Church and State blog: 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?

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)

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

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

Church and State

MAYOR OF LONDON RSI PROPERTY
DAY 406 IN A WEEKLY PERIODIC TENANCY
SUBJECT TO A SECTION 21 NOTICE

(SEE PARA. 3 BELOW)

1. Our 308 Honorary Associates include 20 Nobel Prize laureates. Declan and I are engaged in a project that deals with the publication of issues significant to social policy in a number of key areas, e.g., climate change, population, futurism, atheism, and free speech. Established as Network for Church Monitoring, a non-profit company limited by guarantee, our main publication, found at the website, Church and State, calls attention to subjects, not the least which have been critical of the interaction between religious and secular institutions. We have been the target of numerous threats and actions, e.g., the former resulting in threats to Declan's life, and the latter, which have led to vandalism. The various incidents are on record with the police and other official agencies.

2. There are no less than 63 Nobel Prize laureates on the Church and State website from 20 Honorary Associates, eight articles, nine book excerpts and 33 petition signatories. (For example, one Nobel laureate signed our Nobel petition in support of human embryonic stem cell research and gave us permission to excerpt from one of his books.) Our list of associates also includes 18 US National Medal laureates, and six Turing Award laureates (the equivalent of the Nobel Prize in computer science). We have published one article and excerpted from the books of seven members of the British House of Lords. And there are 31 knighted professors on the site from 13 Honorary Associates, one book excerpt and 21 petition signatories. These figures are despite the never-ending assault on our email (this link reveals the targeting of our emails to, among others, a close colleague in Washington, DC as well as space advocates and Nobel laureates).

3. This is Day 406 for us living under the threat to life of a 'no fault' eviction by Peabody Trust.[1] We live in a Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) property. Peabody's appalling new terms of tenancy have forced us into an unstable weekly periodic tenancy that poses a threat to Declan's life and inhibits our ability to exercise our rights. Declan accumulated quite a history with the Housing Ombudsman Service before he received the Ombudsman's decision not to investigate a referral from Lyn Brown MP on jurisdictional grounds. The Ombudsman was asked to consider whether or not our tenancy has been renewed like for like; and whether, if not, it should be in light of the landlord having accused us of not signing a like-for-like agreement. The Equality and Human Rights Commission will not accept a referral of discrimination from Ms Brown, the Commission's helpline (EASS) having grossly distorted the complaint against Peabody. We no longer have pro se access to the courts (see next paragraph).

4. This eviction matter came before District Judge Ruth Fine at the Central London County Court on 30 June 2020, 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 the 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. Declan currently has before the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman the decision of the Information Commissioner that allows St Mungo's to continue processing coercive support plans without our knowledge or consent and that also poses a threat to his life.

5. When it comes to traffic, we have had 10.7 million hits in the past three years on Facebook; however, I left the platform on 13 March 2021 for one year rather than risk being banned for life. It is indisputable that with any sort of level playing field Church and State would have far exceeded 2.5 million hits last year. In addition to a large variety of blocks without explanation, Facebook had so severely restricted our Page's distribution by October 2020 that it was almost as good as an unpublished page.[2] Currently, we are up to their 85th block since 1 December 2015, and as usual without an explanation. This block records as one half of their 3rd double block in the first five weeks of this year that lasted 60 days. Our traffic has also been curtailed by over 2.5K blocks on access to Church and State since 26 July 2016, including 29 full distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks since 17 May 2019 that have lasted for as long as 54 hours at a time.[3] About 70% of our hits are from Americans.

"This is precisely the hard hitting kind of response needed to clarify the unfair way Facebook is treating your highly reputable site." Don Collins, Founder, International Services Assistance Fund, Washington DC

Last updated: 26/06/21

_________________________

[1] Once a fixed term has elapsed, the landlord has the option to seek eviction even if the tenant has upheld their obligations in full (though of course the landlord must still apply for and obtain a county court order).

[2] 17/10/20: 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

[3] Since October 2019, we have been defining a full DDoS attack as having such a high volume of up to 4-minute blocks on access to Church and State that we don't bother recording them all.

Church and State blog

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?

About me

My Picks

Church and State

Blog Archive