Court appeal exposes the BBC/Capita shell game

Are the BBC and Capita allowed to use “TV Licensing” as a legal chameleon?


I have just got back from the post office having filed an appeal against the court judgement that allowed Capita Business Services Ltd to step in as defendant in place of the BBC. This is a shell game that the BBC and Capita are playing under the rubric of “TV Licensing”, so that the BBC get the cash using intimidation, and Capita are paid from that loot to get the bad PR. I turned the tables, offered them my “public service correspondence” contract, and sued when they enjoyed the benefits of my creative writing without wanting to pay. The default judgment was set aside, despite Capita clearly having no standing.

Here is my application:

1. I made a claim against “TV Licensing”, which is a trademark of the BBC, who themselves explicitly state they are principal and take legal liability for “TV Licensing” in such cases. Capita Business Services Ltd are only an agent of the BBC. Judge Wood granted standing to Capita to act as defendant. This is an error of fact.

2. No court judgment can assist the breaking of the law. In this case, Capita are violating GDPR Articles 5, 6, and 24, as well as breaking the Data Protection Act 2018 section 170 by using my data as principal and controller, rather than as agent, without my permission or that of the BBC. This is an error of law.

3. Furthermore, by being given standing Capita are in breach of the Business (Names and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2015 sections 24 and 25, since only the BBC itself can evade these using its Royal Charter status. This is an error of law.

4. Granting standing to Capita is also against the rules of equity by giving a cloak for fraud and allowing profit from wrongdoing. By failing to have clean hands (as evidenced by a copyright notice showing a trademark rather than legal person) the BBC and Capita are engaged in a benefit/liability shell game using “TV Licensing” trademark; this decision shields the BBC from the consequences of this knowing obfuscation. This is an error of law.

5. As a matter of public interest, the BBC is using Capita as a liability shield. This deserves scrutiny. Any confusion over who the defendant is arises solely from the actions of the BBC and Capita. In Lazarus Estates Ltd V Beasley, Lord Denning ruled that no court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud.

I have asked for costs:

I apply for an order that the claimant Mr Martin Geddes is awarded costs on the grounds of unreasonable conduct by the applicant, Capita Business Services Ltd. Capita are not a party to the proceedings and they have been given every opportunity to withdraw. See CPR Part 27.14 (2)(g).

My submission is based on this letter I got from the BBC:

Martin Geddes BBC letter

As such, I offer the following supporting evidence:

See attached correspondence from the BBC that states:

– “We confirm that “Television Licensing” is a trademark wholly owned by the BBC, and that the BBC, Capita and other contractors are entitled to use it in connection with this function. We regard the BBC as the principal and Capita as our agent.” — hence as principal the BBC is the defendant.

– “It depends on the circumstances which should be the defendant to such claims. For example, a claim challenging TV Licensing policies might best be brought against the BBC, while a matter arising out of the actions of an individual member of Capita staff might potentially be brought against Capita.” — this being of that nature, the BBC is the defendant.

– “The Company, Limited Liability Partnership and Business (Names and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2015 do not apply to the BBC because it is incorporated by Royal Charter and so is not as “company” for the purposes of the Companies Act 2006. … We do not consider that the obligations in the 2015 Regulations as to correspondence apply to Capita when acting as the BBC’s agent.” — since no such disclosure was made, all interactions with “TV Licensing” must be treated as being the BBC using its Royal Charter status, meaning Capita is an interloper.

– “Correspondence sent to TV Licensing, Darlington, DL98 1TL is received at that address by Capita. How it is treated would depend on its nature and all the circumstances. Such correspondence would, if appropriate, be treated as correspondence directed to the BBC as licensing authority.” — thus a case against “TV Licensing” is against the BBC, not Capita.

The only rational conclusion from these statements is that an entity that presents itself solely as “TV Licensing” is actually the BBC t/a TV Licensing, and not Capita (or any other trademark licensee or subcontractor). Even the security certificate of the TV Licensing website is owned by the BBC, and not Capita. Judge Wood’s ruling is against the facts as presented by the BBC itself, who are the defendant, and assists them in evading legal liability for their own actions in an unlawful manner.

This information was presented to Judge Wood, who failed to evaluate it and take into account the public interest aspect of the BBC and Capita running an illegitimate operation (even if done innocently) by deceptively using the “TV Licensing” trademark to assign benefits to the BBC and liabilities to Capita. The judgment endorses their lack of clean hands and rewards the fraudulent obfuscation of which party one is legally interacting with, preventing me as claimant from enforcing the (default) judgment against the BBC t/a TV Licensing.

See also the notice to Capita inviting them to withdraw since by making the application they were violating my rights as a data subject (by acting as a controller without consent), as well as the business disclosure rules (since they have failed to make the necessary disclosures as being the contracting party). As such, their conduct is unreasonable, since they are knowingly engaged in breaking the laws on data protection and business name disclosure if acting under their own capacity rather than as an agent of the BBC. As such, costs should be awarded against them.

Let’s see what happens. At the end of the day what happens in court doesn’t matter much, as the whole system is so stupendously rigged against the ordinary person. The real “win” is exposing them, and making them defend their wrongdoing in public. The have been caught out, and know it, so it is just a question of time before justice comes. Once the Covid scam is exposed, and the media’s role known, I doubt ordinary functionaries in this system will be willing to support such games any longer. If nothing else, their families will not tolerate it.

Genocide is not a good look.