Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

ACS Law : GCB Limited


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4663 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Well it looks like someone's picked up the ball and is attempting to run with it again.

 

Now a company called GCB Limited have picked up the Media Cat claims and is taking up where ACS left off. Makes for the same kind of read as ACS's allegations. No new evidence, just a claim that your are being held responsible for copyright infringement.

 

All this before ACS get their day in court on the 17th January. It certainly starts another series of racing pulses and rising blood pressure as the anger begins to make the blood boil once more.

 

Just when you think these charlatans have reached bursting point - off we go again!:evil:

Edited by zoomboy
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

 

"Now a company called GCB Limited have picked up the Media Cat "

 

 

there is no mention of GCB at all anywhere on the internet.

 

Does anyone know who they are?

they have increased the threat and included transcripts of apparently successful claims

 

Dont know about anyone else, but we are totally innocent and terrified

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're old claims and the Barwinska case is an extremely poor example. Provided only as an excerpt from the BBC website and was an uncontested/undefended case. There's even some speculation whether the individual concerned even exists!

 

The other cases are similar. Either not contested or insufficiently successful to stand in anyway as a precedent against a defended case of an innocent party who has made no admission of guilt.

 

The big day for these cases comes on the 17th Jan. Then we'll see just how legitimate they are.

 

It's early days for GCB at this stage. But it looks like they aren't even a registered solicitor and as such aren't affected by the SRA, which may be all of the smoke and mirrors intended to further confuse, intimidate and harass.

 

The key phrase on the letter for me would be:

 

"If no payment is received or if the matter is not otherwise resolved to our client's satisfaction, the matter may ultimately be referred to solicitors for immediate issue of proceedings."

 

Which would imply that GCB Ltd are not solicitors and there are questions about if they are a law practice they can not be a limited company.

 

As ACS state GCB now have all the correspendance in regard to their allegations it's even debatable whether any further LOD is sent. No new evidence, all your correspondance, what more is there to say?

 

http://acsbore.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/acslaw-letters-issued-by-gcb-ltd/

Edited by zoomboy
URL
Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for that, zoomboy

 

I know we aren't alone in this but it is really distressing having this hanging over you

 

very interesting point about GCB being a limited company.... i wonder who they really are ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

GCB LIMITED

C/O MCLEAN REID 1

FORSTAL ROAD

AYLESFORD

KENT

ME20 7AU

Company No. 05687574

 

 

spacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifStatus: Active

Date of Incorporation: 25/01/2006

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

6010 - Transport via railways

Accounting Reference Date: 31/01

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/01/2010 (DORMANT)

Next Accounts Due: 31/10/2011

Last Return Made Up To: 25/01/2010

Next Return Due: 22/02/2011

Last Members List: 25/01/2010

Previous Names:No previous name information has been recorded over the last 20 years

Link to post
Share on other sites

Registration Number: Z7045915

Date Registered: 17 October 2002 Registration Expires: 16 October 2011

 

Data Controller: MCLEAN REID

 

Address:

1 FORSTAL ROAD

AYLESFORD

KENT

ME20 7AU

This register entry describes, in very general terms, the personal data being processed by:

MCLEAN REID

 

This register entry contains personal data held for 3 purpose(s)

Purpose 1

 

Staff Administration

Purpose Description:

Appointments or removals, pay, discipline, superannuation, work management or other personnel matters in relation to the staff of the data controller.

Data subjects are:

Staff including volunteers, agents, temporary and casual workers

Relatives, guardians and associates of the data subject

Data classes are:

Personal Details

Education and Training Details

Employment Details

Financial Details

Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):

Data subjects themselves

Relatives, guardians or other persons associated with the data subject

Financial organisations and advisers

Central Government

Transfers:

None outside the European Economic Area

Purpose 2

 

Accounts & Records

Purpose Description:

Keeping accounts related to any business or other activity carried on by the data controller, or deciding whether to accept any person as a customer or supplier, or keeping records of purchases, sales or other transactions for the purpose of ensuring that the requisite payments and deliveries are made or services provided by him or to him in respect of those transactions, or for the purpose of making financial or management forecasts to assist him in the conduct of any such business or activity

Data subjects are:

Customers and clients

Suppliers

Complainants, correspondents and enquirers

Data classes are:

Personal Details

Financial Details

Goods or Services Provided

Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):

Data subjects themselves

Business associates and other professional advisers

Employees and agents of the data controller

Suppliers, providers of goods or services

Financial organisations and advisers

Credit reference agencies

Debt collection and tracing agencies

Central Government

Transfers:

None outside the European Economic Area

Purpose 3

 

Accounting and Auditing

Purpose Description:

The provision of accounting and related services; the provision of an audit where such an audit is required by statute.

Data subjects are:

Customers and clients

Suppliers

Advisers, consultants and other professional experts

Data classes are:

Personal Details

Employment Details

Financial Details

Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):

Data subjects themselves

Business associates and other professional advisers

Employees and agents of the data controller

Financial organisations and advisers

Central Government

Ombudsmen and regulatory authorities

Transfers:

None outside the European Economic Area

Link to post
Share on other sites

Company Details

 

spacer.gif

print.gif help_button.gif

 

Name & Registered Office:

MEDIA C.A.T. LTD

c/o GATEWAY PARTNERS

43 WHITFIELD STREET

LONDON

ENGLAND

W1T 4HD

Company No. 04426555

 

 

spacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifStatus: Active

Date of Incorporation: 29/04/2002

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

9234 - Other entertainment activities

Accounting Reference Date: 30/04

Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/04/2010 (TOTAL EXEMPTION SMALL)

Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2012

Last Return Made Up To: 29/04/2010

Next Return Due: 27/05/2011

Last Members List: 29/04/2010

Previous Names:No previous name information has been recorded over the last 20 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hobson arditti is the interesting link. Apparently registered as a one man band. My guess would be try to fleece more cash from threats, but distanced from any repercussions the SRA would inflict.

 

At this stage I'm inclined to ignore it until further evidence of the legitimacy of the business is established. So far they don't appear to be able to act in such a manner as to make a claim nor recover any debt.

 

So far I'm happy to wait and in light of any requirement on my part I will simply refer them to the previous LOD(s), which they acknowledge as being passed to them by their own inclusion of ACS's letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NOTICE

 

MCLEAN REID HAVE NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER WITH ACS LAW.

 

GCB LTD was formed by us and appears to be being misused by some third party!

 

Please explain this a little more for the benefit of forum members.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The GCB letter is the usual rubbish, you dont have to respond to them informing them of anything nor can you be held accountable for what other people do on a unsecured network and nor can they claim that a 'template' letter is invalid, I have no doubt that the letter from GCB itself is a template too !

 

I guess there is a reason for this transfer from ACS to GCB and no doubt it is something dodgy.

 

Why would a solicior transfer proceedings to another 3rd party who arn't solicitors themselves, it all smells rather fishy. I cant see how it changes anything though, don't pay up, let ACS/GCB chase you through the courts (which is doubtful they would), and as mentioned above why the threat of referring the case to solicitors ?...it already was with solicitors (ACS) but they transfered it on !

 

As Andrew himself has already stated its all or nothing with this, and if it fails, he loses everything so no wonder he is desperatly hanging on.

 

The fact they have 're-printed' a BBC News report about a case is also suspicious, they should (or ACS should) have easy access to previous court decisions. In the Polydor case it is worth noting the Defendant admitted his guilt but also that the last paragraph shows that he would be able to arrange payments (after two months) and that the judge stated it was no to be used as an example to others (we have no details of what amount (if any) was actually paid).

 

I also like the way that they themselves my have breached copyright by re-printed BBC articles (apparently) without permission, perhaps someone should drop the BBC a line ?

 

Andy

Edited by andydd
Link to post
Share on other sites

GCB Ltd was a dormant company formed by us at the request of a client, we were the registered office for convenience. Our client thought he was helping out an 'associate' of his by allowing that 'associate' to use this dormant company for a business venture (which we knew nothing about). Neither we, nor our client, knew it was going to be used for this purpose. We only discovered this yesterday (13th January) and accordingly advised our client, who also wants to remove his association from this company.

Edited by crmclr
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK...I'll report this to companies house right now because it sounds like abuse of the Companies Act 2006 for which directors can be fined or imprisoned. As a director, I can tell you, there is NO legitimate reason why you would "Lend" your company to a buddy for a "Venture" lol.

 

I would love to hear the explanation as to how this is not a fiddle!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want more explanation on how GCB Ltd's name has been used, take a look on slyck.

 

Appears someone allegedly connected with GCB who has allegedly had previous dealings with ACS Law has allowed the GCB Ltd company name to be used on letters.

 

A bit odd that someone allegedly connected to ACS Law allows a dormant company name to be added to a letter, to invoice for these alleged copyright breaches and sets up a temporary office to enable collection of any monies that are paid. Is this legal ?

 

Then there is the issue of adding the accountants name/address to the bottom of the invoice letters, when they appear to not know anything about this. Perhaps time to consider whether they wish to continue a business relationship ?

Edited by unclebulgaria67

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, we are McLean Reid

 

You appear to have been stitched up if the information on the various forums is correct. Perhaps legal advice required ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

CHAMPION FINANCIAL ADVISORS LIMITED

1 FORSTAL ROAD

AYLESFORD

KENT

ME20 7AU

Company No. 03880764

 

 

spacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifStatus: Active

Date of Incorporation: 22/11/1999

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

6523 - Other financial intermediation

Accounting Reference Date: 31/03

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2010 (TOTAL EXEMPTION SMALL)

Next Accounts Due: 31/12/2011

Last Return Made Up To: 11/11/2010

Next Return Due: 09/12/2011

Last Members List: 11/11/2010

Previous Names:Date of changePrevious Name15/12/1999PIXTON TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED28/05/2003PIXTON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED19/10/2005RESULT SYSTEMS LIMITED

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...