So Centrica (British Gas) have unexpected resourcing issues. I wonder why that could be @Tommy Of the family mackay 🤔😂😂

Good evening remedy seekers, i am wondering how you get on when in the dark of night doubt and fear come creeping in and turn even the strongest to question what they are doing. What have been your go to's, to bring you back on track and focused on the way forward and the 'rightness' of what you are doing?

Has anyone dealt with these bottom feeders on behalf of Octoplasm?

folks....anyone had any dealings with a company "Flint Bishop" (based in Derby), appears they have 2 separate entities, one is a firm of solicitors the other a DCA. They're acting for British Gas..... so any inputs from anyone out there? Thanks, David

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.