Check out our news website Church and State to find out about our writers and read some amazing stories: http://churchandstate.org.uk. There are no less than 63 Nobel Prize laureates on the site; for details, see this blog's sidebar under "Church and State".
Showing posts with label Department for Work and Pensions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department for Work and Pensions. Show all posts
In the previous blog “Problems with internet access”, I reported that on Sunday I couldn’t connect with either my laptop or Declan’s notebook to the access point which our live-in landlady Belinda McKenzie gave me back in July to access her broadband network – see an article in the New Statesman stating that Belinda’s house “doubles as the hub of the British and Irish 9/11 Truth Campaign” here.
It turns out that Belinda's two other access points (McKenzie-1 and moj) are working fine, and Belinda concurs that only forces from outside the house could have disconnected ours (Guest). Moreover, our bandwidths continue to be squeezed almost to death in public libraries, whether we are on a library computer, my laptop or Declan's notebook (see, for example, blog of 26 October “Internet access at the British Library”). It seems little consolation that only two weeks ago Google finally removed the “Attack Site” warnings that on 13 November they posted on every single page of the NAC website (see blog of 2 December “NAC website is back”).
On Thursday we have our sixth interview in six weeks at our local Highgate Jobcentre Plus – the jobcentre notified us on 5 November that Declan and I had been selected to be interviewed on six consecutive Thursdays about the jobs we are applying for. Every week it is something. Two weeks ago, the jobcentre actually insisted that Declan apply for two jobs that they selected for him, neither of which he would have entertained the thought of applying for (see blog of 2 December “NAC website is back”). Last week the interviewer wanted to know the names of the employers we were going to contact the following week! This request is quite amazing because it defies the logic of the jobcentre's policy that “each time you attend, we will talk with you about what you have been doing to find work” (emphasis added).
We have some history with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), of which this jobcentre is a part: We came to England in 2003 and for two years attempted to get NAC up and running; we went on benefits in July 2005; the DWP terminated Declan's joint claim for Jobseeker's Allowance on 27 September 2006 because he did not “sign on” two days before he was due to do so on 29 September. Declan exhausted the appeals process from the street, having been denied the internal appeal process by procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority (the DWP). His case was dismissed by the High Court (Judicial Review), Court of Appeal and European Court of Human Rights (see blog of 21 October 2008 “European Court of Human Rights declares application inadmissible”).
Goodness knows what this Thursday will throw up! Perhaps the forces that have cut us off from the internet are connected to those forces that put us to the street for more than 2 1/2 years (from 3 November 2006 to 13 July 2009)!
Well, it seems obstacles just keep coming our way: in yesterday’s blog, I published a letter that Declan wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions concerning the difficulties we are experiencing trying to get the benefits we are entitled to - and this after the Department for Work and Pensions unlawfully put us the street for more than 2 1/2 years; in the blog of last Wednesday (see here), I published a letter Declan wrote to the Papal Nuncio in London about his formal complaint of discrimination against the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy - for denying us access to food!
Today I had to put away my laptop because Tower Hamlets Council’s Idea Store Whitechapel library - where I have been doing all my work since we were put to the street in November 2006 - restricted my access to their network to “local only” (a first), effectively blocking my access to the Internet. I didn’t see anybody else raising the issue with a member of staff. Anyway, I am unlucky: the technician is away for the day and no other staff member “has the expertise” to deal with my query. Next time, Declan will write to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council, Councillor Lutfur Rahman (see blog of 13 May “Letter to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council”).
So much for the work I had hoped to do on “War on Terror” today - I have been sent some amazing stuff from a conference that was held in Buenos Aires a couple of weeks ago; of course, now I'm twice as interested! This is the email Declan sent to the manager of the library a moment ago:
Subject: Idea Store Whitechapel
Dear Mr. Ali,
I wish to confirm that at 1.00pm my wife brought to the attention of a member of your staff that she didn't have access to the Internet via her laptop. At 1.30pm, a member of staff explained to her that the technician is away for the day and that there is no-one else in the IT Department that has the expertise to explain to her why she is the only person in the library whose access to the Idea Store network has been restricted to "local only".
I can confirm that as at this moment (3.00pm) no Internet access has been restored to my wife on her laptop, and a member of staff has only spoken further to her to reconfirm that nothing can be done to rectify the situation today.
I present below a copy of my email to you on 21 September.
Yours sincerely, Declan Heavey
cc Ms. Heather Bonfield, Head of Cultural Services
----------------------
21 September 2009
Subject: Idea Store Whitechapel
Dear Mr. Ali,
I wish to confirm that at 5.30pm this evening my wife brought to the attention of a member of your staff that her access to the Internet via her laptop had slowed down to an almost standstill. She inquired of this member of staff if she was the only user experiencing such difficulties, as no announcements had been made and no other user seemed to be having problems using the Idea Store network. I can confirm that as at this moment (6.45pm) no Internet access has been restored to my wife, nor has any member of staff spoken further to her.
This morning, Declan wrote once again to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Yvette Cooper, about the difficulties we are experiencing trying to get the benefits we are entitled to - and this after the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) unlawfully put us the street for more than 2 1/2 years. All is explained in letter below, but in sum, we are being paid half our benefit entitlement since 17 July because the DWP has effectively lost my National Insurance number and will not reissue me with another one. I should perhaps mention that in the previous blog I publish an Open Letter that Declan wrote to the Papal Nuncio in London, Rev. Faustino Sainz Muñoz, regarding his formal complaint of discrimination against the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy: on 19 August, the Providence Row charity run by the Sisters of Mercy denied us access to food! This is the email letter Declan just sent to Cooper:
Subject: Reinstatement of my joint claim for Jobseeker's Allowance
Dear Secretary of State,
I refer to previous correspondence, in particular my registered letters to you of 9 and 21 September. I attach copy of my complaint of 23 September that I lodged with His Excellency Most Rev. Faustino Sainz Muñoz, Apostolic Nunciature to Great Britain, against the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy for unlawful discrimination involving the Chief Executive of Providence Row, Mrs. Jo Ansell (see attachment “Complaint(23.9.09)”). The letter opens as follows:
On 19 August 2009, my wife and I were denied access to food in the Dellow Centre of Providence Row of the RC Diocese of Westminster because, according to a Providence Row letter of 18 August, our “room/flat” is deemed by the charity “to be stable accommodation”.
With regard to the reinstatement of my joint claim for Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) - which originally ran from July 2005 until it was terminated on 27 September 2006 because I did not "sign on" two days before I was due to so on 29 September 2006 - I reconfirm that Broadway Homelessness and Support ("Broadway") gathered on 31 July 2009 more specific details from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about my benefits claim of 17 July 2009. I was informed by Broadway that although my part of the claim had been processed (and £101.05 for the period 17 July to 30 July subsequently paid on 11 August), my wife's part of the claim has been suspended from the outset of the claim because the DWP has effectively lost her National Insurance Number (NINO), and consequently she needs to reissued a NINO before her part of the claim can be processed. (On 18 June 2008, I was robbed in the canteen of the Dellow Centre of all my and my wife's money and documents, crime reference no. 4215697/08; I was informed at Bow Road police station on 24 June 2008 that the case had been struck out due to the police being unable to obtain any CCTV footage whatsoever from Providence Row (see attachment "Ansell(25.6.08)").)
In numerous emails to the Chief Executive of Broadway, Mr. Howard Sinclair, which I copied to you for information, I pointed out that am also in receipt of a letter of 4 August from Haringey Council in respect of my claim for Housing Benefit, informing me that I must (a) tell them my wife's NINO and provide proof that it belongs to her by submitting a letter or form issued by the DWP, and (b) provide current proof of my wife's JSA by way of a recent letter from the DWP showing my current address. The Council advises in this letter that I must provide them with both of these proofs before 4 September or my claim for Housing Benefit may be suspended. We have subsequently received nothing in writing from Haringey Council to indicate that my claim for Housing Benefit remains open until the outcome of my joint claim JSA.
I can confirm that my wife has yet to be reissued the NINO - her initial appointment for 3 September at Camden NINO Jobcentre was cancelled due to "a regular clerical error", according to Broadway (see attachment "Broadway(8.9.09)"); she was subsequently interviewed on 10 September, but informed that it could take several weeks for the NINO to be reissued. Moreover, I understand that the DWP continue to be of no assistance to Broadway in providing the letter I am seeking that confirms that the payments of £128.60 I received on 18 August (for the period 31 July to 13 August) and 28 August (for the period 14 August to 27 August) are "hardship payments" for 2 persons - and not payments of my wife's JSA, which I only learnt from Broadway on 2 September is still suspended. I have repeatedly requested of Broadway that I be advised as to how long this letter will take to be processed and sent out. On 8 September, I received a reply from Mr. James Laurie for and on behalf of the charity, stating: "I will be in touch when I have heard back from the Jobcentre regarding the letter confirming hardship payments" (see attachment "Broadway(8.9.09)").
On 14 September, Broadway made inquiries of the DWP as to why my wife and I had received no benefit payment of any description from the DWP for the period 28 August to 10 September, but the DWP was unwilling to discuss my claim with them because they were not "sitting with the claimant" (see attachment "Broadway(14.9.09)"). I attended Broadway Head Office on 15 September to call the DWP to ask them whether the NINO had been allocated and where things stood with my claim. I was informed by the DWP that there was "no information" on my wife's NINO, and that £128.60 in payment of my JSA (not a hardship payment for 2 persons) would be lodged to our account later that day. Accordingly, my wife attended Broadway Head Office on 16 September to apply for her third Crisis Loan (our fourth in total) on top of the £230 we already owed the DWP in crisis loans since 20 July. She requested £40 for the period 16 September to 29 September (2 weeks), but was denied by the DWP because they did not have a NINO in her name. On 17 September, she again applied for a crisis loan, this time with both Broadway’s and my assistance, but was told that £128.60 was deemed by the DWP to be enough money for two people to survive on for a two-week period, the previous two crisis loans in her name of £70 (for the period 3 August to 16 August) and £20 (for the period 18 August to 24 August) notwithstanding.
We now have a very serious set of circumstances that may result in us being forced to return to sleeping rough at Salters' Hall. To further exacerbate the situation, I continue to be denied access to food in the Dellow Centre, despite my repeated protestations to the Archbishop of Westminster, His Grace Archbishop Vincent Nichols, and the Congregational Leader of the Sisters of Mercy, Sr. Coirle McCarthy, about our unstable circumstances. The DWP terminated our benefits in September 2006 because I did not sign up early enough – even though both my wife and I were doing so in a timely fashion; and I exhausted the appeals process from the street: my case was dismissed by the High Court (Judicial Review), Court of Appeal and European Court of Human Rights in spite of the fact that I was denied the internal appeal process by procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. That we are now dealing with a series of obvious "mistakes" (however deliberate), I cannot imagine what would motivate the authorities to repeatedly deny us benefits to which we are entitled.
You will note that I am taking the time to once again copy Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill Police Station into my current situation. As I mentioned in my registered letter to you of 9 September, it was Superintendent Cussen who, as the supervisory police officer who is overseeing Operation Poncho II within the City of London Police, suggested that I seek the assistance of Broadway (see attachment "Cussen(13.7.09)"). I am also copying this email and attachments to, among others, the former Law Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Master of the Salters’ Company c/o the Clerk to the Salters’ Company at clerk@salters.co.uk.
Please would you acknowledge receipt.
Yours sincerely Declan Heavey NI no. -------------------
Email: dheavey@gmail.com
Home address: 83 Priory Gardens London N6 5QU
cc Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Master of the Salters' Company His Excellency Most Rev. Faustino Sainz Muñoz, Apostolic Nunciature to Great Britain His Grace Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster Sr. Coirle McCarthy, Congregational Leader of the Sisters of Mercy His Grace The Duke of Norfolk, Patron of Providence Row Alderman Sir Michael Oliver, Vice President of Providence Row Mr. Simon Bartley, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Providence Row Mrs. Jo Ansell, Chief Executive of Providence Row Mr. Howard Sinclair, Chief Executive of Broadway Homelessness and Support Superintendent Lorraine Cussen, Snow Hill Police Station
As I said in yesterday’s blog “Department for Work and Pensions denies me a Crisis Loan”, this morning I was going to again request of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) a £40 Crisis Loan for living expenses for the next two weeks – the DWP has suspended my benefits because they have effectively lost my National Insurance Number (NINO) and I may have to wait several weeks to be reissued the NINO. Yesterday they denied me the loan because I don’t have ... a NINO. This morning, despite Declan's assistance, they denied me because Declan is deemed to have received enough for the two of us to survive on.
The fact that the £128.60 Declan got on Tuesday has to last him until 29 September is neither here nor there, according to the DWP officer I was speaking with. She was curious as to how I was surviving since I got my last crisis loan of £20 on 18 August (for the period 18 August to 24 August), and when I told her that the DWP made us homeless for more than 2 1/2 years and sometimes I find sandwiches discarded in bins which I then keep in the fridge, she was like ... well, there you are! Declan has once again written to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Yvette Cooper, presented below, and will write to her again after I reapply next Wednesday for £20 for one week (the previous blog contains an email letter to Cooper, and also blogs of 15 September “Department for Work and Pensions forces me to apply for a Crisis Loan”, and of 9 September “Declan complains to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions”).
As I explained in the blog of 11 September “Declan’s formal complaint against the Sisters of Mercy lodged with the Archbishop of Westminster”, I am currently working on the “War on Terror” in the NAC website. In the book The War on Truth, bestselling British author and political analyst Dr. Nafeez Ahmed writes that “global citizens should organize and gather together resources and experts to establish the rudimentary beginnings of a public inquiry into the global war on terror and its roots”. So, as I am going around gathering high quality videos for the site, I have come across this one, “Anthrax War”, a provocative new investigative documentary by filmmakers Bob Coen and Eric Nadler (a Canada-France coproduction) that examines the 2001 US Anthrax Attacks and offers a shocking glimpse into today’s secret and dangerous world of germ weapons:
Anthrax War Pt 1. Anthrax War is a provocative new investigative documentary by filmmakers Bob Coen and Eric Nadler about the untold story of the 2001 U.S. Anthrax Attacks and the dark secrets of the shadowy world of modern day germ weapons research. The search for answers takes them from the US to the UK, then to the edge of Siberia and to Southern Africa and leads them into an underworld in which leading scientists working with germs die under mysterious circumstances. The growing list includes Bruce Ivins, who the FBI claims was the only person behind the U.S. anthrax murders; Dr. David Kelly, the former head of UK bio-defense; and Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik, the mastermind behind the Soviet Union's vast and illegal bio-weapons complex who defected to the West. Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.
For the record, this is Declan’s email letter this morning to Cooper:
Subject: Reinstatement of my joint claim for Jobseeker's Allowance
Dear Secretary of State,
I refer to previous correspondence, in particular my registered letter to you of 9 September to which I do not appear to have received a reply. I attach copy of my complaint of 11 September that I lodged with His Grace Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, against the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy for unlawful discrimination involving the Chief Executive of Providence Row, Mrs. Jo Ansell (see attachment “Complaint(11.9.09)”). The letter opens as follows:
On 19 August 2009, my wife and I were denied access to food in the Dellow Centre of Providence Row of the RC Diocese of Westminster because, according to a Providence Row letter of 18 August, our “room/flat” is deemed by the charity “to be stable accommodation”.
With regard to the reinstatement of my joint claim for Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) - which originally ran from July 2005 until it was terminated on 27 September 2006 because I did not "sign on" two days before I was due to so on 29 September 2006 - I reconfirm that Broadway Homelessness and Support ("Broadway") gathered on 31 July 2009 more specific details from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about my benefits claim of 17 July 2009. I was informed by Broadway that although my part of the claim had been processed (and £101.05 for the period 17 July to 30 July subsequently paid on 11 August), my wife's part of the claim has been suspended from the outset of the claim because the DWP has effectively lost her National Insurance Number (NINO), and consequently she needs to reissued a NINO before her part of the claim can be processed. (On 18 June 2008, I was robbed in the canteen of the Dellow Centre of all my and my wife's money and documents, crime reference no. 4215697/08; I was informed at Bow Road police station on 24 June 2008 that the case had been struck out due to the police being unable to obtain any CCTV footage whatsoever from Providence Row (see attachment "Ansell(25.6.08)").)
In numerous emails to the Chief Executive of Broadway, Mr. Howard Sinclair, which I copied to you for information, I pointed out that am also in receipt of a letter of 4 August from Haringey Council in respect of my claim for Housing Benefit, informing me that I must (a) tell them my wife's NINO and provide proof that it belongs to her by submitting a letter or form issued by the DWP, and (b) provide current proof of my wife's JSA by way of a recent letter from the DWP showing my current address. The Council advises in this letter that I must provide them with both of these proofs before 4 September or my claim for Housing Benefit may be suspended. We have subsequently received nothing in writing from Haringey Council to indicate that my claim for Housing Benefit remains open until the outcome of my joint claim JSA.
I can confirm that my wife has yet to be reissued the NINO - her initial appointment for 3 September at Camden NINO Jobcentre was cancelled due to "a regular clerical error", according to Broadway (see attachment "Broadway(8.9.09)"); she was subsequently interviewed on 10 September, but informed that it could take several weeks for the NINO to be reissued. Moreover, I understand that the DWP are not being of assistance to Broadway in providing the letter I am seeking that confirms that the payments of £128.60 I received on 18 August (for the period 31 July to 13 August) and 28 August (for the period 14 August to 27 August) are "hardship payments" for 2 persons - and not payments of my wife's JSA, which I only learnt from Broadway on 2 September is still suspended. I have repeatedly requested of Broadway that I be advised as to how long this letter will take to be processed and sent out. On 8 September, I received a reply from Mr. James Laurie for and on behalf of the charity, stating: "I will be in touch when I have heard back from the Jobcentre regarding the letter confirming hardship payments" (see attachment "Broadway(8.9.09)").
On 14 September, Broadway made inquiries of the DWP as to why my wife and I had received no benefit payment of any description from the DWP for the period 28 August to 10 September, but the DWP was unwilling to discuss my claim with them because they were not "sitting with the claimant" (see attachment "Broadway(14.9.09)"). I attended Broadway Head Office on 15 September to call the DWP to ask them whether the NINO had been allocated and where things stood with my claim. I was informed by the DWP that there was "no information" on my wife's NINO, and that £128.60 in payment of my JSA (not a hardship payment for 2 persons) would be lodged to our account later that day. Accordingly, my wife attended Broadway Head Office yesterday morning to apply for her third Crisis Loan (our fourth in total) on top of the £230 we already owe the DWP in crisis loans since 20 July. She requested £40 for the period 16 September to 29 September (2 weeks), but was denied by the DWP because they did not have a NINO in her name. This morning she applied again with Broadway's and my assistance, but was told that £128.60 was deemed by the DWP to be sufficient money for two people to survive on for a two-week period, the previous two crisis loans in her name of £70 (for the period 3 August to 16 August) and £20 (for the period 18 August to 24 August) notwithstanding.
We now have a very serious set of circumstances that may result in us being forced to return to sleeping rough at Salters' Hall. To further exacerbate the situation, I continue to be denied access to food in the Dellow Centre, despite my repeated protestations to the Congregational Leader of the Sisters of Mercy, Sr. Coirle McCarthy, about our unstable circumstances (see attachment “Complaint(11.9.09)”). The DWP terminated our benefits in September 2006 because I did not sign up early enough – even though both my wife and I were doing so in a timely fashion; and I exhausted the appeals process from the street: my case was dismissed by the High Court (Judicial Review), Court of Appeal and European Court of Human Rights in spite of the fact that I was denied the internal appeal process by procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. That we are now dealing with a series of obvious "mistakes" (however deliberate), I cannot imagine what would motivate the authorities to repeatedly deny us benefits to which we are entitled.
You will note that I am taking the time to once again copy Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill Police Station into my current situation. As I mentioned in my registered letter to you of 9 September, it was Superintendent Cussen who, as the supervisory police officer who is overseeing Operation Poncho II within the City of London Police, suggested that I seek the assistance of Broadway (see attachment "Cussen(13.7.09)"). I am also copying this email and attachments to, among others, the former Law Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Master of the Salters’ Company c/o the Clerk to the Salters’ Company at clerk@salters.co.uk.
Please would you acknowledge receipt.
Yours sincerely Declan Heavey NI no. ------------
Email: dheavey@gmail.com
Home address: 83 Priory Gardens London N6 5QU
cc Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Master of the Salters' Company His Grace Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster Sr. Coirle McCarthy, Congregational Leader of the Sisters of Mercy His Grace The Duke of Norfolk, Patron of Providence Row Alderman Sir Michael Oliver, Vice President of Providence Row Mr. Simon Bartley, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Providence Row Mrs. Jo Ansell, Chief Executive of Providence Row Mr. Howard Sinclair, Chief Executive of Broadway Homelessness and Support Superintendent Lorraine Cussen, Snow Hill Police Station
As I said in the previous blog, “The Department for Work and Pensions refuses to interview me this morning for a NINO”, Declan wrote yesterday to the CEO of Broadway Homelessness and Support, Howard Sinclair, who is assisting us in overcoming the various obstacles that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) continues to place in our way to stop us from getting the benefits we are entitled to - and this after putting us to the street for more than 2 1/2 years. His first email to Sinclair yesterday is presented below. It is the lead attachment to the email letter he has composed for leading human rights lawyers here in London; another attachment is a formal complaint Declan lodged against the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy on the grounds of unlawful discrimination (it can be read in the blog of 1 September “Declan lodges his complaint against the Sisters of Mercy”).
This letter to Sinclair is copied to, among others, the former Law Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Master of the Salters’ Company. It was at the headquarters of the Salters’ Company that we slept for almost a year before gaining access to a roof over our heads on 13 July (see blog of 26 July “We are interviewed on The Real Deal”).
Salters’ Company describes itself as a company very largely devoted to charity which also plays an important part in the system of local government in the City of London. Well, they seem to think we are going back to the street: they have covered the porch we slept in from January in sand bags! It means we will be moving back to where we slept from September 2008 through to January: about twenty paces from their front entrance, down some twelve steps (see, for example, blog of 5 June “Salters back in the spotlight”).
Today is Declan’s birthday, which reminds me that this day last year we returned to the porch we had been using since 3 November 2006 only to find that … a trellis gate had been installed (see blog of 5 September 2008 “A trellis gate is installed in the porch”). Anyway, we are being given such a run around by the DWP that I still haven’t finished our feature of the month for September. Last month we featured the assassination of the abortion doctor George Tiller on 31 May, in the United States, in “An Abortion Battle, Fought to the Death”. This month, as part of our questioning the “war on terror”, I am featuring the long-gagged FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, who has finally testified in court under oath about some of the things that she learned while working for the bureau. This documentary, “Kill The Messenger”, will be included:
This is Declan’s email to Sinclair yesterday afternoon:
Subject: Broadway assistance in claiming Jobseeker's Allowance
Dear Mr. Sinclair,
Previous correspondence refers. I attach copy of a formal complaint that I lodged with Providence Row against the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy for unlawful discrimination involving the Chief Executive of Providence Row, Mrs. Jo Ansell (see attachment “Complaint(1.9.09)”). Paragraph 1 under the heading “Please outline your complaint” states as follows:
On 19 August 2009 my wife and I were denied access to food in the Dellow Centre of Providence Row in London because, according to a Providence Row letter of 18 August, our “room/flat” is deemed by the charity “to be stable accommodation” (see Supporting Documents, p. 14).
With regard to the reinstatement of my joint claim for Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) - which originally ran from July 2005 until it was terminated on 27 September 2006 because I did not "sign on" two days before I was due to so on 29 September 2006 - Broadway Homelessness and Support gathered on 31 July 2009 more specific details from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about my benefits claim of 17 July 2009. I was informed by the Broadway City Outreach team that although my part of the claim had been processed (and subsequently paid), my wife's part of the claim is currently suspended because the DWP has effectively lost her National Insurance Number (NINO), and consequently she needs to reissued a NINO before her part of the claim can be processed. (On 18 June 2008, I was robbed in the canteen of the Dellow Centre of all my and my wife's money and documents, crime reference no. 4215697/08; I was informed at Bow Road police station on 24 June 2008 that the case had been struck out due to the police being unable to obtain any CCTV footage whatsoever from Providence Row (see attachment "Ansell(25.6.08)").)
As first mentioned in my email to you of 6 August, I am also in receipt of a letter of 4 August from Haringey Council in respect of my claim for Housing Benefit, informing me that I must (a) tell them my wife's NINO and provide proof that it belongs to her by submitting a letter or form issued by the DWP, and (b) provide current proof of my wife's JSA by way of a recent letter from the DWP showing my current address. The Council advises that I must provide them with both of these proofs before 4 September or my claim for Housing Benefit may be suspended. We have subsequently received nothing in writing from Haringey Council to indicate that my claim for Housing Benefit remains open until the outcome of my joint claim JSA.
My wife has yet to be reissued the NINO, her initial appointment for 3 September at Camden NINO Jobcentre having been cancelled due to a clerical error. Moreover, I understand that Broadway Homelessness and Support will not be of assistance to me in acquiring from the DWP the letter I am seeking confirming that the payments of £128.60 I received on 18 August and 28 August are hardship payments for 2 persons - and not payments of my wife's JSA, which I only learnt from the Broadway City Outreach team yesterday is still suspended (see “Broadway(2.9.09)”).
My wife and I now have a very serious set of circumstances that may result in us being forced to return to sleeping rough at Salters' Hall. To exacerbate the situation, we continue to be denied access to food in the Dellow Centre, notwithstanding my repeated protestations to the Congregational Leader of the Sisters of Mercy, Sr. Coirle McCarthy, about our unstable circumstances (see attachment “Complaint(1.9.09)”). The DWP terminated our benefits in September 2006 because I did not sign up early enough – even though both my wife and I were doing so in a timely fashion; and I exhausted the appeals process: my case was dismissed by the High Court (Judicial Review), Court of Appeal and European Court of Human Rights, despite that I was denied the internal appeal process by procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. That we are now dealing with another obvious "mistake" (however deliberate), I cannot imagine what would motivate the authorities to deny my wife the NINO to which she is entitled.
You will note that I am taking the time to once again copy Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill Police Station into my current situation. As you are aware, it was Superintendent Cussen who, as the supervisory police officer who is overseeing Operation Poncho II within the City of London Police, suggested that I seek the assistance of Broadway Homelesssness and Support (see attachment "Cussen(13.7.09)"). I am also copying this email and attachments to, among others, the former Law Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Master of the Salters’ Company c/o the Clerk to the Salters’ Company at clerk@salters.co.uk.
Please would you acknowledge receipt.
Yours sincerely Declan Heavey
cc The Rt. Hon. Yvette Cooper MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Master of the Salters' Company Sr. Coirle McCarthy, Congregational Leader of the Sisters of Mercy His Grace Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster His Grace The Duke of Norfolk, Patron of Providence Row Alderman Sir Michael Oliver, Vice President of Providence Row Mr. Simon Bartley, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Providence Row Mrs. Jo Ansell, Chief Executive of Providence Row Superintendent Lorraine Cussen, Snow Hill Police Station
As I said in the blog of 18 August “The Department for Work and Pensions denies me a Crisis Loan”, the Department (DWP) has suspended my benefits because they have lost my National Insurance Number (NINO). As a consequence, I have to attend an interview – to prove that I am who I say I am and my circumstances are what I say they are – to be reissued a NINO. Broadway Homelessness and Support have in fact been chasing this interview up since we got a roof over our heads on 13 July, after more than two and a half years sleeping rough on the streets of London (see for example blog of 6 August 2009 “The Department for Work and Pensions is putting us back to the street”).
Our history with the DWP goes back a long way: We came to England in 2003 and for two years attempted to get NAC up and running; we went on benefits in July 2005; the DWP terminated our benefits on 27 September 2006 because Declan did not “sign on” two days before he was due to do so on 29 September. Declan exhausted the appeals process from the street: the case was dismissed by the High Court (Judicial Review), Court of Appeal and European Court of Human Rights, despite that we were denied the internal appeal process by procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority (see, for example, blog of 12 July “Police threaten us with physical force at the place we sleep, Salters”).
Anyway, Broadway finally got an email on 26 August from the DWP stating that I had a NINO appointment in Camden NINO Jobcentre for this morning at 10.00am, and that I should have with me a letter from the police on the robbery of all our money and documents at the Dellow Day Centre run by the Sisters of Mercy (see blog of 18 June 2008 “Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre”). I shouldn’t have bothered. The email that Broadway received from the DWP was “inaccurate”, the member of staff adding: “Sorry you wasted your time.” I now have to go back on 10 September … Oh, well.
For the record, this is Declan’s letter this evening to the CEO of Broadway, Howard Sinclair:
Subject: NINO meeting
Dear Mr. Sinclair,
Previous correspondence refers. On 26 August 2009, Broadway Homelessness and Support received from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) my wife’s National Insurance Number (NINO) reallocation appointment in Camden NINO Jobcentre for 3 September at 10.00am (see attachment “Broadway(26.8.09)”). Nonetheless, the DWP issued a NINO Appointment Letter on 27 August 2009 addressed to my wife stating that her interview at Camden NINO Jobcentre has been made for 10 September at 11.30am (see “DWP(27.8.09)”).
I can confirm that my wife kept her appointment at Camden NINO Jobcentre this morning, but was informed by a member of staff that the email letter of 26 August that Broadway Homelessness and Support received from the DWP was “inaccurate”, and that she was to return on 10 September at 11.30am. In accordance with this email letter of 26 August, my wife had in her possession the following documents/letters, etc. that would support who she says she is and support her circumstances:
- The Crime reference letter with the crime number on the theft of a holdall containing all my and my wife’s money and documents, including two passports in our names, from the Dellow Centre, London E1 7SA (see attachment “CRL(29.8.09)”)
- Letter of ‘support’ from the Dellow Centre confirming the length of time that we have been attending there - that to the best of their knowledge Mrs. Heavey is who she says she is, etc.
- Big Issue ID
- Evidence regarding the Joint claim made in 2005
Supplementary documents/letters, etc. include:
- Yorkshire Building Society cash card and stamped Account Verification printout
- Shorthold Tenancy Agreement
- Copy of Habitual Residence Test statement made by the investigating officer in 2005
- Copy of each of the following: passport, Irish citizenship certificate, marriage certificate, and birth certificate
In reference the above cited documents/letters, etc., Mr. James Laurie for and on behalf of Broadway Homelessness and Support wrote on 1 September: “Thank you again for this information. I am sure that the documentation you have gathered will be sufficient proof of identity and a decision will be made in your wife’s favor.” Please advise if this is no longer the case.
You will note that I am taking the time to once again copy Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill Police Station into my current situation. As you are aware, it was Superintendent Cussen who, as the supervisory police officer who is overseeing Operation Poncho II within the City of London Police, suggested that I seek the assistance of Broadway Homelessness and Support (see attachment "Cussen(13.7.09)").
Yours sincerely,
Declan Heavey
cc The Rt. Hon. Yvette Cooper MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Superintendent Lorraine Cussen, Snow Hill Police Station The Manager, Camden NINO Jobcentre (by registered post - with attachments)
As I said in yesterday’s blog “Salters’ Company threatens us with ‘the authorities’”, the night before last we arrived to our sleeping pitch – a porch of the Salters’ Hall located on a derelict highwalk (see blog of 5 June “Salters back in the spotlight” for two Google map photos of the pitch) – to find three notices on official headed paper stating that the Salters' Company would report to “the authorities” anyone found sleeping in the porch. Last night there were two additional notices, this time on official notepaper from the City of London Police, stating as follows:
PRIVATE PROPERTY
Please do not sleep in this area or leave your personal belongings.
In the previous blog I mentioned that The Salters’ Company, one of the Twelve Great City Livery Companies, describes itself as a company very largely devoted to charity; it also plays an important part in the system of local government in the City of London, reflecting its historical roots. I also explain that under the Human Rights Act 1998 people have the right to sleep in the streets and that Salters need a court order to move us on. (I also publish a picture of Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the Master of the Salters’ Company, and a former law lord.)
Nonetheless, I am actually prepared to break any court order that would put me back on street level: within two weeks of sleeping in the street somebody sat on the right hand side of my face (see here); I was grabbed by the ankles while I was asleep and dragged out of the two-step porch and down the pavement two or three metres, then a few hours later I was kicked in the back (see here); a guy repeatedly kicked me in the chest and shoulders as his mates stood by (see here); and I was urinated on (see here). I would actually feel safer in a cell!
In Thursday’s blog “Still no resolution!”, I wrote that there wouldn’t be any need for a cell if the homeless organisation Broadway got a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) acknowledging an error in respect to the payment of our benefits and committing to the payment of a deposit on a flat, a small fraction of what we are entitled to in accumulated arrears - we came to England in 2003 and for two years attempted to get NAC up and running; we went on benefits in July 2005; the DWP terminated our benefits on 27 September 2006 because Declan did not “sign on” two days before he was due to do so on 29 September. Broadway, of course, never seem happy about the task, I assume because we never succeeded in getting this from the High Court (see here), Court of Appeal (see here) or the European Court of Human Rights (see here).
What would motivate the DWP to deny us benefits to which we are entitled? Well, there can be no explanation other than to run us back to Ireland, where an organisation like NAC wouldn’t stand a chance of seeing the light of day. In fact, Ireland is currently shuffling through a law creating penalties for blasphemy, an offence that has never properly existed in the Irish state. The proposed law states that a person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. Irish writer Michael Nugent comments in the Index on Censorship that the law “treats religious beliefs as more valuable than secular beliefs and scientific thinking”.
I uploaded this video featuring Nugent, titled “Blasphemy Is Not A Crime Part 1” (parts 2 to 9 can be accesses here), to a Guardian article “Who asked for Ireland's blasphemy law?”, which I posted to the NAC website yesterday .
Last night we were visited twice by the police at the porch we sleep in at night, at 9.10pm and 1.50am, and if I count a visit from the night before, well, that is three times then – that could probably qualify as police harassment. (Pursuant to Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Declan has already sent an email letter to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights (see blog of 13 May "Letter to the European Court under Article 34") and has also sent the Registrar a copy of his email letter to the Prime Minister Gordon Brown (see blog of 17 May "Letter to the British Prime Minister") – Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to subject applicants to any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.)
The first of these visits was at 11.30pm on Thursday, when we were woken by a police officer to be asked if we were doing ok. Having ascertained our names, she told us to go back to sleep and left. The second, at 9.10pm last night, lasted thirty minutes. PC 136A, PC 474A and PC 525A of Wood Street Police Station informed us that we were not going to be asked to pack up and leave due to this (mysterious) police "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers; so the two questions I had prepared did not really apply (see previous blog). We don't look rough sleepers, we were told, and surely we would want to be part of the mainstream once again. We didn't put ourselves in this porch by free choice, Declan said, adding that the Department for Work and Pensions unlawfully put us to the street over a year and a half ago when they terminated our benefits in the middle of judicial review proceedings because he didn't sign on two days before he was due to do so (see paragraph 3 of Declan's application to the European Court of Human Rights, submitted on 8 September 2007, for a brief account of the reason for benefits).
Declan explained that his case in the European Court was filed under Article 8 (the right to respect for his private and family life) and Article 13 (which provides for the right for an effective remedy before national authorities for violations of rights under the Convention), and that the Court may well have invited the Government to set out its observations on the merits and admissibility of the case – in December Declan received a letter from the Court turning down his request of 8 September for priority, but informing him that his application would be examined possibly before the end of January; we remain in the dark about the outcome, however. Declan also mentioned a loophole in the law relating to jobseeker’s allowance (paragraphs 57 - 62 of Declan’s application). Philip Leach in Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights states that, more often than not, it is the quality of the domestic law, or even the absence of legal regulation, which leads to violations of Article 8 of the Convention.
PC 525A said that the case could take up to seven years – are we going to be in the street that long? So Declan told him about his petition to the United Nations; that it has been signed by 519 scientists, including 22 Nobel laureates; and that we are in the process of trying to raise £4,000 to run an international campaign in support of the petition - with some of the money we would rent the most basic place imaginable (see blog of 26 March “We are seeking to raise £4,000”).
It was a “welfare” visit - or so my ticket states – the outcome “Satisfactory words of advice”. The advice must have come from PC 474A when she said that we are not entitled to sleep in the street and therefore can be moved at any time and even arrested. Her Police Review magazine may beg to differ: in the April 2007 issue an article entitled “Rough Sleepers” states that “people have the right to sleep in the streets if they want to”, and in this respect the police “need to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998”. Curiously, the May issue of The Pavement, a free magazine for London’s homeless, says that shopkeepers in the big tourist area of the Strand (Westminster area) are abandoning the Whitehall Safer Neighbourhood [police] Team’s “No sleeping” signs on their shop fronts, claiming that they are no longer effective so “we prefer to call the police if we have any problems or incidents”. (We, by the way, sleep in the porch of an office building, bed down at 9.00pm, get up at 4.30am, and don’t drink or smoke – hardly material for a complaint.)
Our third visit, at 1.50am last night, was from PC 601B. As we are already well acquainted (see previous blog), she gets straight to the point: we have to pack up and leave right away due to, yep, police "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers. When I show her the two “welfare” tickets we were given only a few hours earlier, she says “OK”, and off she goes. No tickets.
At 11.15pm last night we were woken by two police officers at the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November. To put this eighth visit in context, I have to roll back a few days, to Thursday to be precise.
That evening, Declan wasn’t able to sell The Big Issue because the regular London Lite girl had encroached on one side of his pitch and there was a guy harassing passers-by to take a copy of The London Paper on the other side.
We reckoned that the Bishopsgate City of London police had made the decisive move on our only source of income in order to stop Declan from submitting his application against the UK to the European Court of Human Rights (he has already lodged the case with the Court by introductory letter of 18 May), reducing us to illegal beggars in a matter of two or three weeks. And because I have been working like a demon on the application ever since, we were hardly surprised to wake up and find two police officers eyeing us. The spin this time?
The Chief Superintendent of Police for the City of London (there are two – CS Alex Robertson is responsible for anti-terrorism and public order) has come up with the policy that rough sleepers are to be woken every hour to force them to get off the streets. Hmmm.
As one of them is issuing us a ticket – we already had two from November – we are asked the usual questions: how long have we being sleeping in the porch, why don’t we go into a hostel, what about getting a job, etc.
It was good that Declan knew from his reading of an article entitled “Rough Sleepers” in the April issue of the Police Review magazine that people have the right to sleep in the streets if they want to. The police have the power to arrest people for sleeping rough under the Vagrancy Act 1824, but they need to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. They will frequently use the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 to crack down on offensive behaviour and they will enforce the Vagrancy Act 1824.
Anyway, it was clear from Declan’s answers to their questions that we are doing our best to get off the streets – they didn’t bat an eyelid when Declan told them that our unemployment benefit was terminated by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) because he didn’t “sign on” two days before he was due to do so; nor when they were informed that we are working on Declan's application to the European Court of Human Rights, having been denied an effective domestic remedy by the DWP both in the manner we had the benefit initially suspended and eventually terminated.
They didn’t seem too surprised either when Declan told them that he had applied to Chief Superintendent Jerry Savill of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets under the Data Protection Act 1998 for a copy of the statement Detective Constable Alexander Head took on 27 April into the assault on him in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February, when a homeless punched him twice in the face in an unprovoked attack.
As the police officers walked off at 11.40pm, Declan asked them when we could next expect to be woken by the police. He was told that we will not be woken again until next week. Who can doubt it?
I am a former social psychologist from Madrid. My husband Declan, a former physical education teacher, is from Dublin. We came to England in 2003 from Ireland with the then-aim of forming a network organisation for those abused by church. We were twice forced, through no fault of our own, to live rough on the streets of London for almost 4 years in total, from November 2006 to July 2009 and from April 2013 to May 2014. Declan established Network for Church Monitoring as a nonprofit company limited by guarantee in 2011. We are currently living under the threat to life of a 'no fault' Section 21 eviction notice from our landlord, Peabody Trust housing association. This notwithstanding that our tenancy is a flat that falls under the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative (see paragraph 3 under "Church and State" below). We have no children.
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).
[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.
