Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
What is this?
Less
More
Memberships
Checkmate The Matrix
589 members • $65/m
7 contributions to Checkmate The Matrix
3d •
Private Group Meeting Tonight (25th Sept 2025)
Hi there, Hope you are all doing great this day of Thor, plenty of Vitamin D up north, had a fantastic walk down the beach and then in the woods with Mouse, Tonight we have our group meeting, i am going to cover the legal title that these Dirty DCAs do not possess, this means that they have no legal ownership of any debt, so no legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR, i have created a new basis for the "Witness Statement" and "Skeleton Argument" for a data breach case where the DCAs always attempt to slide the court over to a consumer debt proving case, i have also created a block document list to stop any escape attempts of the DCAs, so this will be an important infomative meeting for a lot of people, as they are being lied to and rail roaded by these Dirty DCAs and easily swayed judges, hope to see you soon Peter
1 like • 13h
Hi, is the video available, doesnt appear to work in the calendar area. Thank you
3d •
MTD Petition
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/unite-and-stop-making-tax-digital-for-income-tax-before-april-2026 "We call on the Government to cancel the rollout of MTD ITSA in April 2026. Forcing 4.2 million sole traders to submit five returns a year using paid software will increase costs, red tape, and penalties, damaging small businesses, jobs, and the economy...."
0
0
25d •
Identity verification - companies house
I have a dormant company that i trade as, (sole trader) now with the new "laws" regarding verification, which dont "appeal" to me, i am considering closing. Would i be right thinking i can still continue trading as i am, but I would not be able to use the company name, logo, and website i built and trademarked etc. Or is that insignificant. I have a good client base, and get jobs from word of mouth, dont advertise. Or is there some benefit to having the dormant company that i am missing? Thank you
0 likes • 24d
😀 Thanks, not understood any of that! Just did what the accountant suggested to me at the time
Aug 21 •
Call from DCA after SAR 3 (Parking parasites)
Despite them sending me another letter after the SAR3 - a young lady called from ZZPS - to "resolve the matter". She asked me first for data protection to confim my details, i told her i cannot do that as i do not know who ZZPS are they have still to show me their legitimate interest in the matter. She said "alright", then hang up. Perhaps they are getting the message? Still to send the SAR 4
4 likes • Aug 21
🤠
2 likes • Aug 22
@Rafal Suliga yes correct
Jun 2 •
Parking - SAR 1 legal / query parking signage
Hi, i have a debt collection notice for “debt unpaid” for an outstanding parking charge (parked in a car park for 13mins, was mistakenly directed there whilst visiting on a job site). After losing a POPLA decision, whereby they showed in their documentation that they give 10mins for drivers to park and pay and read terms. I have downloaded the SAR1 legal challenge and my query is 1. regarding "Parking signage is often not readable at point of entry…” should I delete that as they may point out they already cover that in Premier park contract terms. 2. The charge is now £155 which seems unreasonable so point B in that doc is definitely my point. 3. What response should i expect and is there for this scenario a SAR2? 4. regarding the debt collection notice, one thing they havent stated is when “i need to pay” - their closing sentence is to call to discuss options to avoid progressing the matter. Is that normal? Thanks very much
1 like • Jul 20
@Dave DimeBar great thank you
0 likes • Aug 14
Hi, saga continues.... So they continue with their "we retain a legitimate interest..." Again, if i understood correctly, i should have the right and the proof to know what this legitimate interest is and what it has to do with me, which they are not providing. They continue to say they have sent everything i have requested and act according to the instruction of their client. They then say THEY HAVE NOT BOUGHT THE DEBT, NOR HAS IT BEEN SOLD BY PP. - which again i think if i understand what Peter has been telling us is interesting. And that the basis of the amount of £155 has been outlined previously, and they have the ability to charge a reasonable fee for the administrative costs incurred from multiple GDPR requests - which if i understand is their responsibility and does not come with a fee. I would appreciate any comments please especially from our trusty experts. I especially dont understand how this letter closes and what it means or how to respond. Do i proceed with SAR 4 — NOTICE OF DATA BREACHES & ESTOPPEL DEMAND? Thanks again to Peter, Dave DimeBar and the Team
1-7 of 7