I was told that the defence would not have representation, but on the day they did. I was also optimistic before the case because the judge that was assigned was a chancery judge. However, unless he’s had a face transplant it was not the judge assigned. The solicitor was allowed to rant on for 10 minutes. My understanding from my conversations with the chatbot was that generally the judges prefer short concise answers rather than rants. I was then allowed to put my piece across, a longer paragraph I thought would not be possible which was the following, well-put simple argument from the bot: This claim concerns the Defendant’s refusal to fully comply with a lawful Subject Access Request under Article 15 UK GDPR. The issue is narrow. It is not whether a debt exists. It is whether Cabot can lawfully process my personal data and assert ownership of my account while refusing to disclose the document said to transfer that ownership — the Deed of Assignment. Cabot’s position is that the Deed is not my personal data.That position is unsustainable. Article 4 defines personal data as information “relating to” an identifiable person.The Deed is the legal basis upon which Cabot claims rights over my account and justifies ongoing data processing, credit reporting, and enforcement activity. It therefore plainly relates to me, even if it does not name me directly. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that documents may relate to an individual without naming them. Cabot relies instead on a Notice of Assignment, but a notice informs — it does not establish title. Where a party relies on an assignment to justify processing, the underlying document cannot be withheld from scrutiny altogether. The Defendant delayed my SAR, declared it “complex” without explanation, and then delivered a partial response while refusing the central document. That is a breach of Articles 12 and 15. Article 82 provides a remedy for distress. Financial loss is not required. I therefore seek a finding of breach, appropriate relief, and my fixed costs.

Neil Conway 1:59pm Hi good news I’ve been to the county court this morning and I was the only one that turned up DCBL could not be bothered to show and the judge has set aside the CCJ as I had a very good case to argue she said that she would list it for a trial and inform DCBL and see if they would like to pursue the matter any further and if so do I have a good defence I said yes cheers

Hi everyone, looking for a bit of support from anyone who has paperwork from Lowell past or present , I have my hearing to determine legal standing Cpr 23 N244 hearing on friday morning, It has just been noticed and brought to my attention by peter that i have made claim against a non existing company ,I have filed against Lowell Portfolio 1 ltd and it should be Lowell Portfolio I Ltd, if anyone has paperwork from them usually just the first SAR reply the same as attached image where it states (LP1) can you please message me asap as it may help me prove its not a typo error. many thanks guys

Who is actually responsible for allegedly having this deed of assignment? Lowell portfolio I Who states are the owner of my account or Lowell financial who manages the account? It's so confusing 😕 I need to get it right when I'm filing the N1

good afternoon, does anyone have links to the following cases or know what sites to find them on, and could kindly let me know please , cant seem to find them🙂 Technocrats international inc v fredric (2004) EWHC 692 QB. Re L (children) (2011) EWCA civ 190. many thanks.