Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
    • The streaming giant also said it added 9.3 million subscribers in the first three months of the year.View the full article
  • 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 settles out of court with defendants represented by Ralli


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4637 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

A number of defendants caught up in ACS Law's speculative invoicing scheme have agreed a settlement with the company.Law firm Ralli said today that the people it was representing settled their claims on "a basis confidential between the parties" but it is still currently advising hundreds of consumers who received letters that accusing them of copyright infringementRead more: http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/news/2094161/crossley-settles-alleged-illegal-file-sharers-defended-ralli#ixzz1SA0JT6

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/368653/acs-law-file-sharing-case-settled-confidentiallyACS Law file-sharing case settled "confidentially"A long-running file-sharing case involving ACS Law has been settled confidentially out of courtRead more: ACS Law file-sharing case settled "confidentially" | News | PC Pro http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/368653/acs-law-file-sharing-case-settled-confidentially#ixzz1SA1AcTIm
Link to post
Share on other sites

Secrets again, due to the size of the [problem] I believe the

public should be told every detail:madgrin:

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

With this guy I suspect hidden assets, pos in another's name.:madgrin:

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

With this guy I suspect hidden assets, pos in another's name.:madgrin:

 

No, I think that ACS Law had some form of Insurance cover. This was brought up when ACS Law/Media Cat went to court, as lawyers representing ACS Law turned up. This is mentioned many posts ago on this thread and on Slyck.

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

Has he still got the big house and flash cars uncle, the plebs

get charging order, orders for sale an such for owning

pennies compared to him.:madgrin:

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

considering he was supposed to be bankrupt how is he paying

 

It says.."He had told PC Pro that ACS Law's insurance would cover the costs.", I think solicitors are required to have such insurance just in case things like this happen, although normally the acting solicitor wouldnt be liable as nornmally he would only be acting for his client, although in this case, the client was ACS.It is worth noting that as ACS got itself in more and more of a mess, the insurance (mentioned above) that ACS had to pay, got more and more expensive (not surprisngly !), that it ultimately became un affordable, this was about the time that ACS Law fell apart.Lets hope this fiasco is a warning to other companies thinking of following a similar course.Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has he still got the big house and flash cars uncle, the plebs

get charging order, orders for sale an such for owning

pennies compared to him.:madgrin:

 

But he is a lawyer, who would probably have good accountancy help as well, so may have legally made sure all financial arrangements were robust.

 

Plus we don't know what is currently happening. It could well be that with all that has gone on, matters are not as rosy as the pictures of large house etc might allude to.

 

I think the main thing to come out of this sorry saga, is that nobody in their right minds would try to run with this again. I should imagine it has been very damaging to those that have tried to invoice those suspected of copyright infringements. At some point new legislation will be passed and solicitors will then make money out of taking such actions.

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

There will always be some idiot who will think

it's a good idea and try again with a few changes, just

like the Fax Directory rip off of a few years ago, there

is another lot at it again now.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m helping someone who’s involved in the case for the upcoming solicitors disciplinary tribunal. Crossley may have got away with avoiding financial penalties but he’s brought the whole legal profession into disrepute and hopefully the tribunal will put an end to his career as a solicitor. Trial date is expected to be sometime around May next year. Just preparing witness statement at the mo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it would appear that Mr Crossley has not learned his lesson.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14215510

 

ACS:Law, the controversial law firm that tried to get money from people by accusing them of illegal file-sharing, appears to be back in business.

 

Ralli Solicitors, which represented some of those accused by ACS:Law during a UK court case, has told the BBC it is now advising a client based in Greece.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it would appear that Mr Crossley has not learned his lesson.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14215510

 

ACS:Law, the controversial law firm that tried to get money from people by accusing them of illegal file-sharing, appears to be back in business.

 

Ralli Solicitors, which represented some of those accused by ACS:Law during a UK court case, has told the BBC it is now advising a client based in Greece.

 

Very odd..it appears that ACS has been wound up and unable to operate, this recent saga is very fishy indeed, perhaps someone has hijacked ther name, someone should give out their address, I assume it is still Hanover Square although perhaps the building is operating as just a PO Box, now surely Crossley isnt stupid enough to set up again, and as a bankrupt with SRA proceedings hanging over him surely it isnt actually legally possible ?Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Crossley’s case scheduled to be heard before the solicitors disciplinary tribunal is listed to take place from 16th – 20th Jan 2012.

 

Why the huge delay ?. I note that Davonport Lyons one has only just been heard and they were presented with a legal bill of £150,000....its hard to see how much work was actually done by the SRA..still cant complain..good to see justice has been done :)Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the huge delay ?. I note that Davonport Lyons one has only just been heard and they were presented with a legal bill of £150,000....its hard to see how much work was actually done by the SRA..still cant complain..good to see justice has been done :)Andy

 

They probably penciled in that date because of his ongoing court case which was expected to last longer than it actually did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...