Defence of Possession Order

Click here to reset form

Defence form

(accelerated possession procedure) (assured shorthold tenancy)

Click here to print form

Name of court Claim No. Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County 2EC53657 Court Name of Claimant Belinda McKenzie Name of Defendant(s) Declan and Maria Heavey

To the Defendant Please read the claim form and all papers delivered with it before completing this form.

Some of the questions in this form refer to numbered sections in the claim form. You will find it helpful to have that open as you answer them.

Please note that if section 1 of the claim form has been completed because you are a tenant of premises let under a demoted assured shorthold tenancy, you need only answer questions 1 and 6 to 11.

If you cannot give exact dates, make it clear that the dates given are approximate.

In all cases you must complete and sign the statement of truth.

Please write clearly and in black ink. If there is not enough room for an answer, continue on the last page.

1.

Are you the tenant(s) named in the tenancy agreement, marked ‘A’ (or ‘A1’), attached to the claim form?

Does that tenancy agreement (or do both) set out the present terms of your tenancy (except for any changes in the rent or the length of the tenancy)?

If No, say what terms have changed and what the changes are:

✔ Yes

No

Yes

✔ No

The defendants pay rent in arrears, not in advance. (The defendants have not had a tenancy agreement since 26 July 2011.)

2.

Do you agree the date, in section 2 of the claim form, when the claimant says the tenancy began?

If No, on what date did it begin?

3.

If the claimant has completed section 3 of the claim form, do you agree with what is said there?

If No, what do you disagree with and why?

Yes D D 1 4

✔ No

0 M 7 / 2Y 0Y 0 Y 9 Y / M

Yes

✔ No

In order to avail of the accelerated possession procedure, the claimant was asked to confirm that (a) the first tenancy agreement was for a fixed term of not less than six months, and (b) there was no power for the landlord to end the tenancy earlier than six months after it began. The first tenancy agreement dated 14 July 2009 was for a fixed term of three months and terminable by one month's notice on either side.

N11B Defence form (accelerated possession procedure)(assured shorthold tenancy) (08.11)

© Crown copyright 2011

4.

If the claimant has completed section 3 of the claim form, did you receive the notice (a copy of which is attached to the claim form and marked ‘B’) and, if so, when?

If Yes, please give date

Do you agree with the rest of what is said in section 3?

If No, what do you disagree with and why?

Yes

D

D

/

Yes

✔ No

M M

/

Y

Y

Y

Y

✔ No

The defendants utterly refute the claimant's Note to the Court relating to section 3 of the claim form. For example, the claimant states that "there was no formal notice of commencement of tenancy", notwithstanding that the claimant entered into the first of four three-month written tenancy agreements with the defendants on 14 July 2009, and received rent from that date under Haringey Council’s Housing Benefit scheme. Please see Additional Information below for a full and comprehensive rebuttal to the said Note to the Court.

5.

If the claimant has not deleted section 4 of the claim form, do you agree that what is said there is correct?

If No, what do you disagree with and why?

6.

Did you receive the notice referred to in section 5 of the claim form, (a copy of which is attached to the claim form and marked ‘C’)?

If Yes, please give date

7.

Do you agree that what is said in section 6 of the claim form is correct?

Yes

✔ No

8.

Do you agree that what is said in section 7 of the claim form is correct?

✔ Yes

No

If No, what do you disagree with and why?

9.

If there is some other reason, not covered above, why you say the claimant is not entitled to recover possession of the property, please explain it here.

✔ Yes

No

✔ Yes

No

D 1

D 4

/ M0 M1 / Y2 Y0 Y1 Y2

The Section 21 Notice to avail of the accelerated possession proceedure referred to in section 6 above was served upon the defendants on 12 January 2012 without a valid tenancy agreement. The most recent tenancy agreement was made on 16 July 2010 for the period 26 July 2010 to 26 July 2011.

Postponement of possession 10. Are you asking the court, if it makes a possession order, to allow you longer than 14 days to leave the premises because you would suffer exceptional hardship?

✔ Yes

No

If Yes, please explain why the hardship you would suffer would be exceptional.

Because the defendants will be returned to the streets. They may not even regain access to day centres for the homeless (see Additional Information, para. 8).

up to 26 July

Say how long you wish to be allowed to remain in the premises.

20 12

(The court cannot allow more than 42 days after the order is made.)

Payment of costs 11. If the court orders you to pay the claimant’s costs, do you ask it to allow you more than 14 days to pay?

✔ Yes

No

If Yes, give details of your means (continue onto last page if necessary) Total: ÂŁ548.05. This sum is derived from the following: ÂŁ511.54 in NatWest Bank and ÂŁ1.51 in the Yorkshire Building Society (see copy of statements in Supporting Documents, pp. 2-3); ÂŁ145 in cash; and ÂŁ110 owed to the DWP Social Fund (see copy of Social Fund letter in Supporting Documents, pp. 8-9).

Statement of Truth (I believe)(The defendant(s) believe(s)) that the facts stated in this claim form (and any attached sheets) are true.

I am duly authorised by the defendant(s) to sign this statement.

* *

Signed

Date

D D 1 6

/ 0M M4 / 2Y 0Y 1Y Y2

(Defendant)(Litigation friend(where claimant is a child or a protected party))(Defendant’s solicitor)

* *

delete as appropriate

Defendant’s date of birth Full name

D D 0 4

Y 9 Y 6 Y 0 Y 0 M 9 / 1 / M

Declan Jude Heavey

Name of defendant’s solicitor’s firm

N/A

Position or office held

N/A

(if signing on behalf of firm or company)

Defendant’s or defendant’s solicitor’s address to which documents should be sent.

If applicable

7RS )ORRU )ODW 3ULRU\ *DUGHQV /RQGRQ

Ref. no Fax no.

DX no. e-mail

Postcode N 6

5 Q U

Tel. no.

Claim No. 2EC53657

Additional Information

(Include the number of the section which is being continued or to which the information relates) The following information relates to section 4 above: REBUTTAL TO THE CLAIMANT’S NOTE TO THE COURT 1.٤The defendants refute the claimant’s contention that she rescued them from the streets on 13 July 2009 (because they were being targeted for their political activism by the state via disallowal of benefits and at the time seriously targeting them where they were sleeping homeless), and that there was no formal notice of commencement of tenancy, therefore.

The claimant entered into the first of four three-month written tenancy agreements with the defendants the next day on 14 July 2009, and received rent from that date under Haringey Council’s Housing Benefit scheme (see copy of all four of these three-month tenancy agreements in Supporting Documents, pp. 25-28).

2.٤The claimant falsely states to the Court that from mid-September 2009 the defendants began to pay her £500 pcm, thus writing off the first £1,000 paid to her in rent. The defendants have fully paid the rent from 14 July 2009 (see copy of the first two receipts for rent paid from 14 July to 14 September 2009 in Supporting Documents, p. 24). Indeed, the defendants believe that the accelerated possession procedure should not be granted by the Court because the first tenancy agreement dated 14 July 2009 was for a fixed term of less than six months and terminable by one month's notice on either side, the claimant’s false statement regarding payment of rent notwithstanding.

3.٤There are two additional reasons why the claimant’s claim for the accelerated procedure should not be granted by the Court. First, with reference to the "no" answer in section 7 above, the defendants disagree that the property is not required to be licensed under Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004. In addition to the top floor flat occupied by the defendants since 14 July 2009, the property contains three self-contained rooms which are rented out to guests (see copy of the claimant’s email dated 18 March 2010 confirming this in Supporting Documents, p. 23). Secondly, as stated in section 9 above, the Section 21 Notice to avail of the accelerated procedure was served upon the defendants on 12 January 2012 without a valid tenancy agreement; the most recent tenancy agreement was made on 16 July 2010 for the period 26 July 2010 to 26 July 2011 (see copy of this tenancy agreement in Supporting Documents, p. 30).

4.٤The defendants refute the claimant’s statement that she explained to them that their tenancy was never meant to be a long-term arrangement as she would need the accommodation back for her family at some point. The following email evidence is by no means exhaustive (copy of emails available to the Court upon request). On 24 July 2009, the claimant emailed an associate of the defendants in America stating that former MI5 whistleblower David Shayler lived in the house for a couple of years until 2007 (it is unfortunate that Mr Shayler then declared that he was the Messiah, became a squatter, and was subsequently ridiculed in the press for changing his name to Delores Kane), adding that her house could be an “in-house charity” for impoverished activists supported by “some kind of international fund”. On 18 September 2011, the claimant wrote that the defendants “could have stayed here indefinitely” if they “hadn't been so generally stand-offish”. The Note to the Court goes on to state that the claimant needs the defendants’ flat for her family, but she has repeatedly stated in email correspondence that she wanted the flat for a homeless couple who were expecting a baby.

5.٤The claimant is knowingly misleading the Court by stating that the defendants have showed no signs of leaving the house. Despite losing access to the internet for six weeks from 4 July 2011 and for two weeks in November 2011, and having inadequate and disrupted access throughout this period to this day, the defendants created a Survival Appeal Pledge Scheme for their Network for Church Monitoring (N4CM) at www.churchandstate.org.uk. However, lack of internet access through wireless connection devastated this scheme and the defendants were forced to write to the claimant to take her up on her written offer to allow them to stay in their flat for an extra two months, which she then reneged on (see copy of the defendants’ email dated 5 January 2012 on this reneging in Supporting Documents, pp. 13-15).

6.٤Furthermore, and as the claimant’s solicitors have been made aware, the defendants have been trying to open an account for N4CM with National Westminster Bank since 21 February 2012, the application for which has yet to be processed by the Bank. On 16 March 2012, Royal Bank of Scotland Group CEO Stephen Hester's Office requested "a full briefing" from NatWest (see copy of the RBS Group Executive Office’s email dated 16 March 2012 in Supporting Documents, pp. 4-7). This affair continues to have a disruptive impact on an N4CM funding campaign the defendants launched on 27 February 2012 on IndieGoGo at www.indiegogo.com/N4CM because they cannot promote this campaign without an account for N4CM. Only last week N4CM Chairman Dr Stephen Mumford, the founder and president of the North Carolina-based Center for Research on Population and Security, received a form from the bank for his signature (see copy of Dr Mumford’s email dated 11 April 2012 regarding this form in Supporting Documents, p. 1).

Continued overleaf.

Signed

Date 1D D6 / 0M M4 / 2Y 0Y 1Y 2Y

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary, remembering to sign and date it and heading it with the Claim Number)

Claim no. 2EC53657 7. It has also been made extremely difficult for the defendants to save money out of the £105.95 per week they receive in Jobseeker's Allowance from the Department for Work and Pensions. As has been repeatedly explained to the claimant both verbally and in writing, Haringey Council calculates the defendants’ Housing Benefit by multiplying their monthly rent by 12 and dividing the sum by 54, leaving them since 25 July 2011 with a £76.92 shortfall in rent to pay each month. On 24 January 2012, Mr Justice Mitting refused the first named defendant permission to apply for judicial review against the Council for the reason given by Saunders J: “the housing benefit paid to the claimant fully covers his monthly rent” (see copy of Mitting J’s order refusing permission in Supporting Documents, p. 12).

This despite the fact that the defendants are not due to fully recuperate shortfalls in rent paid until 23 July 2012.

8. In August 2011, in a desperate attempt to save money, the first named defendant sought permission to regain admittance to the Church of England’s The Connection at St Martin's and the RC Sisters of Mercy's Dellow Centre as someone at severe risk of being made homeless. Both day centres refused him permission even to complete the required assessment tasks despite Haringey Council having left the defendants with their first £76.92 shortfall in rent to pay that month. In September 2011, the first named defendant escalated his complaint against the management of The Connection at St. Martin's and the Dellow Centre to Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England, and Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster and head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, respectively (see copy of emails in Supporting Documents, pp. 1622). Neither complaint prompted a response or corrective action of any description.

9. The defendants utterly refute that they have abused the claimant’s “initial kindness” to them. The defendants were led to believe by the claimant that they were in a safe house and the flat would provide a settled and productive environment, yet from the outset of their tenancy the claimant has caused them great hardship and distress. The following examples are by no means exhaustive (copy email evidence of each example available to the Court upon request): it took (due to faulty wiring) four TV blow outs in the first ten months of the defendants’ tenancy before the claimant let them share on the cable TV network with the rest of the house; no amount of problems with wireless internet connection has resulted in the claimant permitting the defendants to have a modem in their flat; electricity in the flat has been cut (the trip switch in the defendant’s fusebox overridden by the switch for the flat in a fusebox located in a private cupboard of the claimant’s downstairs); a gaping hole in the bathroom ceiling has gone unrepaired for months despite formal requests in writing for partially bare wiring to be concealed.

10. On 13 January 2012, the claimant wrote: “Re. the criminal charges, the police on examining some of the recent emails including the one with what you construed as a threat have already concluded that I am a generous and friendly rather than in any way violent person and so when I said I would remove you with the help of my builder it was highly unlikely to mean I am going to have you beaten up, simply that he might start to dismantle the kitchen or bathroom and help you pack up your possessions, etc. (In fact the easiest way I now realise is for me to cut off the internet altogether!!!!) They indicated you don’t have much of a case against me frankly, even on the civil front (ie. landlord-tenant dispute).”

11. As stated in the first named defendant’s recent appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), the defendants have had to take measures such as requesting separate signing times from Jobcentre Plus (of the Department for Work and Pensions) so that one of them is always in the flat to prevent the dismantling of their kitchen and/or bathroom etc. (see copy of the appeal to the IPCC in Supporting Documents, pp. 10-11).

12. The defendants respectfully request that the Court grant them leave to vacate their flat on 26 July 2012. As soon as the defendants have an account for N4CM (see paragraph 6 above), they will be able to raise funds to cover their expenses to move and reconnect utilities. They need £3,000 for this purpose, taking into consideration, inter alia, deposit, one month’s rent, and contingencies such as shortfalls in rent paid through the Housing Benefit scheme. Currently they can only meet the £76.92 shortfalls in rent paid by Haringey Council because they pay rent inclusive of all extraneous charges save telephone line. They are due to recoup £461.54 from the Council on 23 July 2012 (having recouped £461.54 on 19 March 2012 from the £615.36 then owed to them).

13. In the case of Heavey v Haringey Council (see paragraph 7 above), the first named defendant was denied an oral hearing which he otherwise would have been entitled to had he received Mr Justice Saunders' order when the Court sent it to him. As a matter of simple arithmetic, the defendants have not been receiving the full amount of their rent in housing benefit but the first named defendant’s application for an order extending time for renewing his application for permission to apply for judicial review to an oral hearing and for the file of his claim to be re-opened was refused (see Mitting J’s order refusing permission in Supporting Documents, p. 12).

Signed _____________________________________

Date: 16 April 2012

Claim no. 2EC53657

In the matter of a claim for possession of property The Queen on the application of Belinda McKenzie versus 1. Declan Heavey 2. Maria Heavey INDEX Document

Pages

Email dated 11 April 2012 from Dr Mumford

1

YBS Statement dated 10 April 2012

2

NatWest Mini Statement dated 27 March 2012

3

Email dated 16 March 2012 from RBS Group Executive Office

4-7

Letter dated 12 March 2012 from DWP Social Fund

8-9

Letter dated 29 February 2012 to IPCC

10-11

Order dated 24 January 2012 of Mr Justice Mitting

12

Email dated 5 January 2012 to Claimant

13-15

Email dated 7 September 2011 to Archbishop Rowan Williams

16-18

Email dated 2 September 2011 to Archbishop Vincent Nichols

19-22

Email dated 18 March 2010 from Claimant

23

Receipts for rent paid from 14 July to 14 September 2009

24

Tenancy Agreements from 14 July 2009

25-31