9 so sorry

Fantastic 🤩

I ask this Jed as this reply must be in honour. Every request must move with the motion fir what is presented, and the replies you drafted do not do that. Do a list what you think and HALLELUJAH 🙏

> Jed — you've gone off track here, quite considerably. 😂 The letter you've drafted is not what I would send. The first problem is that you have not honoured what has actually been received. They have responded and supplied two documents: the covering letter dated 6 August 2026 and what purports to be a Liability Order dated 4 August 2026. Whether those documents substantiate everything is a completely different question, but they must first be acknowledged and analysed. Secondly, you have effectively started the process again by writing another enormous disclosure request containing 12 fresh headings. We already made requests. The question now isn't “what else can we ask them for?” The question is: What did we ask for → what have they supplied → what have they failed to supply → what remains unanswered? That's the whole point of building the chronology and evidence trail. Their response may well amount to a non-response response in relation to the outstanding substantiation, because sending a Liability Order does not automatically answer requests for the underlying ledger, calculation, summons, service evidence, application, records relied upon, costs and authority. But we cannot properly say “you haven't answered us” until we first acknowledge exactly what they have answered or supplied. Thirdly, your draft asks again for material already requested. That muddies the chronology and potentially gives them a shiny new request to answer rather than holding them to the existing unanswered request. Fourthly, you've given them 28 days, despite their own letter saying bailiffs may be instructed after 24 August 2026. We don't casually create a response period that runs beyond an enforcement date staring us in the face. Fifthly, there are now important questions arising specifically from these new documents. Those need analysing against the previous correspondence before another letter goes anywhere. So the next correspondence should be an ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSE / OUTSTANDING MATTERS, not another kitchen-sink disclosure request.

@Pamela Michaels Dear one. What was that letter uploaded then. I'm a tad confused 😕 😕 😕 We have a meeting tonight at 8 might be an option to join

So true. It is a simple process however much dedication needed to see the simplicity