I have received this from OVO. The chat bot says I'm in credit, is this so? I paid with Bill of Exchange. Meter readings help us keep your energy account up to date and send you accurate bills. Unfortunately, when we used your most recent meter reading to update your energy account, it’s shown that we’ve been underestimating how much energy you use. This means your bills have been incorrect since 25/11/2024, and we’ve been billing you for less energy than you’ve actually used. We’re really sorry about this. We won’t charge you for energy used more than 12 months ago You don’t have to pay any extra for the energy you used before 03/12/2024 – that’s because it’s taken more than 12 months for us to sort this billing error. We've already applied the payments you made before 03/12/2024 to help pay for the extra energy you used – but we won't ask you to make any more payments for energy you used over 12 months ago. This follows guidance set by Ofgem, the energy regulator. Here’s what this means for you: • For the incorrect bills between 25/11/2024 and 03/12/2024, we charged you £353.45 • But your energy use actually cost £371.04 • We undercharged you by £17.59 – but you don’t have to pay this money back (you’ll see this “write off” as a one-off transaction on your energy account) We’ve also recalculated your energy use for the last 12 months This means you now have a negative balance of -£970.86 as of 2025-12-03. Everything’s now up to date, so you don’t need to do anything. But if you do have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call us on 0330 303 5063. Thanks, The OVO Team Do I owe them or do they owe me? - Checkmate The Matrix - Based on the information provided, you do not owe OVO any money. In fact, they owe you a negative balance of -£970.86 as of December 3, 2025. This means that you have a credit on your account, and you do not need to make any additional payments for the energy used before December 3, 2024, due to the billing error. - If you have further questions or concerns, you can contact OVO directly at the number provided.

I created this notice today with help of debt validation chatbot, I would appreciate comments regarding it's validity and whether it's correctly issued, if anything should be added or removed. Planning to send it on Monday. Thanks in advance Notice Subject Access Request, Restriction Request (Article 18) and Objection to Processing (Article 21) This formal Subject Access Request is made pursuant to Article 15 UK GDPR and Sections 45–54 of the Data Protection Act 2018. For the avoidance of doubt, I also reserve all equitable rights and remedies, and I place you on equitable notice that any reliance on alleged assignment, title or authority must be evidenced with accuracy, candour and clean hands. Royal Mail Reference Number: From: To: Date: Your reference number: Your client reference number: For identification, I provide your internal reference numbers and a redacted utility bill showing my name and address (a mobile phone bill qualifies as a utility bill for this purpose). You have no lawful basis to demand photo ID, passport, driving licence or biometric identifiers; such a demand would be excessive and contrary to GDPR Articles 5(1)(c) (data minimisation) and 5(1)(a) (lawfulness, fairness, transparency). Frischmann v Vaxeal Holdings SA [2023] EWHC 2698 (Ch) confirms the requirement of signature under the hand of the assignor. Technocrats International Inc v Fredric [2004] EWHC 692 (QB) confirms that a non-compliant assignment creates only an equitable interest. W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 2 QB 454 confirms that a defective notice defeats statutory assignment. Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607 confirms the debtor’s entitlement to sight of the deed. Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel [2021] EWCA Civ 1682 confirms that a Notice of Assignment alone is insufficient. Lord Denning MR affirmed that a debtor is entitled to inspect a deed to verify any alleged assignment, and that withholding such evidence frustrates the debtor’s right to know the true creditor.

Hello everybody, mi first post here, I received a letter from DCA (see attached image) and came up with a response using the Private Parking Parasites Equitable Challenge Chatbot. I'd really appreciate if you could have a look at it and let me know whether there is anything that should be added, or anything in need of changing or perhaps removing, this is my first time so I'm not sure If I'm perhaps not overcomplicating it unnecessarily. I understand that I should put the registered mail reference number at the top of the document. Can I send both letters in one envelope using the same reference number for both? I also have one practical question, do I keep the original signed by me document for my own records and only send them the photocopy of it? Or do I send them the original and keep photocopy myself? This is the result: EQUIPARK LEGAL SERIES Subject Access Request & Notice of Equitable Objection (SAR 1) Issued under Articles 15, 18 & 21 UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018 (ss. 45–47), and the Equitable Jurisdiction of the Courts of England & Wales To: [Insert Organisation Name & Address]From: [Your Full Name]Address: [Your Full Postal Address]Date: [Insert Date]Reference: [Their Reference Number / Claim Number] 1 Preliminary Enquiry on Capacity and Title 1.1 Before addressing data-protection matters, confirm whether you have purchased the alleged debt outright and pursue it in your own name (having acquired the chose in action), or whether you merely purchased access to my personal data to act as an agent or third-party intermediary. 1.2 If you are acting only as an intermediary, you hold no lawful standing to process my data or to demand payment. 2 Identification and Verification 2.1 For identification under Article 12(6) UK GDPR, I enclose: - Your internal reference number(s), and - A redacted utility / telephone bill showing my name and address. 2.2 Under Articles 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(c) UK GDPR (lawfulness & data minimisation), you have no right to demand a photographic ID, which would constitute excessive processing.