Wednesday, November 11, 2020

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

DAY 180 IN A WEEKLY PERIODIC TENANCY
SUBJECT TO A 'NO FAULT' SECTION 21 NOTICE
MAYOR OF LONDON RSI PROPERTY

14/04/20

With the background as provided above, the Heaveys now are facing an eviction notice from their landlord, Peabody Trust housing association. The tenancy is a flat, which falls under the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative. Pardoning my intrusion into English law, but in fairness there does not appear to be any reason for the eviction, relying apparently entirely on the discretion of the landlord.

Joseph R. Carvalko, Esq., American lawyer (full letter here)

Our Church and State website has no less than 59 Nobel Laureates on it despite the never-ending assault on our email; see paragraph 2 under "Church and State" on this blog's sidebar (updated today).
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms formulates what is the core of free speech. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression." In an important interpretation of this article, the European Court of Human Rights in Handyside v. UK (1976) indicated that this "freedom of expression" should be construed as follows. It "is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received, or regarded as inoffensive, or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population". Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see Cliteur, 2010).



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

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

11 November 2020

Use of image by Klaus Hiltscher 002-110889

Dear James,

Thank you for your email.

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring

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

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

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

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


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



From My Pick's:

30 June: District Judge Ruth Fine orders Declan to pay £1,850 in costs. St Mungo's are under no obligation to even vouch over the phone that we are clients of the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's TST programme (WITH UPDATE 08/11/20)

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

What the issue in these court proceedings boiled down to was whether the Court would decide that Declan and I should live in a destabilised tenancy that poses a threat to his life and inhibits our ability to exercise our rights, simply because the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's Tenancy Sustainment Team in North London (TST North) would not even take a phone call to confirm that we are clients of theirs. Declan argued that this was not proportionate and lawful. But District Judge Ruth Fine agreed with counsel for St Mungo's that TST North was not obliged to take such a phone call and ordered him to pay £1,850 in costs. Declan had asked the Judge to take into consideration that St Mungo's had clocked up exorbitant legal fees amounting to £3,407.50 without mentioning this phone call in their application for strike out. Less than a week later, St Mungo's TST North had agreed to take the phone call for us both that was the essence of Declan's claim. But still our landlord, Peabody Trust housing association, will not renew our tenancy like for like as twice before (Housing Ombudsman Service Case ID 202002510). Declan's debt to St Mungo's was cleared by a publishing colleague within 24 hours of my blog post above. Having averted bankruptcy, we now consider that to seek pro se (in person) access to justice in the courts has become far too dangerous for us.

Our list of 287 Honorary Associates includes 17 Nobel Prize laureates, 11 US National Medal of Science laureates and 12 knighted professors notwithstanding the excessive targeting of these three categories of emails in particular.

http://churchandstate.org.uk/honorary-associates/

"Let me recommend an important web site churchandstate.org.uk. Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out." Edd Doerr (1930-2020), (then) President, Americans for Religious Liberty

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

Our Church and State website has no less than 59 Nobel Laureates on it despite the never-ending assault on our email; see paragraph 2 under "Church and State" on this blog's sidebar (updated today).

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms formulates what is the core of free speech. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression." In an important interpretation of this article, the European Court of Human Rights in Handyside v. UK (1976) indicated that this "freedom of expression" should be construed as follows. It "is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received, or regarded as inoffensive, or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population". Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see Cliteur, 2010).



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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards and thanks,

Alan Rudman | Delivery Manager | Customer Experience Team

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan


Declan submitted this complaint to Peabody on 17 October:

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

Ref: CAS-506345-C3J0K0

I am not satisfied with Head of Specialist Housing Management Sonia Palfey's response dated 7 September 2020 to the Stage 1 complaint I raised with Peabody about new terms of tenancy. I received Ms Palfrey's response through the Housing Ombudsman Service last night. I respectfully ask you to escalate this matter to a Stage 2 complaint for me, or, alternatively, provide me with a final response letter for the Ombudsman to consider.
  
By way of background, my wife and I have been living in a Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiate (RSI) property that is owned by Peabody. Our tenancy has been twice renewed like for like as requested. The original two-year term expired in 2016, and again in 2018 but Peabody agreed to new tenancies on like-for-like terms on both occasions. In an email of 27 April 2020, Housing Officer Rukia Khatun asserted in relation to the third agreement offered that "the terms are the same and a like for like as requested". In a further email of 1 May 2020, Ms Khatun falsely accused us of not signing a like-for-like agreement.

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

To resolve my complaint I request a tenancy like for like as requested, as has been issued twice before, and not a tenancy agreement that is not remotely the same document. Substantial and/or adverse variations include: unspecified visiting support that neither I nor my wife wants or needs; the removal from the agreement of the rent cap for social housing; the both of us remaining liable for rent and service charges until the end of the fixed term if Peabody does not agree to the termination of the tenancy despite our one month's notice in advance; and the stipulation of a much shorter length of time in rent arrears for possession.

Consider, for example, that the stipulated time in arrears for possession has been reduced from 8 weeks to 14 days. This in itself renders unsignable the new tenancy agreement, thereby destabilising our tenancy and inhibiting our ability to exercise our rights. Newham Council has already twice suspended our housing benefit because of erroneous notifications from the Department for Work and Pensions that we had vacated. We have not had any contact with the Department during our tenancy due to us both having been part-time employed.

I reiterate in conclusion that my wife and I have no legal protection from a 'no fault' eviction in a weekly periodic tenancy, and to assert otherwise is both factually disingenuous and unsupported by law. I have sought and received legal advice from a UK lawyer on this point, and a Housing legal advisor such as Shelter concurs on their website. I am a 60-year-old asthmatic with a long history of serious respiratory illness, thus placing me in the high-risk group for COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections. That my wife and I should be forced to live under the threat to life of a 'no fault' eviction in an RSI designated property seems to us to be unconscionable. There is no question that such an eviction would return us to the streets for the third time through no fault of our own, and this time with little or no prospect of ever being housed again.

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

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


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





"Let me recommend an important web site churchandstate.org.uk. Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out." Edd Doerr (1930-2020), (then) President, Americans for Religious Liberty