The Devil and the DVLA

Discuss all of your private conveyance issues here. DVLA, Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs), MOT, Tax, Insurance, Wheelclampers and any other related topics.

Rescission - part 2

Postby Oshun » Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:16 am

So, within the 5 working days, a reply was received from DEVILAIR - not from MOLE BANANAMAN, the CEO but from a woman working in the ‘Corporate Affairs Directorate’…. Notice the condescending attitude and the liberal use of phrases she appears to have gleaned from the internet. . .

“Dear Strawman,

Thank you for your recent correspondence addressed to Noel Shanahan at the DVLA. I have been asked to reply. The content of the ‘Notice’ you provided has been noted. However, I should point out a number of points.

The Notice you supplied, if it has any effect, does not provide for any exception or exemption from the legislative requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, or any other requirements with regards the licensing of drivers and the registration and taxing of vehicles. If you are stopped by the Police and found to be in breach of the law regarding your driving licence and/or vehicle then they will have no option but to report you for the offence. Similarly, if DVLA receive any notification of such a breach then we will have no option but to take the necessary actions to enforce the law.

Your defaced driving licence, vehicle registration document and number plates has been received at DVLA (sic). Further information on how to ensure that you may drive legally in on UK roads and on obtaining documents to replace your defaced documents can be found at www. Direct. Govt. Uk . Motoring. There is a charge for replacement of defaced documents.

Should you question the legality and definitions of the Vehicle Excise and Reegistration Act 1994 (as amended) and the Road Traffic Act 1988 (sic). You may wish to seek independent legal advice so that you properly understand the fit between your view of your obligations and the application of statute law requirements to you. (sic). No further correspondence will be entered into on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Nicola Virdee

Corporate Affairs Directorate”

This document has been returned to DEVILAIR as a breach of constitutional law along with the following legal Notice.

for and on behalf of DEVILAIR,
Swansick SAX 7XX
Our reference:

Notice of Documents Returned for Breach of Constitutional Law.
Notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal.


1. Please find enclosed the response dated April 2011. Said document is returned herein, without dishonour and without recourse, as it is a breach of Constitutional Law. This is on the basis that:

2. The writer’s attempt to make a legal determination of the matter is entirely frivolous. Her references to the statutory requirements of the 1988 Act and the 1994 Act demonstrate this point clearly. For the avoidance of doubt, said references have no basis in English Law as they are to be taken as a fatally flawed misrepresentation of the matter.

3.Her citations of said Acts are irrelevant as the Bill of Rights and the Act of Union remain in full force and effect, their validity reiterated by Lord Justice Laws, in the Divisional Court in the case of the “Metric Martyrs” (sections 62 and 63). He said:
“The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the HRA, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature’s actual – not imputed, constructive or presumed – intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to constitutional statutes. I should add that in my judgment general words could not be supplemented, so as to effect a repeal or significant amendment to a constitutional statute, by reference to what was said in Parliament by the minister promoting the Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute.” (bold - for emphasis).

4. In the event that DEVILAIR is unable to provide material evidence demonstrating the legislation that repealed the referenced Constitutional Statutes, then DVLA will be deemed to be acting in flagrant disregard of the law.

5.I will be exercising my common and ancient of travel, which is the “right for all……at all seasons of the year freely” and my “will to pass and repass without let or hindrance, and without charge.”
“All the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall……have full Freedom…… to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom……” Union with Scotland Act 1706 Article 4.
6. “All Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles ……shall from and after the Union cease and become void” Union with Scotland Act 1706 Article 25.

7.Therefore, contrary to the assertions of the referenced letter, the Notice of Rescission, as served on DEVILAIR on 8 April 2011 by way of Royal Mail Recorded Delivery, stands in law. Unless you are able to provide material evidence, supported by relevant case law which demonstrates that any and all statutory ‘laws’ DEVILAIR and its agents may seek to enforce, under the apparent consent of the public, are not void for being inconsistent and contrary to the Articles of the Union and any fine DEVILAIR may attempt to extort is not contrary to the Bill of Rights, then the lawful presumption will be that all parties are in agreement, in which case, any and all correspondence will also be deemed frivolous, may be copied for use as evidence in court and/or refused for cause and returned accordingly.
8. DEVILAIR is also served notice that in the event DVLA sends any more erroneous correspondence to the fictional legal entity known as “STRAWMAN™”, each item will incur a ONE THOUSAND & FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING administrative charge - ab initio. Any and all accepted invitations to attend at one of Her Majesty’s Courts, will be deemed by all parties to be made under “Special Appearance” and will incur a charge of ONE THOUSAND & FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING per appearance.
9. For the avoidance of doubt, the returned driver’s licence and DEVILAIR form were not “defaced” - they are rescinded -which is what was written on them.

i) “Rescind verb: Revoke, cancel, or repeal (a law, order, or agreement)” from Webster’s Dictionary.“RESCISSION OF A CONTRACT. The destruction or annulling of a contract. 2. The right to rescind a contract seems to suppose not that the contract has existed only in appearance; but that it has never had a real existence on account of the defects which accompanied it; or which prevented its actual execution. 7 Toul. n. 551 17 Id. n. 114.”

ii) “DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.” From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856), As I am not and will not be employed as a ‘Driver”, there is no requirement for a licence.

10. Given said documents may be taken in some quarters to provide possible evidence of a contractual obligation unwittingly entered into with DEVILAIR, one has simply rescinded them, as is one’s lawful entitlement. It is an act of Law, not one of defacement.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, vexation or frivolity, in sincerity and honour,

By: The Free Man-on-the-Land commonly known as Real Man

The Occasional Authorised Representative to
TRUST ACCOUNT STRAWMAN™ (& all derivatives thereof)

All Rights Reserved – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit - Errors & Omissions Excepted

Mailing address: C/O: XX Letsbee Avenue Forest Fields Snottingham Mercia.

We await the reply - if any is forthcoming! . . .


Oh, Shun!
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby Oshun » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:58 pm

Hi 1 and All,

So, within three working days, a reply to the NOTICE OF DOCUMENTS RETURNED… was received from DVLA. Again, it purports to be from some department called “Corporate Affairs Directorate”.

Addressed, to the STRAWMAN, It reads,

27 April 2011
Our ref ACTS 48236

Dear Mr Strawman,

Thank you for your letter of 19 April 2011 to Noel Shanahan. Mr Simon Tse is acting Chief Executive of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

Your letter is receiving immediate attention and you will receive a full reply as soon as possible.

Mrs Sars Dafydd.
Ministerial Gateway Team

This lead to the question, ‘what’s happened to Noel Shanahan, erstwhile Chief Executive Officer of DEVILAIR?

The answer was found here
Since March 22, he has been head of Child Maintenance. From CEO of DVLA to Child maintenance? Would that be a side step, a step down or an upstep - or some other kind of step as yet unimagined?

We await their response with interest.


Shun O?
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:26 pm

Response to Common Law Right to Travel

Postby Oshun » Wed May 04, 2011 11:54 pm

I do have a three questions if anyone here can help out:
1. What maximum punishment is likely for being found legally guilty of no licence, tax, or insurance?
2. How do provisional licences effect your rights? Would one need to first clear that matter up in some way?
3. Do the police have Lawfull authority to take my car at any point if de-registered?

1. My strawman incurred a £650 fine for keeping an untaxed vehicle on the road. I had a licence at that time and the vehicle was still insured. As to what more you could expect if you have a licence and no insurance, I'll leave that up to you to research.

2. Do you know what a licence is and why might you need one? This is from Bouviers law dictionary:

LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85.

2. A license is express or implied. An express license is one which in direct terms authorizes the performance of a certain act; as a license to keep a tavern given by public authority.

3. An implied license is one which though not expressly given, may be presumed from the acts of the party having a right to give it. The following are examples of such licenses: 1. When a man knocks at another's door, and it is opened, the act of opening the door licenses the former to enter the house for any lawful purpose. See Hob. 62. A servant is, in consequence of his employment, licensed to admit to the house, those who come on his master's business, but only such persons. Selw. N. P. 999; Cro. Eliz. 246. It may, however, be inferred from circumstances that the servant has authority to invite whom he pleases to the house, for lawful purposes. See 2 Greenl. Ev. §427; Entry.

4. A Iicense is either a bare authority, without interest, or it is coupled with an interest. 1. A bare license must be executed by the party to whom it is given in person, and cannot be made over or assigned by him to another; and, being without consideration, may be revoked at pleasure, as long as it remains executory; 39 Hen. VI. M. 12, page 7; but when carried into effect, either partially or altogether, it can only be rescinded, if in its nature it will admit of revocation, by placing the other side in the same situation in which he stood before he entered on its execution. 8 East, R. 308; Palm. 71; S. C. Poph. 151; S. C. 2 Roll. Rep. 143, 152.

5. - 2. When the license is coupled with an interest the authority conferred is not properly a mere permission, but amounts to a grant, which cannot be revoked, and it may then be assigned to a third person. 5 Hen. V., M. 1, page 1; 2 Mod. 317; 7 Bing. 693; 8 East, 309; 5 B. & C. 221; 7 D. & R. 783; Crabb on R. P. §521 to 525; 14 S. & R 267; 4 S. & R. 241; 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 522. When the license is coupled with an interest, the formalities essential to confer such interest should be observed. Say. R. 3; 6 East, R. 602; 8 East, R. 310, note. See 14 S. & R. 267; 4 S. & R. 241; 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 522; 11 Ad. & El. 34, 39; S. C. 39 Eng, C. L. R. 19.

A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal.
As I am not a driver (someone employed as a coachman or engaging in commerce, then why would i require a licence do that which is my lawful right - travel by any form of transportation I choose without paying for it?) If you read the thread, there is an explanation of why the licence was rescinded: i no longer wish to contract with a corporation that is engaging in extortion, the gains of which are used to fund the murder of our brothers and sisters in other countries by an illegitimate government who are the puppets of the banksters. If someone has passed a test demonstrating they are competent to control a particular kind of conveyance, and they are not engaging in the work of a coach/man/driver, then why would they need a licence?

3. This question is answered when you know the difference between lawful and legal. The answer is, as the vehicle has been deregistered, then they would have no lawful right to . This is why the lien in the thread was served on DEVILAIR - they committed an unlawful act: theft.

Hope this clears it up - any questions that you still have can be answered from your own research. Sometimes we need to zoom out a distance to see the bigger picture. DEVILAIR, as many know, is an aggressive corporation which is acting unlawfully. Whilst this matter is still ongoing - call it a wee project, if you like - it does appear a lot simpler than it was 2 years ago when my trusty "101 FMOTL" private, deregistered automobile was STOLEN. Theft is of course unlawful - DEVILAIR caused loss and harm. Now where did I put that Lien? Thank you for reminding me - It's time to add another year's worth of charges at £500 per day. :8-):


Oh, sun!
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby Oshun » Sun May 08, 2011 8:37 am

Another letter has been received from the Corporate Affairs Directorate, a week after the previous one. It reads:

4 May 2011
Dear Strawman,

Thank you for your letter of 21 April. I acknowledge receipt of this.

As previously advised no further correspondence will be entered into on this matter.

yours sincerely

Don Valley

Team Leader

Corporate Affairs Directorate

So, it appears DVLA are denying due process of the law by refusing to engage in any meaningful attempt to resolve the matter, which of course, means they are failing to apply constitutional law to the issue and any action taken against one will be in breach of said law. In effect, they will be attempting to force a contractual obligation on one (which renders it null and void ab inititio).

Let us be clear about this - our freedom to travel is enshrined in Law: it cannot be revoked. DVLA will be acting unlawfully if it attempts to prevent anyone going about his travels in a vehicle which has been deregistered, notwithstanding the fact that all contractual obligations have been rescinded by the return of the driving licence, the DVLA registration plate and the v5 document (unsigned).

Further developments will be posted. In the meantime, if anyone has any insights to offer, then fire away!

Happy Travels to One and All,

Last edited by Oshun on Sun May 08, 2011 4:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby huntingross » Sun May 08, 2011 8:57 am

I don't know what the answer is Oshun, as you say the DVLA are extremely aggressive and do not listen to any reason that lies outside of the legislation they choose to enforce.

I suppose there are two schools of thought :

No consent, and
Take them to court under their own rules.

As the thrust of your arguement is now swaying to constitutional acts, then taking them to court might seem the way to go, or a legal determination of the constitutional position.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby ROO13 » Wed May 25, 2011 5:40 pm

@ Oshun - I was just wondering if you had any more news regarding the DVLA and getting your car back? I have found your story amazing and simply can't believe how the police behaved while your car was removed.

My question is how has the DVLA delayed handing your car back if they have indeed broken the law?

Cheers R13
simply here to learn........
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 5:29 pm

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby Oshun » Wed May 25, 2011 7:49 pm

Hi R13,

in answer to your question - Friday 13 May was day 666 of the unlawful impounding of said private and deregistered vehicle. It seemed appropriate to send them a demand for payment...


Notice applicable to Nominees, Successors, Heirs, Accessories and Assigns

To Mr Simon SET, acting CEO,
for and on behalf of DEVILAIR, the
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Swansea SA6 7JL 13th May, 2011.
Your ref: BLAHBLAH
Our ref: AG12345

TO: Simon SET, acting CEO, for and on behalf of DEVILAIR, pursuant to your predecessor Ole Bananaman & DEVILAIR’s dishonour of the legal notices and affidavit herein listed, each served by way of Royal Mail Recorded Delivery,

3. NOTICE & DEMAND (AFFIDAVIT), DATED 10th August, 2009
5. NOTICE OF DISHONOUR, DATED 9th October, 2009.
6. NOTICE OF LIEN INTEREST, DATED 19th October, 2009
10. NOTICE OF DEFAULT, DATED 11th January, 2010.

You are hereby served this STATUTORY DEMAND for payment.

1. As Ole Bananaman, for and on behalf of DEVILAIR, failed to settle the outstanding amount of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS as per the terms of the lien, you, Mr Simon SET, for and on behalf of DEVILAIR, are hereby and herein notified that the charge of FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING PER DAY DEVILAIR unlawfully impound the automobile is still in FULL CAUSE AND EFFECT and has been added to the total owed.

In total, it is now 666 days since the private automobile was stolen by DEVILAIR.


3. EXEMPLARY CHARGES: For the avoidance of doubt, DEVILAIR’s failure to settle the agreed sum owed under the terms of said Commercial Lien of GBP£197,960 in full within thirty (30) days of service of notice of 12 April 2010 incurred a charge of three times (X3) the amount owed which was £593,000.
The failure to settle after another thirty (30) day period incurred a further charge of ten times (X10) the balance owed which amounted to £5, 930, 800. With the added total of £197,500, this makes the THE TOTAL OWED AS OF 13th May 2011, SIX MILLION, ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND AND THREE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING ( £6,128,300)

4. If the Lien Debtor is willing to settle this account within the next 30 (THIRTY) days, then a 50% discount will be offered. You are asked to take note that, given the well-documented various dishonourable, unlawful and overly-aggressive actions of those agents acting for and on behalf of the DEVILAIR, including, without limitation, the failure of Ole Bananaman’s duty of care to apply due diligence to the matter, the unlawful and violent theft of the LAWFULLY de-registered automobile at X Xcellent Road, Snottingham on the morning of 16th July 2009, and the subsequent commercial injuries to STRAWMAN™ we consider this to be a legitimate sum. You are requested to remit a cheque for the full amount in order to prevent the initiation of any and all further administrative and/or judicial proceedings deemed necessary in order to cure the commercial injuries caused by your company. Cheques or banker’s drafts should be made payable to STRAWMAN™ and are payable upon receipt of this legal notice.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,
By: Every Man of Everywhere

Authorised Agent in Commerce to STRAWMAN™
All Rights Reserved –Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby ROO13 » Thu May 26, 2011 7:13 am

lol Friday the 13th was day 666 - how fitting!

So after this letter are you going to take them to court?

simply here to learn........
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 5:29 pm

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby chomerly » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:19 am

Any news on this brother?
User avatar
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:31 am
Location: Wolverhampton U.K.

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby Oshun » Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:42 am

Hi chomerly,

The new plates, "NAMASTE" are on the conveyance and we went out for a spin last night. . .

In terms of further developments, nothing to report for now. However, I will at some point be looking to send a promissory note for 500 k to be lodged with the account general to cover all liabilities.

namaste :grin:
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:26 pm


Return to Motoring issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest