Think I may have it sorted, seems the original quote was for cleaning the lenses but they looked at it and realised this wouldn't solve the problem and that it need a new lens. I've spoken to the repair person who said they weren't charging Jessops as they haven't done any work and I've told Jessops Customer Services this and they said that if that's the case they won't charge me. The person from my local Jessops who rang me to explain the differences in quotes said that I would be charged the original price but I don't think he was fully aware of all the facts. As the camera is being returned to me in the same condition I sent it I don't see why I should be charged. Thanks for all your help, much appreciated.

Yes I still have the original letter, I will be going into Jessops after work to show them it.

On 9 January I took my Fuji bridge camera into a Jessops store to ask about a repair. I paid £25 to get an estimate and my camera was sent to the company which does the repairs on Jessop's behalf. I was told it could take 6-8 weeks for the repair to be done and my camera returned and that if I went ahead with the repair then the £25 would be taken off the total cost but if I decided not to go ahead then I wouldn't get my £25 back. After not hearing anything for about 3 weeks I went into the store to ask and they said that the repairers were still waiting for a price for parts. I eventually got a quote on a letter dated 12 February and the estimate was for £101.40 (including VAT) and that the quote was valid for 4 weeks. The day after I received the letter I returned to the local store and confirmed that I wished to go ahead with the repair and an assistant logged this onto a PC/Till and told me that I would get notification when my camera was ready to be collected. Yesterday, after having patiently waited 8 weeks and not hearing anything, I went back into the store to find out what was happening, a sales assistant looked into it and came back and told me that as I hadn't given confirmation for the repair to go ahead the estimate was now over £180. I told him that I had confirmed it and that I had watched an assistant input this into the till and that the estimate had been just over £100, he checked again and confirmed that I had done this and that there must be a mix up with the repairers who were now asking for the higher price. He said that he would contact the repairers and do all he could to get the repair done at the original lower price. Where do I stand with this? It seems to me that Jessops have cocked up somewhere and are now expecting me to pay for this mistake. The camera is about 2 and a half years old and £180 is about the top end of what it would now be worth but I really don't see why I should have to pay the higher price when I had already given consent for the repair with the original estimate. Added to this is the fact that the letter states that the original estimate is valid for 4 weeks and those 4 weeks aren't up until tomorrow. Can anyone help/advise me please?

LOD Signature I've prepared my LOD but not sure whether to sign it by hand or use and electronic signature, advice on here seems mixed. What's the general consenus from people?

Thanks, I've downloaded this but only had time to have a brief look but it seems useful (though it's feeding my paranoia). The initial letter arrived just as I was going on holiday and it slipped my mind after I got back so I never really gave it the attention that (I now realise) I should have. Quite frankly the whole thing looked amateurish and someone else told me thousands of these letters get sent out and that it was a common [problem] and it was best to ignore it and not get involved in correspondence with them.

I haven't even told them that the ISP company which have supposedly identified me as a subscriber is not a company I have ever heard of, I'm with somebody else, Same here, I've never heard of the company who they claim they got my IP address from and they're certainly not my provider. Is this relevant though?

You're right but I've only just found this site and I have a very slow and dodgy internet connection at work so was looking for a potential shortcut, but don't worry I will be looking through the posts. One other question, is it likely that the solicitors concerned are viewing this thread (I've become very paranoid aver the past few days).

This is my first post and I don't want to have to search through all the posts so apologies if I'm asking for info/advice that's already been given. I have received a letter from a firm of solicitors called Gallant Macmillan accusing me of illegally downloading an album by Ministry of Sound . I did not download this album and the only evidence they produced was an IP address (which they say is my IP address) a date and time when I am alleged to have downloaded this music and the name of a p2p network (bittorrent). I have never used bittorent. On the date and time that they say these files were dowloaded I wouldn't have been home as I wouldn't have got back from work. They demanded that I pay them £375.00 as a settlement within 21 days. I ignored the original letter as it looked like a [problem] and I was told if I ignored it they would just go away. Unfortunately, they haven't gone away and have now sent me a second letter threatening to commence court proceedings if I do not respond in 7 days. The wording in this second letter is somewhat ambiguous and I don't really understand it. I don't really know what to do and am concerned and worried about all of this and what don't know what action can be taken to get them off my back? I've now been advised to send a letter of denial and wonder if anyone has such a letter that they've sent that I could see a copy of as I'm not sure how to word it or how much/little information to include. As I said earlier I did not download this album and in fact my wife has the CD so we legally own a copy of it. Sorry if this post is long winded but any help would be much appreciated.