instruction incorrectly and not verified the payment frequency. Regrettably, this failure has initiated your subsequent follow up contacts to the bank in order to seek correcting actions. I am sorry for the administration errors and lack of support you've described receiving. From my review of bank records I can confirm that the correcting actions are now completed in full.

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.

I am genuinely sorry for the trouble and frustration we have caused you. While there is no substitute for getting things right first time, I have credited £100 compensation to account number ending *400 in recognition of your time, travel costs and inconvenience in this case.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention and allowing me the opportunity to address your concerns. I trust that these actions have resolved matters for you. Please don't hesitate to contact me should you have any further questions or queries in this regard.

Although I hope it won't be necessary, I am obliged to advise you that you have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge – but you must do so within six months of the date of this email. If you do not refer your complaint in time, the Ombudsman will not have our permission to consider your complaint and so will only be able to do so in very limited circumstances (for example, if the Ombudsman believes that the delay was as a result of exceptional circumstances). Further information about the service is available in their leaflet http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/consumer-leaflet.htm and on their website www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk

Yours sincerely

Mandy

Mandy Durkin | Executive Case Manager| Customer Service & Operations | Commercial Banking

Metropolitan Police Crime Reference No. 5330050/20. On 16 October, our flat door on the 2nd floor was vandalised by two thugs with a crowbar. Declan and I were in the flat at the time and fortunately our double locked door held firm. It's my opinion that they just wanted to break the door lock but didn't have enough time. The communal door lock downstairs wasn't broken. On 11 November, the communal door lock was changed and on that same day we were informed that a carpenter will complete the repair to our flat door on 1 December.


8 November: Part 1: Housing Ombudsman Service. Declan has complained to Lyn Brown MP about this statutory service. Our flat door has been vandalised (crime reference no. 5330050/20). And ISAF's letter to Facebook's COO in September has gotten no results


I am truly appalled by the unlawful violation of the Heavey's basic right to send and receive email without interference. I would be most grateful for anything you may be able to do by way of taking measures to correct this gross abuse.

An American professor to then Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone in 2010



21 November: It would not be an exaggeration to say that more than a thousand of our emails have been blocked this year and hundreds to one close colleague in Washington DC. My emails to space advocates are also among those targeted (previous post)




From My Picks:

24 November: For the fourth time Pixsy chase payment without a claim letter for the past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website. We're still waiting for Peabody Trust's final decision letter for the Housing Ombudsman to investigate the appalling new terms of tenancy on offer (newer post today)



Our list of 287 Honorary Associates includes 17 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

Saturday, November 21, 2020

It would not be an exaggeration to say that more than a thousand of our emails have been blocked this year taking into account Washington DC. My emails to space advocates are among those targeted

I am truly appalled by the unlawful violation of the Heavey's basic right to send and receive email without interference. I would be most grateful for anything you may be able to do by way of taking measures to correct this gross abuse.

An American professor to then Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone in 2010

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).

We do not have a figure for the number of blocked emails this year to a close colleague in Washington DC, but if we take 5-8 resends into account, it certainly runs into hundreds.


26 October: The never-ending assault on our email continues unabated. My correspondence with one of the world's leading space advocates has been severed. Nobel Laureates also continue to be targeted



Metropolitan Police Crime Reference No. 5330050/20. On 16 October, our flat door was vandalised by two thugs with a crowbar. Declan and I were in the flat at the time and fortunately our double locked door held firm. It's my opinion that they just wanted to break the door lock but didn't have enough time. The communal door lock downstairs wasn't broken. On 11 November, the communal door lock was changed and on that same day we were informed that a carpenter will complete the repair to our flat door on 1 December.


17 October: Part 1: Housing Ombudsman Service. Two days ago Declan complained to Lyn Brown MP about this statutory service. Yesterday our flat door was vandalised. And ISAF's letter to Facebook's COO last month has gotten no results

We have perfect reception on free view channels using our aerial, but seldom with our second BT YouView box. Today is no exception, and includes unwatchable subscription channels. The screenshot above was taken on 21 October and lasted six days despite a strong internet connection throughout the period. This month I have recorded the same wipeout on free view channels for two days in a row.


1 November: Day 2: Will we ever know a good BT TV service? We now pay the British telecom giant over £800 a year. The Police have closed their investigation into crime reference 5330050/20 for want of evidence

Sidebar footnote 2 (from "Church and State", para. 5):

17 October: We have permission to publish this ISAF letter of 30 September to Facebook COO Sheryl Samberg. Facebook has so severely restricted our Page's distribution since 4 September that it's almost as good as an unpublished page

 


From My Picks:

18 November: For the third time Pixsy have insisted upon payment for the past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website. We're still waiting for Peabody Trust's final decision letter for the Housing Ombudsman to investigate the appalling new terms of tenancy on offer (previous post)



Our list of 287 Honorary Associates includes 17 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

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

For the third time Pixsy have insisted upon payment for the past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website. We're still waiting for Peabody Trust's final decision letter for the Housing Ombudsman to investigate the appalling new terms of tenancy on offer

11/11/20

The more I look at this the more inclined I am to say ignore it and see what they do next. You stated your actions and your limited financial condition and if they want to pursue a likely not rich entity they may well decide not to.

If they do then we can seek help but small claims would seem to be not something they may want to pursue.

Ignore for now as these people are scammers in my view.

I have gotten so many great responses to my last op ed!!!!!!!!!!

Donald A. Collins, Sr., publishing colleague

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 poses a threat to his life and inhibits our ability to exercise our rights, 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 08/11/20)

__________________________

[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.



Last Friday Declan received a third email from Pixsy. Once again they insisted upon payment for the past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website. I found the image at https://www.bygonely.com/london-1976/, and didn't know it was copyright-protected and needed a license. I removed the image within minutes of Pixsy's first contact with us on Tuesday of last week. Declan has been advised by a top copyright lawyer here in London that if Pixsy are so aggressive that they actually take proceedings against us, then he should "dig in", contact the Law Society pro bono unit, and at the first opportunity have this case transferred to the small claims part of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court to limit our liability. He has yet to speak with a pro bono lawyer. He has to wait for a claim letter from Pixsy to do that. This was his reply last Wednesday to their second email in as many days:

James [surname withheld]
Case Management Team
Pixsy
120 High Road
London
N2 9ED

11 November 2020

Use of image by Klaus Hiltscher 002-110889

Dear James,

Thank you for your email.

I have discussed this matter with my wife and she is quite satisfied that she could not have possibly known that the image was copyright-protected and needed a license. I have stated our actions and our limited financial condition.

We do not understand why you would feel that you must receive a license fee from me even on a payment plan and we must state that any proceedings which you intend to issue will be strenuously defended.

Yours sincerely,

Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring

11 November: Pixsy tell Declan this evening that he will pay £249 for the past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website and we dig in for their claim letter. Peabody Trust miss yet another deadline to respond to his complaint about appalling new terms of tenancy

Metropolitan Police Crime Reference No. 5330050/20. On 16 October, our flat door was vandalised by two thugs with a crowbar. Declan and I were in the flat at the time and fortunately our double locked door held firm. It's my opinion that they just wanted to break the door lock but didn't have enough time. The communal door lock downstairs wasn't broken. On 11 November, the communal door lock was changed and on that same day we were informed that a carpenter will complete the repair to our flat door on 1 December.


8 November: Part 1: Housing Ombudsman Service. Declan has complained to Lyn Brown MP about this statutory service. Our flat door has been vandalised (crime reference no. 5330050/20). And ISAF's letter to Facebook's COO in September has gotten no results

We have perfect reception on free view channels using our aerial, but seldom with our second BT YouView box. Today is no exception. The screenshot above was taken on 21 October and lasted six days despite a strong internet connection throughout the period. This month I have recorded the same wipeout on free view channels for two days in a row.


"I do not wish to have a fourth BT engineer in my flat. Nor do I believe that a third YouView box will make the slightest bit of difference. I have spent an extraordinary amount of time over the years dealing with BT on this issue and internet cuts."

- Extract from an email of Declan's to BT Executive Level Complaints on 28 September 2020

1 November: Day 2: Will we ever know a good BT TV service? We now pay the British telecom giant over £800 a year. The Police have closed their investigation into crime reference 5330050/20 for want of evidence




Our list of 287 Honorary Associates includes 17 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

Saturday, November 14, 2020

Facebook's 79th block (day 4): Now I have been blocked from banning obvious trolls. The suppression of our Page also continues unabated

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).

11/11/20: "Since this afternoon, I have been blocked from banning trolls. Please could you restore this facility to me? All I can do at the moment is delete abusive comments."

Facebook's quadruple block updated:

Facebook's first quadruple block: (1) I couldn't scroll after seeing 4-5 posts in groups I belong to (22 days); (2) I couldn't post in these groups (38 days); (3) I couldn't post in our Page (39 days); (4) I still can't access a list of my groups (562 days and counting). On 18 July, I was threatened with the termination of my account without reason or cause.


From sidebar (see "Church and State", para. 5):



On 4 September, which also happened to be Declan's 60th birthday, the Housing Ombudsman Service set our landlord Peabody Trust a third and final deadline to respond to his Stage 1 complaint. Almost immediately that same day we were unreasonably threatened by Facebook that our Page would be unpublished by them. Since 4 September, they have dramatically restricted the distribution of the page from 120-400K a week for years to no more than one brief 9-10K daily post reach for the week. This has dropped to an unprecedented low 4-5K post reach for the previous seven days (less than 1K a day). What, when or how often I post has little or no effect on the supression of our post reach on any one given day.

17 October: We have permission to publish this ISAF letter of 30 September to Facebook COO Sheryl Samberg. Facebook has so severely restricted our Page's distribution since 4 September that it's almost as good as an unpublished page

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


Declan has had NatWest (owned by RBS) before the Financial Ombudsman Service since last February following the non-payment of his salary by standing order. An investigator at FOS has found that the RBS Executive Case Manager wouldn't have been reasonably aware when she paid Declan compensation on 17 February that there had been some error previously made by NatWest in setting up a replacement standing order on the Network for Church Monitoring business account for the payment of his salary. His complaint about the subsequent cancellation of the standing order without his knowledge or consent that resulted in the non-payment of his salary on 24 February has been passed to the Ombudsman. His salary continues to be paid online by quick transfer from the business account to his personal account pending an ombudsman's final decision that will be published on their website. He was informed by the investigator on 28 October that he will be updated every three months on the progress.

FOS investigator: "NatWest have said although the cancellation was processed on the 12th February 2020, it wasn't uploaded for processing until later – so it didn't actually cancel until the 19 February 2020."


14 October: NatWest Bank: Declan's complaint about the non-payment of his salary on 24 February has been passed to the Financial Ombudsman for a decision to be published on their website. The never-ending assault on our email continues unabated

Metropolitan Police Crime Reference No. 5330050/20. On 16 October, our flat door was vandalised by two thugs with a crowbar. Declan and I were in the flat at the time and fortunately our double locked door held firm. It's my opinion that they just wanted to break the door lock but didn't have enough time. The communal door lock downstairs wasn't broken. On 11 November, the communal door lock was changed and on that same day we were informed that a carpenter will complete the repair to our flat door on 1 December.


8 November: Part 1: Housing Ombudsman Service. Declan has complained to Lyn Brown MP about this statutory service. Our flat door has been vandalised (crime reference no. 5330050/20). And ISAF's letter to Facebook's COO in September has gotten no results



From My Picks:

11 November: Pixsy tell Declan this evening that he will pay £249 for the past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website and we dig in for their claim letter. Peabody Trust miss yet another deadline to respond to his complaint about appalling new terms of tenancy



Our list of 287 Honorary Associates includes 17 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

Friday, November 13, 2020

Will we receive Pixsy's Claim Letter against our Church and State website before Peabody Trust's final response letter to enable the Housing Ombudsman to investigate their appalling new terms of tenancy?

DAY 181 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).

Will Peabody Trust today issue Declan with their final response to his Stage 2 complaint, having missed yet another deadline set below? The outstanding dispute centres on their refusal to renew our tenancy as twice before. We have been offered appalling new terms of tenancy that in effect pose a threat to Declan's life and inhibit his and my ability to exercise our rights. We live in a Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative designated property. Declan contends that since Peabody have previously insisted that they have offered a tenancy "like for like as requested", it is only fair and reasonable that they issue such a tenancy. For the last three days, Declan has been set up and ready to email our local MP and three councillors for the referral of his complaint straight to the Housing Ombudsman. Without this referral, he will have to wait until eight weeks has passed before the Ombudsman will consider the case. He only needs for this "designated person" Peabody's final response to a formal complaint he first made five months ago, on 15 June, to prevent eviction and stabilise our tenancy.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 20:00, Alan Rudman wrote:
Dear Mr Heavey,

Further the stage one response from Sonia Palfrey, your case has been escalated to me to review at stage two, which is the final stage of our complaints process. I am sorry for the delay in acknowledging your escalation request and to hear that you have had to log a complaint.

My responsibility is to independently review and focus on the outstanding issues you remain dissatisfied with.

Going by the correspondence from you, I believe I can gain a understanding as to your reasons from going from stage one, to stage two, however should you wish to comment further please let me know.

I will now proceed with my investigation and review and currently aim to respond in full on or before 11th November.

Kind regards and thanks,

Alan Rudman | Delivery Manager | Customer Experience Team

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan


Declan submitted this complaint to Peabody on 17 October:

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

Ref: CAS-506345-C3J0K0

I am not satisfied with Head of Specialist Housing Management Sonia Palfey's response dated 7 September 2020 to the Stage 1 complaint I raised with Peabody about new terms of tenancy. I received Ms Palfrey's response through the Housing Ombudsman Service last night. I respectfully ask you to escalate this matter to a Stage 2 complaint for me, or, alternatively, provide me with a final response letter for the Ombudsman to consider.
  
By way of background, 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 2020, Housing Officer Rukia Khatun asserted in relation to the third agreement offered that "the terms are the same and a like for like as requested". In a further email of 1 May 2020, Ms Khatun falsely accused us of not signing a like-for-like agreement.

On 27 May 2020, I received an email from Area Housing Manager Rosealeen Sogunro about the third renewal of our tenancy. By way of supporting evidence, after I have submitted this form, I will email you this email from Ms Sogunro, the Stage 1 response I received last night from Ms Palfrey and an updated document titled 'Comparative Screenshots'. It is my contention that, given Peabody's apparent ongoing insistence that we have been offered a tenancy like for like as requested, it is only fair and reasonable that you produce such a document. Instead, my wife and I have been previously falsely accused of not signing a like-for-like agreement and continue to be provided with assurances that are not reflected in the new tenancy agreement.
 
My wife and I are currently not protected from a 'no fault' eviction in a weekly periodic tenancy. Despite Ms Palfrey's apparent assurance that no action of this sort will be taken, our legal position in respect to Section 21 possession poses a direct threat to my 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. The level of pressure and uncertainty connected with our tenancy is not only unfair to us but also to the community centre my wife has been volunteering in since June 2016. The centre obviously wants someone who is reliable and able to commit to set days and times.
  
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 wants or 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.

Consider, for example, that the stipulated time in arrears for possession has been reduced from 8 weeks to 14 days. This in itself renders unsignable the new tenancy agreement, thereby destabilising our tenancy and inhibiting our ability to exercise our rights. Newham Council has already twice suspended our 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 us both having been part-time employed.

I reiterate in conclusion that my wife and I have no legal protection from a 'no fault' eviction in a weekly periodic tenancy, and to assert otherwise is both factually disingenuous and unsupported by law. I have sought and received legal advice from a UK lawyer on this point, and a Housing legal advisor such as Shelter concurs on their website. I am a 60-year-old asthmatic 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' eviction in an RSI designated property seems to us to be unconscionable. 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.

17 October: Declan asks Peabody to escalate his Stage 1 complaint about new terms of tenancy. Last night we received their response from the Housing Ombudsman Service after our flat door had been vandalised earlier in the evening (crime reference no. 5304416/20)

Comparative screenshots

Peabody have insisted 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. On 11 November, to take just one example, they wrote: "Yes generally speaking what you are advising about the repairs responsibilities is correct, its only if the property becomes a void we sometimes decide to re-decorate for the re-let." So we could be held liable for cigarette burns in worn-out carpets made by a previous tenant(s). According to the new clause 24, this liability could result in us having to pay rent and service charges until the end of the two-year fixed term should we ever want or need to end the tenancy before the fixed term has expired. Any words to the contrary are utterly meaningless.

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 12/11/20)


Metropolitan Police Crime Reference No. 5330050/20. On 16 October, our flat door was vandalised by two thugs with a crowbar. Declan and I were in the flat at the time and fortunately our double locked door held firm. It's my opinion that they just wanted to break the door lock but didn't have enough time. The communal door lock downstairs wasn't broken. On 11 November, the communal door lock was changed and on that same day we were informed that a carpenter will complete the repair to our flat door on 1 December.


8 November: Part 1: Housing Ombudsman Service. Declan has complained to Lyn Brown MP about this statutory service. Our flat door has been vandalised (crime reference no. 5330050/20). And ISAF's letter to Facebook's COO in September has gotten no results

We have no pro se (in person) access to the courts


The Central London County Court is based at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Heavey v St Mungo's (2020)

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.

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 08/11/20)





From My Picks:

11 November: Pixsy tell Declan this evening that he will pay £249 for the past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website and we dig in for their claim letter. Peabody Trust miss yet another deadline to respond to his complaint about appalling new terms of tenancy



Our list of 287 Honorary Associates includes 17 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

Wednesday, November 11, 2020

Pixsy tell Declan this evening that he will pay £249 for the past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website and we dig in for their claim letter. Peabody Trust miss yet another deadline to respond to his complaint about appalling new terms of tenancy

DAY 180 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).



Declan received an email from Pixsy this evening. They are again insistent that one way or another he will pay £249 for the past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website. He had already been advised by a top copyright lawyer here in London that if they are so aggressive that they actually take proceedings against us, then he should "dig in", contact the Law Society pro bono unit, and at the first opportunity have this case transferred to the small claims part of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court to limit our liability. He has yet to speak with a pro bono lawyer. He has to wait for a claim letter from Pixsy to do that. We were well prepared to dig ourselves in fast this evening. This was Declan's reply to Pixsy's latest insistent email:

James (no surname)
Case Management Team
Pixsy
120 High Road
London
N2 9ED

11 November 2020

Use of image by Klaus Hiltscher 002-110889

Dear James,

Thank you for your email.

I have discussed this matter with my wife and she is quite satisfied that she could not have possibly known that the image was copyright-protected and needed a license. I have stated our actions and our limited financial condition.

We do not understand why you would feel that you must receive a license fee from me even on a payment plan and we must state that any proceedings which you intend to issue will be strenuously defended.

Yours sincerely,

Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring

10 November: Pixsy in London tell Declan to pay £249 by 1 December or face court action for copyright infringement. We cannot dismiss District Judge Ruth Fine's costs order last June in his case against the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's

In my previous post this afternoon, I wrote that we were waiting for a final response from Peabody Trust to Declan's complaint about appalling new terms of tenancy. He was assured that he would receive this response today. That hasn't happened. All he did receive tonight was confirmation that under just one new clause we could be held liable for damage done to worn-out carpets by the previous tenant(s) and more besides. According to the clause, this liability could result in us having to pay rent and service charges until the end of the two-year fixed term should we ever want or need to end the tenancy before the fixed term has expired. You just couldn't make something like that up.

Previous post: Declan has informed two close colleagues in America that he is very willing to defend in court the Church and State website on the grounds of reasonableness. He has told Pixsy in London that we hope for good news from them and for all concerned about use of public information. Peabody Trust is another matter!

Metropolitan Police Crime Reference No. 5330050/20. On 16 October, our flat door was vandalised by two thugs with a crowbar. Declan and I were in the flat at the time and fortunately our double locked door held firm. It's my opinion that they just wanted to break the door lock but didn't have enough time. The communal door lock downstairs wasn't broken. This morning the communal door lock was changed and we were told a carpenter will complete the repair to our flat door on 1 December.


8 November: Part 1: Housing Ombudsman Service. Declan has complained to Lyn Brown MP about this statutory service. Our flat door has been vandalised (crime reference no. 5330050/20). And ISAF's letter to Facebook's COO in September has gotten no results



From My Pick's:

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 08/11/20)

The Central London County Court is based at the Royal Courts of Justice.

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 poses a threat to his life and inhibits our ability to exercise our rights, 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 amounting to £3,407.50 without mentioning this phone call in their application for strike out. Less than a week later, St Mungo's TST North had agreed to take the phone call for us both that was the essence of Declan's claim. But still our landlord, Peabody Trust housing association, will not renew our tenancy like for like as twice before (Housing Ombudsman Service Case ID 202002510). Declan's debt to St Mungo's 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.

Our list of 287 Honorary Associates includes 17 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

Declan has informed two close colleagues in America that he is very willing to defend in court the Church and State website on the grounds of reasonableness. He has told Pixsy in London that we hope for good news from them and for all concerned about use of public information. Peabody Trust is another matter!

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).



Last night Declan received an email from Pixsy in London charging him with copyright infringement for what is now our past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website. Declan has informed two close colleagues in America that he is very willing to defend in court our site on the grounds of reasonableness; see my post last night: Pixsy in London tell Declan to pay £249 by 1 December or face court action for copyright infringement. We cannot dismiss District Judge Ruth Fine's costs order last June in his case against the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's. Will Peabody Trust today issue Declan with their final response to his Stage 2 complaint as promised below? The outstanding dispute centres on the refusal of Peabody to renew our tenancy as twice before. We have been offered appalling new terms of tenancy that in effect pose a threat to Declan's life and inhibit his and my ability to exercise our rights. We live in a Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative designated property. Declan contends that since Peabody have previously insisted that they have offered a tenancy "like for like as requested", it is only fair and reasonable that they issue such a tenancy. He is already set up and ready to email our local MP and three councillors for the referral of his complaint straight to the Housing Ombudsman. Without this referral, he will have to wait until eight weeks has passed before the Ombudsman will consider the case. He only needs for this "designated person" Peabody's final response before close of business today.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 20:00, Alan Rudman wrote:
Dear Mr Heavey,

Further the stage one response from Sonia Palfrey, your case has been escalated to me to review at stage two, which is the final stage of our complaints process. I am sorry for the delay in acknowledging your escalation request and to hear that you have had to log a complaint.

My responsibility is to independently review and focus on the outstanding issues you remain dissatisfied with.

Going by the correspondence from you, I believe I can gain a understanding as to your reasons from going from stage one, to stage two, however should you wish to comment further please let me know.

I will now proceed with my investigation and review and currently aim to respond in full on or before 11th November.

Kind regards and thanks,

Alan Rudman | Delivery Manager | Customer Experience Team

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan


Declan submitted this complaint to Peabody on 17 October:

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

Ref: CAS-506345-C3J0K0

I am not satisfied with Head of Specialist Housing Management Sonia Palfey's response dated 7 September 2020 to the Stage 1 complaint I raised with Peabody about new terms of tenancy. I received Ms Palfrey's response through the Housing Ombudsman Service last night. I respectfully ask you to escalate this matter to a Stage 2 complaint for me, or, alternatively, provide me with a final response letter for the Ombudsman to consider.
  
By way of background, 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 2020, Housing Officer Rukia Khatun asserted in relation to the third agreement offered that "the terms are the same and a like for like as requested". In a further email of 1 May 2020, Ms Khatun falsely accused us of not signing a like-for-like agreement.

On 27 May 2020, I received an email from Area Housing Manager Rosealeen Sogunro about the third renewal of our tenancy. By way of supporting evidence, after I have submitted this form, I will email you this email from Ms Sogunro, the Stage 1 response I received last night from Ms Palfrey and an updated document titled 'Comparative Screenshots'. It is my contention that, given Peabody's apparent ongoing insistence that we have been offered a tenancy like for like as requested, it is only fair and reasonable that you produce such a document. Instead, my wife and I have been previously falsely accused of not signing a like-for-like agreement and continue to be provided with assurances that are not reflected in the new tenancy agreement.
 
My wife and I are currently not protected from a 'no fault' eviction in a weekly periodic tenancy. Despite Ms Palfrey's apparent assurance that no action of this sort will be taken, our legal position in respect to Section 21 possession poses a direct threat to my 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. The level of pressure and uncertainty connected with our tenancy is not only unfair to us but also to the community centre my wife has been volunteering in since June 2016. The centre obviously wants someone who is reliable and able to commit to set days and times.
  
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 wants or 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.

Consider, for example, that the stipulated time in arrears for possession has been reduced from 8 weeks to 14 days. This in itself renders unsignable the new tenancy agreement, thereby destabilising our tenancy and inhibiting our ability to exercise our rights. Newham Council has already twice suspended our 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 us both having been part-time employed.

I reiterate in conclusion that my wife and I have no legal protection from a 'no fault' eviction in a weekly periodic tenancy, and to assert otherwise is both factually disingenuous and unsupported by law. I have sought and received legal advice from a UK lawyer on this point, and a Housing legal advisor such as Shelter concurs on their website. I am a 60-year-old asthmatic 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' eviction in an RSI designated property seems to us to be unconscionable. 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.

17 October: Declan asks Peabody to escalate his Stage 1 complaint about new terms of tenancy. Last night we received their response from the Housing Ombudsman Service after our flat door had been vandalised earlier in the evening (crime reference no. 5304416/20)

Metropolitan Police Crime Reference No. 5330050/20. On 16 October, our flat door was vandalised by two thugs with a crowbar. Declan and I were in the flat at the time and fortunately our double locked door held firm. It's my opinion that they just wanted to break the door lock but didn't have enough time. The communal door lock downstairs wasn't broken. This morning the communal door lock was changed and we were told a carpenter will complete the repair to our flat door on 1 December.


8 November: Part 1: Housing Ombudsman Service. Declan has complained to Lyn Brown MP about this statutory service. Our flat door has been vandalised (crime reference no. 5330050/20). And ISAF's letter to Facebook's COO in September has gotten no results





"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