Our landlord Peabody Trust has effectively just threatened us with 'no fault' short term eviction from a flat that falls under the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative. Declan has asked our local MP and three councillors for a referral of his case straight to the Housing Ombudsman

DAY 209 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 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 11/12/20)

__________________________

[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 from our landlord, Peabody Trust, the final response letter to a complaint he first made at stage 1 six months ago, on 15 June, to try to prevent eviction and stabilise our tenancy. It has taken four Housing Ombudsman deadlines and a score of missed Peabody deadlines to elicit this letter about what we contend are appalling new terms of tenancy that have had us living since 17 May in a weekly periodic tenancy under the threat to life of a 'no fault' eviction. In their letter below, Peabody falsely allege that Declan has appointed a solicitor in this case. They also misleadingly state that we are housed by Peabody under the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) scheme. In fact, we are tenants of the Clearing House, which is run by St Mungo's on behalf of the Greater London Authority and the properties are provided by housing associations - such as Peabody.

One of the provisions of the Mayor's RSI scheme is support from Tenancy Sustainment Teams (TSTs). In our case, this support is delivered by St Mungo's TST. Peabody's new terms of tenancy, taken together with this letter, would inter alia unequivocally disenfranchise us of our right to support from St Mungo's TST. It would leave us instead with "visiting support" from Peabody that we do not want or need. They write: "We do absolutely empathise with you as a former rough sleeper and we hope you will engage with us going forward to further help you with support." Accordingly, in a supported housing tenancy, this letter effectively threatens us with 'no fault' short term eviction. Any assurances to the contrary have no value in law, and especially since we have no intention of forgoing the support from St Mungo's TST that we have fought so long and hard to receive (see Heavey v St Mungo's above), but are currently being prevented from accessing due to the ongoing destabilisation of our tenancy.

This evening Declan emailed our local MP and three councillors for the referral of his complaint straight to the Housing Ombudsman (see previous post). Without this referral, he will have to wait until the period of eight weeks has passed before the Ombudsman will consider the case. Such is the short-term threat to our tenancy that we are immediately starting work on an application to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) for discrimination against us as Clearing House tenants. It is absurd of Peabody to suggest that we are being treated as other Clearing House tenants in RSI properties. Declan's application to the EHRC will at least serve as a briefing document for a free legal aid solicitor in the event of a 'no fault' Section 21 eviction notice from Peabody before we qualify for the Housing Ombudsman's consideration in two month's time. We will also publish the application in an updated complaint to the United Nations under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

11th December 2020

Mr D Heavey
71 Queens Road West
E13 0PE

Dear Mr Heavey

Stage two ref: 506345.

I have now concluded my independent review of the record and your case, as part of which I interrogated the record and interviewed appropriate staff were necessary.

What is expected of me per our policies is for me to independently review the stage one case, and focus on what the complainant remains dissatisfied with.

You have advised that you are not satisfied about the proposed new terms of tenancy.

You are not satisfied with assurances that you say are not enough / reflected in the new/proposed tenancy agreement.

As part of the merger between family mosaic and Peabody all of our policies and procedures had to be aligned, which ultimately resulted a new group tenancy policy and agreement being launched.

I do empathise that the prior renewals were like for like and that some of the language in the new proposed agreement may be different.

Amongst a number of things you have advised that you and your wife should not be forced to live under the 'threat to life' of a no fault eviction in an RSI designated property.

My review of the record has found that issues were responded to appropriately prior to and including in the stage one investigation and responses.

It is relevant therefore to clarify at this point the purposes of you being offered your property. You were offered a tenancy / property and housed by Peabody under the Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) scheme.

The initiative enables people sleeping on the streets to make the transition to permanent and settled housing. The initiative is commissioned and monitored by the Greater London Authority (GLA).

The purpose of the scheme is to enable rough sleepers to be housed, albeit temporarily, with the idea being further support and engagement will follow to support residents into more permanent housing.

The properties allocated to the RSI scheme are not meant to be permanent tenures.

The long term objective is that with engagement with appropriate support staff, efforts are made to secure alternative accommodation for the tenant if the tenant is deemed capable of moving on from RSI accommodation. Then in turn that property becomes available for another rough sleeper in need of a springboard / temporary accommodation.

In effect you are asking for Peabody to make a new tenancy agreement specifically adhering to your requested terms. The tenancy agreement you originally signed is not available to be used again, if you would like to sign the new tenancy agreement then it remains available to do so.

You are effectively asking for Peabody to treat you differently than the other hundreds of RSI residents/properties.

While I empathise with your concerns and anxieties, Peabody has made fair and reasonable efforts to ally your concerns and it is not reasonable to expect Peabody to treat you differently.

At this point its relevant to explain that legal matters our outside of our complaints process, so if you decide to continue things legally, I am unable to formally respond or be review legal matters as part of my review [sic]. However I have outlined some points including from your tenancy agreement to further explain my rationale for my overall conclusions.

It is understandable that Peabody may need to update its tenancy agreements / terms especially so considering the need to align policies / procedures etc resulting from joining two organisations into one as part of a large merger.

The agreement you last signed does contain a provision to allow changes to be made (see 6 'changing the agreement') and the agreement as a whole makes it clear it is a fixed term agreement, so it is reasonable to expect that at some point you would have to sign a new agreement that might not be word for word exactly the same.

Peabody has to apply its policies consistently and fairly to ensure it is acting fairly and not discriminating as well as to ensure it complies with law and our obligations.

Were we have let you down is in terms of delays, there was evidently deliberations that took some time. Although staff were well intentioned and wanted to ensure you were advised the right thing.

While this was well intended in terms of wanting to ensure as a vulnerable resident we treated you fairly and with due care and progressed mindfully, in a considered manner that vulnerable residents would expect.

As part of this consultations were undergone with our legal team, as you appointed a solicitor / attorney, so this understandably caused delays as we underwent necessary legal deliberations.

There were also delays since March 2020, while ultimately the delays were due to the effect of the global pandemic on our service provision ability, with staff furloughing and office closures for example resulting in things taking longer despite our good intentions.

I hope while I am not able to offer you the result you were hoping for that I have least made our position clear.

We do absolutely empathise with you as a former rough sleeper and we hope you will engage with us going forward to further help you with support.

Compensation.

While it is very difficult to accurately proportion blame for delays that were or were not down to the pandemic effect since March 2020, mindful of your vulnerability and taking into account everything I offer you £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience.

And a further £100 (the maximum) for complaint handling for any shortcomings including throughout the formal complaint stages, including delays.

Closing.

If you want to accept the compensation offer, please complete and return the form within three months.

I have now finished my review of your complaint. This is the end of our complaints process. You can now:

• Accept the outcome of my review.

• Contact the Housing Ombudsman (www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk or 0300 111 3000) and ask them if they can review your case. You can do this 8 weeks from the date of this letter or contact your MP or councillor for help.

The Housing Ombudsman may decide that your case or some elements of it would be under the justification of the Care and Support Ombudsman (www.lgo.org.uk) or 0300 061 0614 (due to factors such as the nature of your nomination to Peabody under the RSI scheme, supported housing support and tenancy agreement.)

Therefore you can contact both or either to ask them what would be in each ones jurisdiction.

Please note both Ombudsman have a specific justification and would not be able to rule / adjudicate on matters outside our complaints procedure, such as legal matters.

I am very sorry for the shortcomings you experienced and wish you the very best for the future.

Yours sincerely

Alan Rudman | Delivery Manager | Customer Experience Team

Re: Peabody's appalling new terms of tenancy

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan

Peabody have insisted that they have offered a tenancy "like-for-like as requested". Indeed, we have been falsely accused of not signing a like-for-like agreement. They continue to maintain that, although the new agreement "might not be word for word exactly the same" (to quote the letter above), there are effectively no material differences between the two documents. Really? Their new clause 24 from section D could force any RSI tenant into declaring bankruptcy through no fault of their own, and assurances to the contrary have no value in law. The clause would, therefore, hold us captive should we ever want or need to end the tenancy before the fixed term has expired. This is by no means our only concern, however.

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 11/12/20)[1]

__________________________

[1] 20 November: I had to upload several images in this blog post to an alternative host for images. They constitute more of my images in MediaFire that do not appear on their site.

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, and on 11 November that lock was changed. Our flat door was repaired by a security contractor on 1 December with silicone sealant and glue gun. The police closed the case within two days of the crime due to a lack of evidence.

11 December: The Housing Ombudsman Service finally gave Peabody Trust the equivalent of a fourth deadline (day 9). Pixsy continue to threaten Church and State but without the Claim Letter we need for Twitter and others (earlier today)

For months we have been dealing with an almost total blockade of our emails to space advocates anywhere in the world. The latest email we gave up on to Washington DC is our reply email to a close colleague on 3 December. Declan's recent use of his mobile phone to try to get my permission emails through to space advocates has also proven unsuccessful. On both occasions the leading expert could only be reached through voice mail because, we assume, of the pandemic that is currently raging in America. Most recently we have had the honour of listing a Hall of Famer astronaut among our Honorary Associates. It was one of the few emails that we have gotten through to space advocates in the past three months.

6 December: 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

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 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