Capita: totem of the "parasite corporation"

A whole class of extortionists and thieves in the uniform of authority drain our energy

I want to share with you a potentially useful template to respond to (fake and fraudulent) debt collectors in England. It has been cobbled together from various sources, so apologies to all whose work I have stolen without attribution! The public interest prevails.

In this case, the company demanding money without lawful authority, Equita Limited, is a subsidiary of Capita, a giant enterprise outsourcing business that seems to specialise in taking money from the public without creating any value whatsoever. As such, it is an exemplar of the “parasite corporation” killing our society.

To summarise the crime scene so far:

• I have a constitutionally protected right to travel in England on the public highway in my private and personal carriage or conveyance. This has been subverted via the fraudulent and coercive requirement to get a driving license (i.e. pretend to be in commerce) and register my private conveyance as a “vehicle” (i.e. pretend it is for commercial goods) through DVLA. This forces me into an unwanted contract; lawful escape from the scam is nigh impossible and you are likely to have your car stolen and crushed — as has happened to a friend, repeatedly.

• I took my “car derived van” (Ford Escort van) into Newcastle, where private cars are not charged a “clean air zone” fee, but vans are, using DVLA data. I refused to pay, as the shape of my car is none of their business. It is a forfeit (of my property right) which is outlawed by the Bill of Rights 1689, and Parliament cannot repeal this bill, so has no authority to take something off me without a trial.

• Furthermore it is self-evidently inequitable, and where legislation and equity (equality under the rule of law) collide, then equity prevails. This is well-established UK law under the Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615), Judicature Act 1873 Section 25(11), and Senior Courts Act 1981 Section 49. They have no right to take money off me for “clean air” because of the shape of my car.

• Newcastle City Council committed fraud by referring the case to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, a private administrative adjudicator, who (knowingly) fail to uphold the law, and explicitly stated they have “no room” to consider if their adjudications are equitable, constitutional, or even part of a criminal endeavour. As such, they have confessed in writing to being an accessory to extortion; an organised crime gang.

• Their administrative adjudication is then converted into a “debt” via the fraudulent administrative Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court. This unconstitutional court is an industrial scale evasion of the constitutional right to a fair trial and due process, as at not point as a real court of law considered the matter. The issue is a fundamental one of freedom to travel, not some minor administrative matter.

• Now I have Equita Limited coming to my door asking for money, but anyone can do that. There could be a data leak from the court or council with details of the case, or I may have published them here! To demand money you need authority, and they are an interloper who have bought my data from Newcastle City Council (without my permission) and don’t have the correct assignment paperwork to “own” the claimed debt. They know this — and should be in jail for it!

This simply makes Equita Limited an extension of the vast extra-constitutional crime syndicate that encompasses our local councils and corporatised courts. To give you a small example of why this is a huge problem, I cannot do a freedom of information request to Equita to ask about the dates of issue versus posting of their notices, as they are a private corporation that the council sends their dirty work to. Nobody ever adds their name to these “notices” as they are unlawful, and don’t want to be accountable and on the hook personally.

The courts are largely captive interests to the banking usurers and warmongers, so hoping for them to recognise and respect our constitutional rights is hopeless and beyond the means of most ordinary people. I could have made this all go away for £36, but it is a hill I am willing to die on; I will not allow my inalienable rights to be infringed or traded away. Either you have to accept the losses (like your car being stolen by official gangsters), or push back in a way they understand, which is making it unprofitable to confront you.

I have the loan use of another vehicle for now, so they cannot take my ability to travel away. This kind of shakedown and removal of personal transport could destroy someone’s ability to earn a living, attend healthcare, or care for sick relatives. It imposes a horrific deadweight cost on society, and the claim to care for health is transparently outrageous. Everything is about money and control, and I cannot wait for the day when this kind of treasonous behaviour results in severe punishment.

Meanwhile, the most powerful lever against criminals like those from Equita/Capita is to use their own corporate rules against them, in this case the Data Protection Act. I have zero relationship with Equita, and have never given them my data, nor given Newcastle City Council permission to hand over my data. They really could find themselves being charged thousands of pounds if I file a claim. It is easier to move on to another case; newsletters like this help to shrink the pool of potential victims.

---

Ref notices of enforcement re Newcastle City Council:
Notice to cease and desist — Notice to principal is notice to agent

I thank you for your three offers to contract, each dated 26th June 2024 and delivered on 3rd July 2024, which I decline. Unless you provide evidence to the contrary, then we have no contract, and you have no lawful authority to enforce any debt, attend my private residence, or attempt to take my belongings.

If you claim to have a notice of assignment, then under the Law of Property Act 1925 s.136 a contract must be signed with a witness present. The Law of Property Act 1989 (miscellaneous provisions) also states this. You are notified that I have never met nor signed a contract in the presence of a witness.

If you claim to have purchased the debt, please provide a Deed of Assignment which has been legally executed pursuant to the two Property Acts above. I am requesting this information as a DSAR under the Data Protection Act (GDPR) 2018.

I note that your correspondence fails to include the name of a man or woman accountable, as any lawful notice must do. There is reasonable belief that you are acting in full knowledge that you lack lawful enforcement authority for a purported debt. I notify you that demanding money with menaces, or any other action from your agents or representatives which is oppressive, unacceptable or distressful, could become an offence under the following Acts:

Malicious Communications Act 1988 c.27, Section 1(1)
The Communications Act 2003 c.21, Part 2, Chapter 1, Section 127(2)
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 c.40, Section 1
Administration of Justice Act 1970 c.31, Part V, Section 40

Until and unless you have demonstrated the existence of a lawful contract, the occupier of the above address demands that you cease and desist from attempting any further communication with them via: doorstep visits, letter, phone calls, e-mail or any other public electronic communications network. Any device unlawfully attached to a private conveyance may be removed and destroyed.

Your implied rights of access to the above address are hereby removed. Any further visits without lawful authority will be considered a trespass.

We have at no point given Equita Limited permission to gather or store our personal data. Provide full disclosure of:

(a) the name of the man or woman who created this account on behalf of us without our permission.
(b) the fiduciary capacity Equita Limited are accessing and processing our private data.
(c) the jurisdiction Equita Limited believe they can operate under in this matter.

You are causing undue stress to us, by this breach of our privacy under Data Protection Act 2018 article 82 for which, if you do not cease and desist, we will demand compensation under article 82.

You are in breach of Data Protection Act 2018 section 168, hence you have no authority or consent to have the data of us. If you do not cease and desist immediately a report will be filed with the ICO.

You are required to remove all data of ours, with immediate effect in line with GDPR article 17. It is demanded that all data of ours is restricted from your use under GDPR article 18. We object to the handling of our data under GDPR article 21.

Pursuant to article 21/recital 69 of the Data Protection Act 2018, we now require you to cease and desist the processing of any and all of our data forthwith, until such time as you provide the contract between us that shows your legitimacy to process our data.

Blocking or concealing information relating to personal data is a criminal offence under section 173(3) of the Data Protection Act 2018, you have one calendar month to respond lawfully and transparently under article 12 GDPR 2018. You are also required to answer all the questions above and provide all the requested information.

This document is a notice of proceedings and is delivered by Royal Mail and I deem it to be served on you by the ordinary course of post in the meaning of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. Therefore, it is both your responsibility and in your own interest that this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation. I regret I am unable to discuss this matter by telephone or in person.

My fee schedule is attached. Failure to provide evidence of a valid and lawful contract means you consent to these fees by your subsequent performance.

Martin Geddes
All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit Errors & Omissions Excepted – Strictly no rights of Usufruct

The “sting” is in the schedule of fees, designed to make them think twice about annoying you:

Martin Geddes
Schedule of fees — 5th July 2024

This schedule of fees is presented in response to the receipt of notices of enforcement issued by Equita Limited, which I assert lack lawful authority as we have no contract and there is no supporting paperwork in accordance with the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Law of property Act 1989. Furthermore, Equita Limited is in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 through obtaining private personal information without permission. This has necessitated unnecessary expenditure of my time and resources. This document outlines the compensation required for dealing with the claim, on the premise that it lacks lawful standing and has been contested in good faith.

Unlawful attendance at the occupier’s private residence — £5,000
Unlawful attachment of device to personal transport — £5,000
Depriving use of my personal transport — £1,000 per day
Per notice received and reviewed — £250
Per notice sent — £500
Data Protection Act 2018 violation— £5,000
Research — £200/hour
Attendance at court — £5,000

Total Fees Payable

The total amount due will be calculated based on the specific actions taken in response to the unlawful enforcement notices, including all correspondence, research, consultations, and additional expenses as listed above.

Payment Terms

The total fees outlined above are due within 30 days of the date of this schedule. Payment can be made directly to the bank account, and details are provided upon request.

Disclaimer

This schedule of fees is issued without prejudice and is subject to adjustment based on the progression of the dispute resolution process.

Negotiability

This is non-negotiable.

Governing jurisdiction

Subject solely to common law.

By presenting this schedule, I affirm my position that the notice of enforcement in question was issued without just cause, and I reserve the right to seek full reimbursement for the costs incurred in its contestation.

Sincerely and without ill will, vexation, or frivolity

---

I am not the only person refusing to pay and pushing back… I am sure others have advice and templates to share too. Institutions like Capita exist only as parasites on the public, and accessories to crime, so we have a duty to resist their predation. This ends when enough people refuse to pay — as with ULEZ in London. The claim to be a legitimate part of public administration is empty when the masses no longer comply. In the meantime, I have a lovely battery-operated angle grinder just in case do they clamp my van. It isn’t a crime to remove it with force when it prevents the bigger crime of attempted theft of my car!