I’m such a hermit I’m always talking to myself 😬😂 Then I have verbal diarrhoea when I do speak to someone as @Tommy Of the family mackay knows only to well 😂 https://youtu.be/PP6o65LaRDA

Hi all, not tolly new but been quiet for a while due to family health issues. Will be more active from here on and looking forward to chatting with you at some point 🙃

Anyone finding that chatgpt can be biaised and get things wrong. I use the bots but sometimes they dont cover what I want to know. Any recommendations or what AI you have found uselful?

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.

Lowell took over my case from Vanquis Bank last autumn, though I don’t owe to this credit card company. Vanquis rejected my last payment nine months ago, charged off the account, and sold my account data to Lowell against my wishes. I explicitly told Vanquis to transfer the account lawfully, via deed of assignment, though they ignored me. I was on a call with a manager at Lowell Financial. While I was explaining what the law says about data handling and deed of assignment, the line dropped. When I called back, a call handler refused to reconnect me to the manager and demanded my date of birth, which I do not provide to third parties. He then accused me of sounding like a “freeman on the land conspiracy theorist.” When I asked what that meant, he refused to explain and still wouldn’t transfer me before disconnecting the call. Once I finally reached the manager again, I apologised for the delay (the company didn’t have my phone no). I didn’t complain, I simply asked whether he knew what “freeman on the land conspiracy theorist” meant? 🤭 The manager apologised for the experience and said he would monitor the call and discipline the handler if necessary. 😄 He also offered to request that my case be closed based on the information I gave him, though he couldn’t guarantee that Lowell Portfolio would agree - so we’ll see. Lowell sent a £25 cheque as an apology for the poor call handling. 👏Staying polite clearly paid off for me!