Invitation to court: TV Licensing, Newcastle
The appeal is due to be heard shortly in my appeal against TV Licensing's abuses
I have an appeal hearing in my ongoing case to hold the BBC and Capita to account for their collective behaviour under the rubric of “TV Licensing”. It is at the county court in Newcastle on Friday 12th July at 10am for 2 hours. The address is Civil & Family Courts and Tribunals Centre, Barras Bridge, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8QF. The case number is J1QZ7V6P.
I have written to the court asking what the public gallery capacity is. Any updates, including rescheduling or cancellation, will be announced via my Telegram channel. I suggest you check there before travelling; I will confirm arrangements the night before or early on the day.
Below is a summary of the appeal case.
Personal matter leading to a public interest case
The claim filed against "TV Licensing" is for breach of contract and damages, positioned as a matter of public interest to test whether equity applies in situations where there is a significant imbalance of power. Initially, a default judgment was granted in my favor. However, this judgment was set aside when Capita attended court, claiming to act as "TV Licensing." It is important to note that "TV Licensing" is not a legal entity; it is merely a trademark and trading name. I raised this issue of standing, but Judge Wood granted Capita standing and allowed the set-aside.
Judge Wood's confusion is understandable, but it placed undue burden on me. Mr. Kahn, representing Capita, likely followed corporate policies without fully considering the potential breach of the Fraud Act 2006, Section 3, on misrepresentation. To be fair to Judge Wood, this case is highly unusual. I turned the tables on a powerful media entity, revealing a broader legal issue. The judge might not have been able to conceive the scope of the matter or place it within the typical commercial disputes he adjudicates, similar to the Post Office scandal. This case is quite possibly unique because I am genuinely a professional letter writer, with a significant audience that pays to read my work, which lends credibility to my claim of offering a media service. Additionally, I am a civil rights activist with a substantial international following.
Clarity and Respect for the Court
The claim against "TV Licensing" is not about television license collection or evasion on a personal level, and I believe no party holds that stance. I am not legally required to make any statement about whether I own a TV, and I cannot be coerced into making such a statement. Out of respect for the court and for context, I voluntarily disclose that I do not own a television and have not watched television in any format for over 20 years, hence I do not need a license.
This situation can be likened to the Civil Aviation Authority repeatedly demanding to know why I do not have a helicopter pilot license in a threatening manner, or the Home Office harassing me to explain why I do not have a permit to keep a Bengal tiger. The key issue is whether I can enforce the boundary of my home and peace. I claim that TV Licensing has exceeded what is reasonable in fulfilling its statutory duties. To test this, I turned the tables and offered my "professional correspondence" media service in return via a schedule of fees. We are here today because I litigated the matter, which has grown beyond what I could have anticipated.
Difficult Case History
A previous appeal circuit judge recused himself, viewing the case as a vexatious abuse of court time and sought to impose costs on me, which I cannot afford as this is a small claim. I am pleased to have a venue to resolve the matter fully and reach finality. I fully accept today's judgment and do not intend to appeal further unless an unexpected public interest issue arises. The public interest is paramount today, with significant issues of law and principle being raised. There is no implied dishonour to those participating, even if there may be misconduct by some in authority elsewhere.
Appeal — Public Interest Matter
Upon deeper examination, I claim that the BBC is misrepresenting "TV Licensing" as a legal person when it is not. Capita acts as an agent of the BBC, not the principal, raising the question of who "TV Licensing" is and who can represent it in court proceedings. It appears that assets are being funneled to the BBC (license fees) while legal liabilities are passed to Capita, which is unlawful and lacks clean hands. What initially seemed a narrow issue of standing for a set-aside application is actually a broad one of public misrepresentation. This broader view may reverse Judge Wood's position.
This case has far-reaching implications. The failure to disclose the legal person in correspondence and online, and possible fraud through the flexible use of a trademark, may unravel every conviction for license evasion, leading to a miscarriage of justice comparable to the Post Office scandal. This case might catalyze something much larger, even if it doesn't form case law in the High Court.
Three Levels of Issues
Upper Level: Did Capita have standing to apply for set-aside? If so, should it be sustained? If not, should the default judgment stand?
Middle Level: Was the set-aside reasonable given the BBC and Capita's behavior in "playing games"? Should the foundational issue be resolved first, even if it rewards the tactics of set-aside to deny enforceability?
Lower Level: Does my claim to have a correspondence contract have merit in law? Does the original claim stand?
The standing issue and potential criminal fraud involved in a corporate identity shell game are the most serious public interest matters. The underlying claim, while not frivolous, is secondary in importance. The monetary aspect is trivial compared to the principles involved and potential criminal fraud and perjury.
Matters for Judicial Consideration Today
Upper Level: The Legal Identity of "TV Licensing"
If a claim is made against "TV Licensing," a trading name and not a legal person, is it still valid under the Civil Procedure Rules?
Is there false and misleading representation of a trading name as a legal person? Are there "unclean hands" in how the BBC and Capita use the TV Licensing brand and assign legal liability?
Can the trading name represent either the principal or agent ("stretchy"), or only one ("sticky")?
Did Capita make the requisite disclosures to be treated as "TV Licensing" for the legal person?
Is "TV Licensing" necessarily an alias for the British Broadcasting Corporation and should be treated as such?
Did Capita have standing to apply for the set-aside motion?
Middle Level: Reasonableness of Set-Aside
Given the BBC and Capita's history of "losing" claims, failing to file a defense, and lacking clean hands, did Judge Wood act reasonably in granting the set-aside?
If the default judgment stands, do the merits of the underlying claim need examination? Is it in the public interest to resolve the foundational issue first, even if it rewards the tactics of set-aside to deny enforceability?
Lower Level: Merits of the Original Claim
Did the BBC/Capita exceed their statutory authority? Did they cross a line into blackmail by threatening home visits unless I made a statement to their liking?
Did the offer to contract with a schedule of fees satisfy the legal requirement?
Was the offer addressed to "TV Licensing" made to the BBC or Capita?
Does the BBC, acting through its agents, form a valid deemed contract with me?
Can that deemed contract be enforced?
Does the BBC/Capita's conduct in trying to force a statement from me about television ownership amount to blackmail?
Does their conduct as "TV Licensing" constitute actionable harassment?
Are damages warranted for their conduct in forcing me to correspond with them after I asked them to desist?
Two Key Controversies to Resolve
Upper/Middle Level: Identity Dictating Authority
Issue 1: Falsely presenting "TV Licensing" as a legal person.
The website claims "© 2024 TV Licensing."
Trademarks cannot own copyright; they are not legal persons.
This cannot credibly be a mistake for a global media brand; it is deliberate obfuscation.
No indication of BBC vs Capita anywhere on letters or the website.
The "original sin" in this case belongs to the BBC for falsely representing the trademark as a legal person. Equity dictates that I should not be punished for it.
Issue 2: Using the trading name in a deceptive manner.
Set-aside application states "Capita Business Services t/a TV Licensing," which is misleading; they are not the entity trading, it is the BBC. They cannot be two different legal persons simultaneously.
Lower Level: Authority Based on Statute (Communications Act 2003)
Limit of legitimate acts by the BBC and Capita under the rubric of license collection.
Boundary of authority to contact the public, and where it exceeds lawful limits.
Public's ability to assert their common law, contractual, and constitutional rights where those limits are exceeded.
Powers enumerated include the issue of licenses (Section 363), enforcement (Section 366), imposing penalties (Section 368), collecting and using information (Section 365), setting license fees (Section 365A), conducting appeals and resolving disputes (Section 367).
Nothing empowers the BBC or Capita to harass, trespass, intimidate, blackmail, or defraud.
It is arguable whether there is implied authority to cajole with threats based on statistical likelihood of evasion. Commonplace threats do not make such actions lawful.
It is challenging to argue that there is a power to continue once asked to cease. Common law and constitutional rights of individuals prevail over legislation.
Who is "TV Licensing"?
Only the BBC has Royal Charter status and is outside the 2015 company name regulations.
The BBC is the sole authority in the Communications Act 2003.
The BBC owns the trademark, is the GDPR controller, owns TV Licensing IP, the SSL certificate of the website, approves bulk correspondence, fields FoI requests, manages via BBC Studios, and owns the technical equipment.
The BBC uses "TV Licensing" interchangeably with BBC on internal documents.
The privacy policy is labeled "BBC Television Licensing."
The BBC states in FoI responses that it holds overall legal responsibility.
It is reasonable to conclude that "TV Licensing" is the BBC unless expressly stated otherwise.
Capita's Role
Capita has not been granted permission to use my data as a data controller. Its only authority is to act as an agent of the BBC, with no independent authority to act on its own. References to Capita acting "in their capacity as TV Licensing" are meaningless since "TV Licensing" is a trademark, not a legal entity. This phrase can only imply that Capita is acting as a subcontractor to the BBC, which does not confer any independent standing.
The claim that "Capita has a statutory duty" is incorrect. Capita is not the licensing authority, and the Communications Act only grants limited powers to the designated licensing authority (i.e., the BBC) concerning warrants. The assertion that "the Claimant has refused to confirm..." is misleading because there is no lawful requirement for such confirmation. Statements about acting "in their capacity as TV Licensing" misrepresent the authority, as no such capacity exists. Furthermore, Capita's stated role in investigating and prosecuting offences is beyond the scope of duties related to license collection and evasion, with no evidence or suggestion of any crime, relying on the presumption of innocence.
Errors in Law in Granting Set-Aside
Data Protection Act Violation: Aiding in the breach of the law.
Company Names Regulations Violation: Being complicit in breaching these regulations.
Against Public Interest: Granting the BBC a liability shield.
Against Due Process: Capita failed to respond to the advance rebuttal of the claim to standing.
Conclusion
It is inappropriate to impose costs on a member of the public who is putting in considerable effort to test a matter of principle and public interest. This case is comparable to the noteworthy Ferguson vs. British Gas, involving a litigant in person, irrespective of the outcome. Given the difficult history of this case, it would be appreciated if the court could clarify that this is an honourable endeavour by all parties to resolve a public interest controversy, and not a vexatious or frivolous use of court time.
You are the man for the moment.
Good luck!