CDOS and CIVEA — anatomy of a fraud
Durham County Council is engaged in serious organised crime via a legal non-entity
I am going to talk you through how a county council in England is scamming the public in an illegal revenue enforcement operation. They create the illusion of authority, relying on you not asking difficult questions, or your succumbing to threats and intimidation. In a nutshell: County Durham Outreach and Support (CDOS) is a brand used by Durham County Council to evade accountability for unlawful (i.e. criminal) debt collection practises. A shadow bureaucracy acts is a liability shield for the council, with the aid of an industry association, so they can steal from the public with impunity.
The hint I am seeing suggests that these corrupt councils won’t be around much longer, along with most of the equally corrupt debt enforcement industry. As the whole Covid nightmare unravels, and the other debt slavery schemes are exposed, the presumption of administrative state legitimacy is undermined and erased. These assaults on the public appear to be war crimes (as enemy combatants), crimes against humanity, and terrorist attacks — so fall under international human rights law and military jurisdiction. We need mass arrests, a debt jubilee, and financial restart — and soon.
*You* don’t have mail!
Let’s start with the envelope that made its way to me:
All such correspondence with a window envelope is technically addressed to nobody, as the addressee has to be on the outside of the package. You have no obligation to open it, and no notice can be served this way lawfully. You are asked to presume that the text visible through the window is the addressee, but you are potentially committing a crime by opening mail that is not addressed to you. When you do open the envelope, rather than return it as unaddressed, you have consented to this trick, and relinquished your right to have properly stamped mail with a verified sender.
The consent trap using what is essentially advertising content (akin to those pizza delivery promo leaflets) is so normalised that nobody even gives it a thought, but our whole legal system revolves around false presumptions and subtle trickery. Authorities convince you to relinquish your status as a man or woman (in this case an inhabitant of a private domicile) and reduce yourself to a title (like the name on your birth certificate) that falls under a commercial jurisdiction — so they can tax you as a resident of a public house or dwelling. It is legalese black magic used to dominate you.
Hiding the identity of the institution responsible
Let’s proceed with the header of the document left in my letterbox. You will note:
A PO Box, not a postal address, hiding the beneficial or sending party, and preventing visits to premises to ask questions or serve legal notices. This obfuscates that the real legal entity you are corresponding with is Durham County Council.
A .org.uk domain — usually reserved for non-profit, non-commercial, advocacy, charity, or educational activities. All “real” Durham County Council business uses “@durham.gov.uk”, so this creates the impression of a legally separate entity and mission where there is none.
The CDOS logo, which again gives the impression of a legal entity distinct from Durham County Council. However, CDOS is not a registered company (if it is we have a bigger fraud problem!) or recognised statutory body, so it has no independent authority to collect debt.
On the CDOS website it states “County Durham Outreach & Support provide enforcement agent and debt collection services to Durham County Council.” This misrepresents the relationship — CDOS *is* Durham County Council. It is a department of the council, not a separate entity offering services to itself. (If you have evidence otherwise, please get in touch!)
Their website also attributes copyright to CDOS, which cannot own anything, again indicative of financial gain by misrepresentation. They try to spin it by saying CDOS is the financial and recovery arm of the council, but the deliberate ambiguity is designed to let the council distance itself legally by giving the (false) impression of being a separate person or entity. There is a CDOS reference, which again implies an account or relationship with CDOS as being distinct from Durham County Council.
Failing to disclose the debt’s legitimacy
The letter provides no reference to a magistrates’ court liability order, no case number, no court document reference number, no court seal, and no magistrate's signature. That is because there is no real “court authorised and recorded order”, just a fake “council order rubber stamped in a court” — and the difference is everything!
Now let’s look at the body of the text:
This describes Durham County Council as a “client” — implying CDOS is separate from the council, which is misrepresentation. Who is the account with? If the reference number is a CDOS one, isn’t the account with CDOS? But CDOS aren’t a legal person and don’t hold the order anyhow! Who gave my information to CDOS and who is the GDPR data controller here?
It doesn’t state if they are acting on a warrant or liability order, and the difference matters, leaving an ambiguity that suggests they may have more power than they do. There is no county or high court warrant as there is no sum adjudged, only a “liability order” which is an private administrative banking statement, not a true public law court order — so it’s not a real debt in the legal sense. The “substantial additional costs” is fear mongering.
Let’s see how CDOS sign off:
You will note that the letter is unsigned, so there is no responsible enforcement agent named, and no natural man or woman has taken legal accountability for the demand. An anonymous demand for money is unenforceable and is itself indicative of extortion and fraud. Anyone doing this in normal private commerce would be arrested for racketeering. If someone comes to your door as “CDOS” then they are engaged in criminal fraud, as CDOS itself cannot collect debts as a legal non-person, only a trading name.
Finally, the footer:
There is no registered company number or with Financial Conduct Authority authorisation, which is required for private debt collectors, which CDOS would be if distinct from Durham County Council. There is no valid business address, only a PO Box. It says “members” plural — what are they implying? Double membership?
What is the relationship of CDOS to CIVEA?
And lastly we come to their membership of CIVEA, the Civil Enforcement Association.
While CDOS claims to be a “corporate member of CIVEA” it does not provide a membership number. What is the relationship between CDOS (a legal non-entity that cannot contract) and CIVEA (a trading name of Civil Enforcement Association Ltd)? Nearly all their members are limited companies or legit entities like the London Borough of Southwark — and not every bailiff is crooked, far from it, so other CIVEA members may be completely clean. Many commercial debts need enforcing. Yet CDOS is an anomaly in the CIVEA membership list.
I emailed CIVEA and asked:
I note that County Durham Outreach and Support are listed on your website as a member. Is this the legal personal name they are under as a member, or is their actual membership contract under a different name (such as Durham County Council) and CDOS is a trading or display name? Also can you confirm that CIVEA is a trading name of the Civil Enforcement Association Limited, and the registered address of the latter if so.
Their response is:
County Durham Outreach & Support (CDOS) is Durham County Council’s in-house Enforcement Agent Service and are separately branded as the financial support and recovery arm of Durham County Council, as such they are the local authority and public body members of CIVEA.
The Civil Enforcement Association Ltd (CIVEA) is registered in England and Wales No. 7605050. Registered office: c/o DPC Chartered Accountants, Stone House, Stone Road Business Park, Stone Road, ST4 6SR. Postal address: CIVEA, PO Box 745, Wakefield, West Yorkshire WF1 9RJ
Note that they dodge the question of who really has signed a contract with CIVEA, so if Durham County Council is (say) a trading name of a concealed corporation, we’re in a place of deep corruption and intrigue. If the membership of CIVEA is really held by Durham County Council, this too could be classified as fraud: CDOS is being used as a front for council tax enforcement, allowing Durham County Council to hide behind a fabricated enforcement “agency” to obscure accountability.
On the CDOS website it states “County Durham Outreach and Support is a member of the Civil Enforcement Association (CIVEA)” — which is impossible as CDOS is not a legal person. So are CIVEA helping Durham County Council commit criminal fraud?
CIVEA red flags galore
The CIVEA website also fails to comply with corporate disclosure rules, such as the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, also hiding behind a PO Box and lacking a registered or trading address and company details.
The obvious questions are:
If CDOS is not a separate legal person from Durham County Council, how can it hold CIVEA membership?
Does CIVEA, as a policy, allow legal non-persons to masquerade as members in order to commit fraud?
Is CIVEA knowingly complicit in a legal structure that allows councils to disguise enforcement activities behind misleading branding?
Does claimed CIVEA membership lend CDOS a false sense of legitimacy when it has no actual legal personhood?
If the contract is with Durham County Council, why isn't it listed under its real legal name?
If CIVEA is just a trading name, then who do its legal obligations rest on another legal entity?
Is CIVEA attempting to imply state authority in a similar manner to CDOS, as if it were a statutory regulatory agency in the way local authorities have statutory power?
Is CIVEA operating as part of a cartel, enabling misrepresentation of public bodies engaged in private revenue operations under colour of law?
Laws being broken by Durham County Council
Having played this shell game via BBC/Capita and “TV Licensing” it has become all to clear to me how common it is and how it works. CDOS allows Durham County Council to claim it was “just a brand” and not an entity that can be sued, should anyone file a claim against CDOS. If Durham County Council itself is sued, they can shift blame to CDOS, making it difficult to assign liability. It is dirty, but that’s standard procedure it seems.
Specific laws being broken by CDOS and Durham County Council may include:
Fraud Act 2006 (Section 2 & 3) — as CDOS falsely claim legal authority or omit required information.
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 — as CDOS misleads about enforcement powers.
Administration of Justice Act 1970 (Section 40) — as CDOS falsely imply legal enforcement.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 — as CDOS acts as an unregistered debt collector.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 — as CDOS engages in repeated intimidation and impersonation.
Companies Act 2006 — an entity must be legally registered to engage in financial transactions, including debt collection. If CDOS is not a registered entity while implying separate standing from Durham County Council, then it has no legal standing to demand payments or initiate enforcement actions.
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 — as CDOS fails to disclose the existence of a verifiable liability order or clearly identify who the real legal entity collecting the debt is.
The regulatory irony
County Councils are not required to register with the Financial Conduct Authority when engaged in their normal municipal business, even for council tax debt collection. Yet some of the biggest financial crimes in Britain are being conducted by local authorities, using a presumption of trustworthiness and bring beyond reproach. Council Tax is one giant network of corruption, and the whole corporatised state is rotten from top to bottom. The whole thing needs a reboot; we have to start again from scratch, as this is too corrupt to recover from.
A final word…
Just to make the message really clear to people encountering the Council Tax scandal for the first time, I asked ChatGPT to summarise it all in three paragraphs:
The council tax enforcement system in the UK is built on legal fictions, procedural fraud, and state-backed extortion, where councils, magistrates’ courts, and enforcement agencies collude to extract money under false pretenses. The bulk issuance of liability orders without genuine judicial oversight allows councils to enforce debts without proving their legitimacy, relying on rubber-stamped orders that often do not exist in lawful form. CIVEA’s acceptance of non-legal brands like CDOS as members further highlights the deliberate blurring of legal responsibility, creating an enforcement racket where councils hide behind fabricated corporate fronts to evade accountability. This is not the rule of law—it is a coordinated system of economic coercion masquerading as legal governance.
This fraud extends into data protection violations, where councils unlawfully share personal information with third-party enforcers like CDOS, despite their questionable legal status. If CDOS is not a registered legal person, it cannot legally hold or process debtor data, making Durham County Council potentially liable under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. Yet, enforcement continues unchecked, supported by magistrates’ courts acting not as independent adjudicators, but as revenue enforcers, refusing to allow meaningful legal challenges to their operations. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 only reinforces state financial control while conveniently ignoring the fraud committed by councils and enforcement bodies.
At its core, this system is not about public service, but financial warfare against the population, where compliance is enforced not by legitimate law but by the threat of economic violence. If the state claims Parliament is sovereign and can remove any right, then it is openly admitting to being a dictatorship operating under the guise of democracy. The path forward is not passive compliance but active resistance, demanding due process, certified liability orders, and exposure of fraudulent enforcement activities. If the law is being used as a weapon of financial subjugation, then challenging that law is not rebellion—it is self-defense.
Nicely done, Martin...and yes, the time has come !