Equality Advisory Support Service: Targeted blindness? We were told yesterday that Lyn Brown MP will let us know by the end of next week whether she will refer Declan's complaint of discrimination against Peabody Trust to the Equality and Human Rights Commission
DAY 235 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).
On 17 December 2020, the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) dismissed in writing Declan's complaint of discrimination against Peabody Trust for new terms of tenancy that are not only not fair or reasonable, but have forced us into a weekly periodic tenancy that poses a threat to his life and inhibits our ability to exercise our rights. He made the case that we are being discriminated against on the grounds of philosophical belief, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. The EASS dismissed the complaint for referral to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (not public-facing), stating that based on the information provided they are "unable to identify where your protected characteristic is linked with any treatment of discrimination". This decision was based on a gross manipulation and distortion of the evidence showing bias. On 29 December 2020, Declan made his Stage 1 service complaint. EASS: "You will receive an acknowledgement of your complaint within one working day of its receipt. A Team Manager will aim to resolve your complaint within 10 working days. The 10-day timescale will commence from the next working day following the receipt of the complaint." We have been told in an ominous email that we can expect a response on or before next Monday. This was Declan's complaint about their decision:
Date: 29/12/2020
Reference Number: 201213-000013
Subject: My Stage 1 complaint
Dear Equality Advisory Support Service,
I wish to make a Stage 1 complaint, under the EASS complaints procedure, about the dismissal of my request for the referral of my case of discrimination to the Equality and Human Rights Commission via your service.
The case of discrimination is against Peabody Trust for proposed new terms of a Rough Sleepers Initiative tenancy.
First, your support centre is of the view that I am not being discriminated against because they contend that I mentioned that I am no longer a tenant of Clearing House which is part of St Mungo's on behalf of the Greater London Authority (GLA). I have never said or written that I am a former Clearing House tenant. On the contrary, I wrote that: "I am making this complaint to you for discrimination against me as a Clearing House tenant."
I also provided a quote from the GLA establishing that I am a Clearing House tenant.
Second, nowhere in the new tenancy does it state that I am living in temporary accommodation and could be at risk of eviction to help other rough sleepers on the way to permanent housing. This interpretation of the two-year fixed-term tenancy is wrong.
A review of the above reveals a deliberate manipulation and distortion of the evidence showing bias. The fact that this referral can be done via either an MP or a solicitor should not negate the validity of this complaint in my view.
Yours faithfully,
Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring
EASS: Targeted blindness?
We were told yesterday that Lyn Brown MP will let us know by the end of next week whether she will refer this letter to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (not public-facing) despite EASS's dismissal of the complaint.
13 December 2020
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Correspondence Unit
Fleetbank House
2-6 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JX
Dear Equality and Human Rights Commission,
Complaint against Peabody Trust
Please can you advise if you can take pre-enforcement action to help protect my rights without resorting to a court case.
Contact Reason
Equality Act - Discrimination.
Protected Characteristic
Philosophical belief.
What has happened
On 11 December 2020, I received the enclosed final decision letter ("the letter") from my landlord, Peabody Trust housing association. In the letter, Peabody falsely allege that I have appointed a solicitor in this case.
They also misleadingly state that I am housed by them under the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) scheme. In fact, my wife and I are tenants of the Clearing House, which is run by St Mungo's on behalf of the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the properties are provided by housing associations – such as Peabody. This fact was clarified by the GLA when their Housing First pilot, which we were a part of, ended. They wrote: "In other words, at the end of the Housing First pilot, the tenants would revert to being Clearing House tenants and as such would fall to be referred to the TST [Tenancy Sustainment Team] like all other Clearing House tenants."
Peabody's proposed new terms of tenancy, taken together with the letter, would inter alia unequivocally disenfranchise me of my right to support from St Mungo's TST. It would leave me instead with "visiting support" from Peabody that I 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."
Peabody's letter has been issued to me six months into a supported housing weekly periodic tenancy. It effectively threatens me with 'no fault' short term eviction. Any assurances to the contrary have no value in law, and especially since I have no intention of forgoing support from St Mungo's TST that I am currently being prevented from accessing due to the ongoing destabilisation of my tenancy. In fact, the letter poses a direct threat to my life. 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. Eviction from an RSI property would leave me wholly vulnerable and with no prospect of being housed.
I have emailed my local MP and three councillors for the referral of my complaint straight to the Housing Ombudsman. Without this referral, I 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 my tenancy that I am also making this complaint to you for discrimination against me as a Clearing House tenant. It is absurd of Peabody to suggest that I am being treated as other Clearing House tenants in RSI properties.
The Equality Act 2010 states that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person by treating them less favourably because of their protected characteristic; in this case, my philosophical belief. The expression of my secular values and beliefs at my website – www.churchandstate.org.uk – should have no bearing on how I am treated by a housing association. I believe that as the managing director of Network for Church Monitoring, the organisation that runs the site, there is sufficient causal connection between my protected characteristic and the way I am being treated by Peabody.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you as soon as conveniently possible.
Yours faithfully,
Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring
5 January: Peabody Trust (death threat): Declan has asked Lyn Brown MP for the referral of his complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission as well as the Housing Ombudsman. There may be nothing we can do about the Equality Advisory Support Service's distortion and dismissal of the complaint[1]
__________________________
[1] Declan's complaint for referral to the Housing Ombudsman is published in this blog post.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan
We were told yesterday that Lyn Brown MP will let us know by the end of next week whether she will refer this letter to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (not public-facing) despite EASS's dismissal of the complaint.
13 December 2020
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Correspondence Unit
Fleetbank House
2-6 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JX
Dear Equality and Human Rights Commission,
Complaint against Peabody Trust
Please can you advise if you can take pre-enforcement action to help protect my rights without resorting to a court case.
Contact Reason
Equality Act - Discrimination.
Protected Characteristic
Philosophical belief.
What has happened
On 11 December 2020, I received the enclosed final decision letter ("the letter") from my landlord, Peabody Trust housing association. In the letter, Peabody falsely allege that I have appointed a solicitor in this case.
They also misleadingly state that I am housed by them under the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) scheme. In fact, my wife and I are tenants of the Clearing House, which is run by St Mungo's on behalf of the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the properties are provided by housing associations – such as Peabody. This fact was clarified by the GLA when their Housing First pilot, which we were a part of, ended. They wrote: "In other words, at the end of the Housing First pilot, the tenants would revert to being Clearing House tenants and as such would fall to be referred to the TST [Tenancy Sustainment Team] like all other Clearing House tenants."
Peabody's proposed new terms of tenancy, taken together with the letter, would inter alia unequivocally disenfranchise me of my right to support from St Mungo's TST. It would leave me instead with "visiting support" from Peabody that I 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."
Peabody's letter has been issued to me six months into a supported housing weekly periodic tenancy. It effectively threatens me with 'no fault' short term eviction. Any assurances to the contrary have no value in law, and especially since I have no intention of forgoing support from St Mungo's TST that I am currently being prevented from accessing due to the ongoing destabilisation of my tenancy. In fact, the letter poses a direct threat to my life. 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. Eviction from an RSI property would leave me wholly vulnerable and with no prospect of being housed.
I have emailed my local MP and three councillors for the referral of my complaint straight to the Housing Ombudsman. Without this referral, I 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 my tenancy that I am also making this complaint to you for discrimination against me as a Clearing House tenant. It is absurd of Peabody to suggest that I am being treated as other Clearing House tenants in RSI properties.
The Equality Act 2010 states that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person by treating them less favourably because of their protected characteristic; in this case, my philosophical belief. The expression of my secular values and beliefs at my website – www.churchandstate.org.uk – should have no bearing on how I am treated by a housing association. I believe that as the managing director of Network for Church Monitoring, the organisation that runs the site, there is sufficient causal connection between my protected characteristic and the way I am being treated by Peabody.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you as soon as conveniently possible.
Yours faithfully,
Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring
5 January: Peabody Trust (death threat): Declan has asked Lyn Brown MP for the referral of his complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission as well as the Housing Ombudsman. There may be nothing we can do about the Equality Advisory Support Service's distortion and dismissal of the complaint[1]
__________________________
[1] Declan's complaint for referral to the Housing Ombudsman is published in this blog post.
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)
The following is the full content of paragraph 4 under "Church and State" on this blog's sidebar.
4. This eviction matter previously came before District Judge Fine at the Central London County Court on 30 June 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.
30 June 2020: 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 06/01/21)
The Central London County Court is based at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Heavey v St Mungo's (2020)
The following is the full content of paragraph 4 under "Church and State" on this blog's sidebar.
4. This eviction matter previously came before District Judge Fine at the Central London County Court on 30 June 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.
30 June 2020: 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 06/01/21)
St Mungos management were repeatedly warned by their staff via Unite that their actions weere unethical, damaged the work of front line staff and were likley to be unlawful. The same senior managers remain in place https://t.co/ZSXwq3Xd81 #homelessness #ukhousing @labhomeless_cam
— UniteHousingWorkers (@UniteHousing) November 5, 2019
2 January: We have once again lost all free view channels using our second BT TV YouView box (day 4). This time it's on an on-off basis and by far more off than on. Four cuts during this period on what's left on HDMI input without these channels. We have had three BT engineers in our flat to date to no avail. No equipment, phone line or aerial fault detected. When we switch from HDMI to Antenna, we have always had and continue to have perfect reception on free view channels using our aerial alone.
6 January: British Telecom: No let up on inference on individual TV channels using our second BT YouView box. The blockade of Church and State emails has extended to the sabotage of an offer of financial help to us personally. Pixsy's threat to Church and State remains open and ongoing
From My Picks:
24 November 2020: For the fourth time Pixsy chase payment without a claim letter for the past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website. We're still waiting for Peabody Trust's final decision letter for the Housing Ombudsman to investigate appalling new terms of tenancy
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
