Checkmate the Matrix Live is a three-day solutions event bringing together leading voices from across the UK who specialise in practical independence, privacy, health sovereignty, and decentralised systems. Held at the exclusive conference venue The Biscuit Room, this immersive event runs from 2nd to 4th May 2026, with doors opening at 10:00am each day and an optional VIP breakfast at 9:00am for early networking with speakers and attendees. This is not a theory conference. It is a hands-on, practical, solutions-focused gathering for people who want to understand — and implement — real alternatives in their lives. Over three days, you will hear from specialists and practitioners in: - Decentralised finance and blockchain banking alternatives to high street institutions - Privacy-first technology, de-Googled devices, and encrypted communication systems - Using GDPR and consumer regulation to manage debt issues and challenge unlawful practices - Practical tools and apps designed to fight back against unfair private parking charges - Protecting your rights in the age of digital ID, facial recognition, and surveillance overreach - Alternative health therapies and methods for reclaiming personal wellbeing - Land use and food sovereignty, including how to grow and secure your own food supply Throughout the venue you will also find stalls offering products, services, and one-to-one advice from trusted providers aligned with the event’s ethos. This is a rare opportunity to meet, learn from, and network with people who are actively building parallel solutions in finance, health, privacy, and lawful self-protection. Checkmate the Matrix Live is widely regarded as the sovereign event of the year — designed for those who want knowledge, tools, and community to step outside failing systems and take back control of their lives. This is a DO NOT MISS event.

Looking through the posts and documents on challenging mortgages unfortunately couldnt find a SAR 1, 2,3 to follow the process. Ive tried AI and it may be me but i didnt get a good response. Found a post that refers to the 13th of Feb weekly meeting last year im going to hunt out. Other than that do i just amend the DCA SARs?

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.