An "official fraud" is still a punishable crime

Those who believe government is the highest lawful authority have surprises ahead

Could an official body be empowered by Parliament in order to deny constitutional rights, aid and abet financial crime, and commit civil tort (i.e. harm) against the travelling public? It seems so, and it is not my opinion, it is now the documented policy of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT)!

The problem they now face is that a crime is a crime even if someone else told you to do it. By doubling down as a court of revenue, they are knowing accessories to crime, and at risk of being held to account in a court of law. Treason by Parliament will void all their cover, and treason season is coming upon us.

To recap the situation:

• I own and operate a “car derived van” that is solely used for social, domestic, and pleasure travel. This is an interesting corner case as it straddles “obviously” purely private travel in an “ordinary and usual” conveyance, and “obviously” commercial travel in a specialist vehicle.

• Various local authorities are implementing clean air and low emissions zones, which are highly controversial as they install infrastructure for surveillance and burdensome and unfair fees. These often treat private domestic travellers different from commercial ones.

• My “car derived van” brings the aggregate rules, derived from Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) registration data, into conflict with personal property rights and individual civil liberties. Are these resolved by the superior rule of law of the land, or the inferior merchant law of administrative rules?

• The Council who enforce traffic penalties direct you to the Tribunal regardless of the nature of the representations you make to them, knowing that these grounds will not be considered. This is a criminal fraud, in breach of s3 of the Fraud Act 2006.

• Furthermore, by characterising all vans as “commercial” in operation, DVLA is also engaged in a fraudulent misrepresentation for gain, being in breach of s2 of the Act. They are essentially claiming the right to elevate their IT policy above property and travel rights, as well as equitable truth.

• There is a further civil tort of conversion, as the registration data is applied to an unrelated domain of environmental policy, turning an enabling property right into a usage restriction. This is a forfeit, and those always require a charge and conviction in a court of law.

This is an existential legitimacy problem for all those involved: Parliament (high treason, by destruction of the constitution for the WEF/UN etc.), the DVLA (criminal fraud, Data Protection Act breaches), Newcastle City Council (criminal fraud, civil tort), and the TPT (accessory to fraud, accessory to treason, unconstitutional ultra vires action is personally liable). Unsurprisingly, I am not popular for pointing out that what they are doing is factually, morally, and lawfully wrong, and standing my ground. But then again, that’s the point of incarnating here in these difficult times.

Here is the filing I made to ask for a review in my case, on the grounds of the general interest of justice.

---

As this is a significant public interest case, I am asking the TPT to conduct a review, principally on the fourth basis of the interests of justice, but also due to new evidence. It has come to my attention that Newcastle City Council and the DVLA are engaged in fraud through dishonest misrepresentation of certain vehicles, as well as dishonest manipulation of the justice process to deny the public access to equity and constitutionally protected civil liberties. This breaches s2 and s3 respectively of the Fraud Act 2006.

There are three bases on which the review is sought:

1. In the context of a civil liberties and constitutional law matter, the lack of due process sufficient to constitutive a lawful ADR adjudication that can be enforced in a court of law as equivalent to that from a County Court.

2. The presence of alleged criminal fraud, which vitiates everything — especially given the new evidence of the Coca-Cola vs HMRC case, which undermines the Council’s position and the adjudication.

3. The constitutional limits in which the TPT operates, and whether those were exceeded rendering the adjudication as ultra vires due to imposing a forfeit. The consequences of a judicial review at this level for the TPT are serious both at the institutional and personal level.

A helpful summary of the Coca-Cola case is at https://www.rossmartin.co.uk/sme-tax-news/4853-court-of-appeal-vw-kombi-and-vauxhall-vivaro-are-cars-not-vans, and the full decision is enclosed for reference. It makes clear that there can be no possible presumption that a vehicle with a van body style can be presumed to be commercial in use. This undermines the honesty of the data provided by DVLA and representation from the Council. While the individuals concerned in the hearing may have been blind to their participation in potential fraud, it does not relieve me of the burden of being its victim.

The overall picture is described in the enclosed document giving the notice of fraud, with the details of the fraud explained in a separate numbered filing. This is a very serious matter, and I have done my utmost to document the fraud carefully. Proving a criminal fraud is notoriously hard, as the primary evidence of conspiracy is rarely left behind. The civil burden of proof is lower, and that would appear to be the relevant standard here. If this is credibly seen as a fraud, then I cannot see how the TPT can adjudicate it within its statutory remit.

As stated in my hearing, I believe all parties have been put in an impossible position by Parliament, possibly barring DVLA as they ought to be wiser to the impact of CAZ categorisation and its lawfulness. I trust that in considering this may be fraud it is not seen as impugning the professionalism of the adjudicator or the TPT. Such matters are rarely encountered, and it has taken the new evidence of the Coca-Cola vs HMRC case for me to appreciate the gravity of the wrongdoing in this context.

My sense is that the honourable path forward is not to overturn the adjudication, but to void it, and refer both parties to a court of law, as the only venue capable of lawfully addressing this situation.

---

My request for a review was denied, and I am unsurprised by this. Who is going to admit that they are actually part of a legal cartel that is stripping the public of its civil rights for personal and institutional gain?

Here is the adjudication on the review request.

---

The review request has been rejected.

The Adjudicator’s decision will be final unless one of the limited grounds for review set out in Paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 applies.

Adjudicator's Reasons

1. The appeal was determined on 2nd February 2024.

2. As indicated by the adjudicator at paragraph 6 and 7 of her written determination, the function of the independent adjudicator is to determine the appeal with reference to the statutory grounds of appeal and relevant regulations under the civil fixed penalty scheme and Charging Order.

3. Mr Geddes applies for the review of the appeal decision in the interests of justice, challenging the statutory scheme and the appeal process that is currently in place. For the purposes of this review, I am however satisfied that the appeal was justly determined under the civil scheme on the relevant evidence provided by the parties as required. As found by the adjudicator, the evidence demonstrates that a contravention occurred.

4. The independence of the impartial traffic adjudicator, in place to provide a right of appeal under the civil statutory fixed penalty traffic schemes has already been scrutinised by the High Court in Herron & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator & Anor [2009] EWHC 1702 (Admin) and De Crittenden, R (On the Application Of) v National Parking Adjudication Service [2006] EWHC 2170 (Admin). That Mr Geddes would prefer his appeal against the administrative penalty to be heard elsewhere or at a higher level is acknowledged, but any application to the High Court seeking to challenge the civil penalty scheme and the adjudication process itself remains a matter for Mr Geddes.

5. The allegations of criminal fraud are also noted, but this is not a matter that the adjudicator, charged with determining whether a civil penalty charge notice was lawfully issued under the relevant regulations, has the power to take into account.

6. To date the government website shows that a £12.50 charge is payable regarding vehicle [REDACTED] for each entry into the Newcastle Clean Air Zone.

7. That Mr Geddes does not consider that a charge should be payable is acknowledged, but this in itself cannot amount to a ground of appeal or ground for review.

8. The contravention described on the face of the penalty charge notice having occurred, the application for review is rejected.

Caroline Hamilton
Adjudicator
15/02/2024

---

Now it will take me some time to work my way through this, but one statement is explosive stuff, with my emphasis:

The allegations of criminal fraud are also noted, but this is not a matter that the adjudicator, charged with determining whether a civil penalty charge notice was lawfully issued under the relevant regulations, has the power to take into account.

Wow…. “noted”! There can be prima facie evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and it will be waived through based on secondary legislation. That’s, err, a “courageous” thing to assert. How can being a knowing accessory to financial crime justify endorsing a civil traffic ticket? There are absolutely zero protections here for the public; quite the opposite, everything is constructed to ensure that you have no fundamental rights, and no venue in which to assert them. That I should have to apply to the High Court for the concept of equity to apply ought to be an outrage.

The implication of this is that Councils can de facto privatise our public highways and impose fees that are as unconstitutional, criminally fraudulent, iniquitous, and unfair as they like. The Tribunal will give them cover by ruthlessly ignoring any constraints on power on Parliament, any possibility of crime by authorities, and any limit on the greed that Councils can operate with in cahoots with the DVLA. It all hinges on the use of “lawfully” in place of “legally”. They are “only obeying low-level orders”, so believe the “Nuremberg rules” and personal moral agency are quaint relics of WW2.

Personally, I think this is enough to justify the abolition of such tribunals. By their own admission they are set up to deny civil rights, aid institutionalised crime, extort the public, strip essential liberties, and prevent accountability. Combined with the gross lack of due process, this is a horrendous level of injustice. I am hopeful that the Council will take a saner approach, as I still have two Penalty Charge Notices yet to be adjudicated. Maybe I should take one to the TPT to prove they will knowingly aid fraud, on the record, and let the other one go to a traditional court?

This is foundational civil rights stuff, and nothing to do with vans vs cars or clean air zones. Does Parliament have the power to strip us of our property and inalienable freedoms without any of the traditional protections of due process and there being a victim of our deeds? If we concede this point, then we deserve to live in slavery. Alternative dispute resolution is only applicable to contract disputes, not civil rights infringements. They need to be reigned back in, and now I have the written evidence to do it.

Maybe some individuals need to be held accountable and taught that superior law is a real thing? I will be considering the next steps. These are likely a formal complaint to the CEO of the Tribunal that they are aiding lawbreaking, and putting them on notice of personal liability; an application to the High Court to overturn this adjudication; and an application for a Judicial Review of the operation of the Tribunal and Council policy when representations are made on civil rights, equity, criminal law, and constitutional bases.

Spotted in London. A few of you will get the joke.