Further to the below appeal an update. I visited the Rolls building London today to submit a claim. Which initially was refused. The staff are helpful, I ended up with a manager (20yra experience), after pleading with two lesser clerks. He said ; you are entitled to have your claim placed in front of a master who will decide if the high court hears it. From talking to you, the points you are making are not obvious in the particulars or your letter. I can take your claim now and give it to the master but they will not read the bundle, only the particulars and only once.you don't have to Convince me but the master. Would you like me to? or would You like to review your claim, Ensuring all relevant case law in your bundle is in the particulars, and all relevant information is being presented. He also said you cannot speak to a master until then court has accepted your claim. Worth while outing. Earlier.…. Can anyone post a link to the practice direction ensuring I can file in chancery. Here now being Denied 😬 its with the commercial Lawyer reviewing it. Need the practice direction link 🤞🙏

Claims sent to B&PC who ordered them to be sent to Preston County Court with 7 days to apply to be set aside, varied or stayed. I applied for them to be retained at Manchester well within the time limit but the papers had been sent to Preston immediately after the order. B&PC have informed me that my applications for set aside will go to the same judge despite asking for a high court judge to reconsider 🙄. Preston has issued my claims to the Defendants. The council has acknowledged service and is now being very nicey nicey in her emails. No response as yet from the solicitor. Edit: I have been notified by Weightmans LLP that they are now handling the case for the council!

*They last minute swapped out my GDPR/EQUITY Claim in HIGH COURT - Trying put me back in the lower courts! * Dear Sirs, Your case number BL-2025-BHM-000067, is to be transferred to Leicester County Court as it is not a matter for High Court. An order and transfer will be done in due course. Please note if I issue your other claims - 1) BILLY BOB v Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd and 2) BILLY BOB v Intrum & Capquest in the High Court they are likely to follow this one in being transferred to the County Court and should that happen it will build considerable delay into your claims being dealt with. You should consider whether or not you wish to issue in the High Court or whether you should issue in the County Court. You may want to seek independent advice. You can: Contact Citizens Advice for free, impartial advice. Information about the service they offer is available on their website: www.citizensadvice.org.uk/ Phone Civil Legal Advice on 0345 345 4 345. They can help find appropriate local advice services.

My recent experience in Leicester County Court has been a frustrating but highly educational lesson in how these "zombie debt buyers" operate. I followed many of the core principles Peter of England (NEW VIDEO)😤 has outlined, yet the judge still granted a summary judgment against me, striking out my defense and ordering costs. This was a result not of the merit of my case, but of a minor technicality that highlights how these firms exploit procedural loopholes. The truth is, I had done everything right. I had a strong defense, built on meticulous research and key case law. I had sent multiple Notices of Conditional Acceptance and formal Subject Access Requests (SARs) as far back as 2023, consistently asking for proof of claim, such as the Deed of Assignment (DOA). Like a true litigant in person, I was asking for the documents to substantiate the claim, but Intrum consistently failed to respond to my SARs, and their agent Capquest provided contradictory and confusing documents that were full of errors and inaccurate data. My research, like Peter of England's, showed that without a valid Deed of Assignment (DOA) from the original lender (Virgin Money) to the debt buyer (Intrum), they have no legal title and, therefore, no standing to enforce the debt. I filed a formal N244 application to set aside the judgment, citing these failures, the FCA authorization issues (from the Intrum v Baldwin case), and my broader claim in the High Court for GDPR and equity breaches. My defense was solid and grounded in law. The Claimant's barrister, however, avoided these substantive issues and instead relied on a procedural technicality: the summary judgment was granted under CPR 3.4 (for striking out a defense), not CPR Part 12 (default judgment), so my N244 application was procedurally incorrect. The judge, without hearing my arguments, went with the Claimant's barrister's submissions, and the case was lost on that minor technicality. The lesson for our group is clear: these firms are not afraid of our legal arguments. They are afraid of us bringing them up. My case, where I asked for a witness from Intrum with "first-hand knowledge" of the debt, and the judge was still able to side with the barrister who had no knowledge of the case, is a stark reminder that they will do everything they can to bypass the core legal issues. We must not be discouraged. Instead, we must be more vigilant, and use their own procedural rules against them. My next step is to continue with my GDPR and equity claim in the Business and Property Courts, where the judge will be forced to hear these arguments on their full merits. We must get these cases into the correct courts that are designed to deal with these exact issues. I will keep the group updated on my progress.

Lowell Portfolio I Ltd are No longer FCA registered: https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000002sxwwhAAA