Judgement has come from and my appeal on costs failed as it stated they were awarded costs contractually. Be warned if going to court it landed me with £23k bill

Here's another ICO reply that obfuscates the GDPR (2018) with nonsense... I didn't ever think that an organisation funded by the corrupt system would give fair judgement but here's proof. At least my court bundle has ICO complaint as 'completed'. 🫠

Earlier this year my lovely neighbour had to cancel her holiday because her Dad was dying and didn't have very long (sadly he did pass). She contacted her holiday company and gave her (very valid) reason for cancellation and thought it would be a no brainer for a refund given the circumstances. Wrong! Apparently it wasn't a good enough reason and she could have gone as her Dad didn't die until after she was due to return! Short version - I told her to send a SAR, told her what to write and what to ask for. She did. This afternoon, as I was coming back from dog walkies, she ran out all excited and told me that she'd not only got a full refund but compensation too - £3,500 holiday refund and £350 compensation! She said, "I was really afraid to do what you said, but I did it, then the company went quiet, then I got a phone call from their complaints department about 2 weeks later with a full apology and the offer of compensation". I asked her if she was happy with the outcome and she said I probably was due more compensation because of the way I was treated but to be honest I just want to forget about it all now. So I'm chalking this down as a BIG WIN, and she's sharing the knowledge with others and has lost the fear and will not hesitate to do it again in the future if the need arises 💪🤗

Big news for anyone fighting back against debt claims where your personal data has been processed without a legitimate interest/Legal Title 👊. On 22nd August 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down a landmark decision in Farley v Paymaster (1836) Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1117. Here’s what it means: - ✅ No “threshold of seriousness” – you don’t have to prove a breach was “serious enough.” Every unlawful data processing can be actionable. - ✅ Distress is not essential – you don’t have to show medical-level distress or breakdowns. Anxiety, embarrassment, or even the risk of misuse is enough. - ✅ Unlawful processing itself is sufficient – you don’t need to prove your data was opened, read, or misused. The fact it was processed unlawfully is enough to found liability. - ✅ Low-value claims are valid – claims worth £1,000–£2,000 cannot be dismissed as trivial or abusive. This is huge for people in debt cases where creditors, DCAs, or their solicitors mishandle your personal data (wrong reporting to CRAs, passing debts without lawful authority, etc.). It strengthens the argument for GDPR counterclaims alongside defending a debt. 📌 Other cases that back this up - Vidal-Hall v Google [2015] EWCA Civ 311 – confirmed that damages are available for “non-material loss” (distress, anxiety) even if no financial loss is shown. - Lloyd v Google [2021] UKSC 50 – although it limited “representative actions,” it reaffirmed that individuals can recover compensation for unlawful data processing. - Johnson v Eastlight Community Homes [2021] EWHC 3069 (QB) – data breach claim struck out for being “de minimis,” but now Farley makes clear there is no seriousness threshold – overruling this restrictive approach. 💬 Takeaway If your data was processed by an alleged debt owner without legitimate interest, don’t let them say your GDPR counterclaim is “too small” or “too trivial.” Farley v Paymaster confirms every unlawful processing counts, and low-value claims deserve their day in court.

The Council Tax AI and Agent Light will go live tomorrow, It will solve many Council Tax issues using Legislation, Halsbury and Case law. This is at the test stage, and for this group only. Later it will go outside the group to actually turn the tide, i hope. I will set up a group on Telegram for this, (tonight) and then go through what it is, and how to use it at 7.30pm Thursday. I will post the new Telegram group here later. This only the test phase, and is only for Skool members, or people that i select for value. 😃 Update: The Ai incorporated HMRC bolt on pack. I’ve reviewed the update, and here’s what this AI can now do for Council Tax (CT) and HMRC enforcement: 1. Purpose of the Bolt-On 1.A. Extends the Novice A–E (Stages 1–5) framework from Council Tax into HMRC enforcement. 1.B. Not a standalone system – it plugs into CT AI Light. 1.C. Substitutes HMRC statutes/enforcement pathways into the same legal and advocacy logic. 2. Scope of the AI 2.A. Restricted to Novice A–E stages (1–5) only. 2.B. Intermediate and Advanced strategies are excluded. 2.C. Outputs it can generate for both CT and HMRC: i. Checklists ii. Courtroom Scripts (150–300 words) iii. Remedy Maps (Refusal, Adjournment, Injunction, Restitution, Damages) iv. Authorities (Statute + Case Law + Halsbury) v. Worked Examples and Training Tools. 3. Statutory Substitution Map (CT ↔️ HMRC) Reg.19 Demand Notice (CT) ↔️ TMA 1970 ss.28C/29 Assessment (HMRC). Regs.34–36 Summons (CT) ↔️ HMRC CCJ or Enforcement Order. Flat-rate Costs (Nicolson principle) ↔️ HMRC Enforcement Costs/Fees. Bulk Summons (CT) ↔️ Bulk CCJs (HMRC). Remedies identical: refusal, adjournment, injunction, restitution, damages. 4. Workflow i. Stage 1 – Jurisdiction: check valid assessment/service. ii. If HMRC clears Stage 1, move to Stage 2 – Fairness (EqA/HRA safeguards). iii. Escalate step by step through Stage 3 → Stage 4 → Stage 5. iv. Always apply the Remedy Ladder: Refuse → Adjourn → Injunction → Restitution → Damages.