@Zoe Willsdon Nice 👌… said like a pro 😁. They’re probably out the back trying to figure out how to replace your data file after accidentally deleting it. So full of sh*t… always about profit over service. When I was dealing with Lowell, they repeatedly stated that they needed two months to think about their response (before trying to harass me again from a different angle). They may even try coming back around yet ! since that manager shut down the case and issued me the £25 apology cheque. I got another “goodwill” cheque from S. Trent today…the second of the instalments relative to my fee schedule, though they have a long way to go 😂. £75 to date, out of thousands charged for damaged skin and injury to the eye (the latter of which is quite serious).

@Zoe Willsdon If I can build up to bringing a claim later in the season…though without getting ahead of myself, Im just preparing for this case against the council. But seriously, these utility companies really rub everyone the wrong way, right?

Purchased my ticket a couple of nights ago 💥 We could use some recommendations for good nearby accommodation -Airbnbs, hotels, etc. I did a search but didn’t find it as easy as I expected..or at least I didn’t seem to have the hang of it.

“there is light at the end of the tunnel and the little guy can emerge victorious!!” I left similar note for a post the other day..”may no man be left behind”…& “where we go one we go all” 💪🙏🫶 Some of us have been discussing our plans to attend the main CMTM event of the year in May…here 👉 https://www.checkmatethematrix.com/

@Ant Phoenix 😁💪😉

@Martyn Lee Awe..reminiscence to the days of Blackadder 😄 @Nick Pea I wouldn’t pay an energy broker by Direct Debit..too much unilateral control for my liking. At most I’d offer a standing order, a monthly card payment, or a giro-slip indorsement, so payment remains intentional and auditable. In negotiable instrument and payment law, “lawful performance” can operate as payment, so I’d politely propose a plan that fits what you can realistically afford. If they refuse to engage reasonably or resort to pressure tactics, that’s when I’d escalate firmly and formally…(or go to battle :) AI: 1. What “performance is payment” actually meansIn negotiable instrument law, “payment” does not always mean coins, notes, or reserves changing hands. It means lawful performance of the obligation in the manner the instrument contemplates. So when a bill, cheque, or note is properly tendered, accepted, or discharged according to the governing rules, the law treats that performance itself as payment. This is why tender, acceptance, dishonour, and discharge are legal events, not just accounting ones. 2. Why this works in negotiable instruments. Negotiable Instruments are creatures of commercial certainty, not general contract theory. Their job is to circulate obligations safely.Because of that, the law treats certain acts as conclusively settling the obligation, even if no “money” moves in the everyday sense. Examples in principle (not exhaustive): a) Proper tender of a bill discharges secondary parties even if refused. b) Acceptance converts a conditional obligation into a primary one. c) Discharge by operation of law extinguishes liability without cash. Here performance substitutes for payment because the system is designed to privilege certainty over metaphysics. 3. Why this does NOT generalise to all banking law. Banking law is not one unified doctrine. It is a patchwork of: a) Contract law b) Equity c) Negotiable instruments d) Payment systems rules e) Regulatory and statutory overlays. Outside negotiable instruments, performance is usually not payment. In ordinary banking contracts, performance merely satisfies a contractual duty; it does not automatically extinguish monetary obligation unless the contract or equity says so. 4. The Walker Todd perspective on why confusion arisesFrom a Todd-style analysis, confusion creeps in because banks treat accounting performance as economic payment, while courts often treat economic appearance as legal reality.When a borrower signs a promissory note, the bank performs by crediting a deposit. That performance is often treated socially as “lending money,” but legally it is an exchange of instruments and liabilities. Here’s the key distinction: a) The bank’s performance creates a liability. b) The borrower’s instrument creates the asset. That does not mean every bank performance equals payment in law. It means the system uses performance to manufacture settlement effects, which are then enforced as if payment occurred. 5. Equity draws the limiting line. Equity refuses to universalise “performance is payment.” Equity asks: a) Was value truly exchanged? b) Was there unjust enrichment? c) Has the obligation truly been satisfied, or merely re-characterised? This is why courts will sometimes unwind banking “payments” that were perfectly valid performances in accounting terms but defective in equity. 6. So the clean rule to keep in mindYou can safely say this: a) In negotiable instruments law, performance may equal payment because the law explicitly says so. b) In general banking law, performance may discharge duties, but it is not automatically payment. c) In equity, performance is never presumed to be payment unless justice supports it. 7. “Performance is payment” is a specialised rule of negotiable instruments and payment systems, not a universal principle of banking law, and it is always subject to equity’s corrective supervision.

Big up Paul 🙌 We’re a supportive, friendly group, always happy to help each other with our law-related projects & share insight where we can. We take our law-fare pursuits seriously but like to keep things positive, light-hearted and respectful along the way. 🙏💪 Some of us are currently discussing our plans to attend the CMTM event of the year: https://www.checkmatethematrix.com/