Peabody Trust's appalling new terms of tenancy continues to pose a threat to Declan's life. Pixsy in London tell him to pay £249 by 1 December or face court action for the past use of one image on the Church and State website
DAY 178 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).
This week I have had to upload the second image below to an alternative site because it no longer appears in the MediaFire host website. The blog post in question reveals the appalling new terms of tenancy from Peabody Trust that continues to pose a threat to Declan's life. This is an extract from the blog post:
Our existing tenancy states that it is a "renewed" tenancy:
7 August: I had to upload this first image titled "The date your tenancy starts" to an alternative host for images. It is another one of my images in MediaFire that does not appear on their site.
The tenancy on offer does not state it is a renewed tenancy:
8 November: I had to upload this second image titled "The date your tenancy starts" to an alternative host for images. It is another one of my images in MediaFire that does not appear on their site.
3 May: Peabody Trust: The appalling terms of tenancy on offer. Declan will seek from the Housing Ombudsman a declaration of incompatibility pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998 (WITH UPDATE 08/11/20)
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. Yesterday morning we were informed that today the communal door lock will be changed and our flat door repaired.
8 November: Part 1: Housing Ombudsman Service. Declan has complained to Lyn Brown MP about this statutory service. Our flat door has been vandalised (crime reference no. 5330050/20). And ISAF's letter to Facebook's COO in September has gotten no results
We have no pro se (in person) access to the courts
The Central London County Court is based at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Heavey v St Mungo's (2020)
The following is the full content of paragraph 4 under "Church and State" on this blog's sidebar.
4. This eviction matter previously came before District Judge Fine at the Central London County Court on 30 June, when both counsel for St. Mungo's (the charity in effective control of our tenancy) and Declan presented their positions. Declan lost the case and was ordered to pay £1,850 in costs. A publishing colleague in America cleared these costs within 24 hours of my blog post about this hearing for strike out on a related issue that was the essence of Declan's claim, i.e., that St Mungo's would take a phone call to confirm that we are clients of the Mayor of London's RSI programme. Within a week of the hearing, St. Mungo's had agreed to take this phone call for us both, the Court having ruled that they were not obliged to do so despite our circumstances. This time we escaped bankruptcy (counsel for St. Mungo's asked for £3,407.50 in costs), but consider that to seek pro se access to justice in the courts has become far too dangerous for us.
30 June: District Judge Ruth Fine orders Declan to pay £1,850 in costs. St Mungo's are under no obligation to even vouch over the phone that we are clients of the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's TST programme (WITH UPDATE 08/11/20)
The Central London County Court is based at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Heavey v St Mungo's (2020)
The following is the full content of paragraph 4 under "Church and State" on this blog's sidebar.
4. This eviction matter previously came before District Judge Fine at the Central London County Court on 30 June, when both counsel for St. Mungo's (the charity in effective control of our tenancy) and Declan presented their positions. Declan lost the case and was ordered to pay £1,850 in costs. A publishing colleague in America cleared these costs within 24 hours of my blog post about this hearing for strike out on a related issue that was the essence of Declan's claim, i.e., that St Mungo's would take a phone call to confirm that we are clients of the Mayor of London's RSI programme. Within a week of the hearing, St. Mungo's had agreed to take this phone call for us both, the Court having ruled that they were not obliged to do so despite our circumstances. This time we escaped bankruptcy (counsel for St. Mungo's asked for £3,407.50 in costs), but consider that to seek pro se access to justice in the courts has become far too dangerous for us.
30 June: District Judge Ruth Fine orders Declan to pay £1,850 in costs. St Mungo's are under no obligation to even vouch over the phone that we are clients of the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's TST programme (WITH UPDATE 08/11/20)
From My Picks:
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 (previous post)
"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
