Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Actually there wasn't a massive amount of work to do on the WS.  The "meat" was there because of the great work you'd already done. Here is a version which I think is nigh-on finished. However, with Easter there are a few days for the other regulars to suggest tweaks. Defendant WS.pdf
    • Hi all, We bought a part to fix our washing machine approx 13 months ago direct from the manufacturer of the washing machine via phone. This part then failed 13 months later, as confirmed by their own engineer, who was sent by the manufacturer (who is also the retailer for the part) FoC. The engineer actually installed a replacement part, the machine came back to life, but they then removed the part used for testing (and ours reinstalled) as "we would be charged for it". The retailer are refusing to replace the part, stating that they only warranty parts for 90 days. When I stated that I believed the Consumer Rights Act gives me longer than that, they insinuated that it did not, and this was repeated by many representatives. AIUI for goods bought more than 6 months ago, I need to get an engineers report to confirm the part has failed? Or that it has failed due to manufacturing issues? Or would the companies own engineers report suffice? Also, does anyone have any other decent contact details for Hotpoint (or the Whirlpool group)? Thanks, GH
    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
  • 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
      • 160 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3015 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

Discussion thread created. Here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?455533-GoldenEye-2015-threatograms-discussion-thread

 

To the op

Can we please see the letter

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Lots of odd posts above, I have a keen interest in this so Ill add my views.

 

1. As with parking charges for overstaying and RLP claims it would appear to me that the claimant in these cases does have at least SOME legitimate right for damages for the loss he has incurred, we could of course argue that its the cost of one DVD in this case (£20), but as weve seen in Beavis, the supreme court can and does make judgements that surprise everyone, in Beavis they DID allow damages that are far higher than any actual loss.

 

2. The Norwich Pharmeucitical process has been discussed at length before and it appears quite simple for a party to obtain name and address information of BILLPAYERS relating to IP addresses (In one recent story though, it is claimed the downloads were in 2013 but the IP data is recent, it is quite likely that the IP in 2013 may relate to someone different in 2015, it certainly would in a standard DHCP setup).

 

3. In the ACS Law case there were many people who claimed that they did not download the films in question, some clearly lied but others had a very good defence (i.e elderly couples who had no knowledge of bit torrent sites let alone how to use one).

 

4. IP addresses can be incorrect, the system used by these companies to harvest IP address has been proved in some tests to show errors, after all a single digit is of the utmost importance here.

 

5. An IP address identifies the bill payer NOT the downloader, problems would arise if there were multiple people using same connection, a shared house, a bedsit, college, workplace, unsecured or hacked routers, etc

 

6. In ACS Law it wasnt clear who the actual copyright owner was and whether the claimant had an actual right to start the action, the Judge thought not, this is why ACS Law then attempted to discontinue the action.

 

7. The previous attempt by ACS Law ended up with them and Mr Crossely being hacked by Anonymous, their entire unencrypted emails being leaked onto the internet (I have them and they are worth a read !), being fined by the ICO and then Mr Crossley fined and banned by the SRA, ACS Law went bankrupt, it would be a brave/foolish person to attempt legal action again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a keen interest in this so Ill add my views.

 

1. As with parking charges for overstaying and RLP claims it would appear to me that the claimant in these cases does have at least SOME legitimate right for damages for the loss he has incurred, we could of course argue that its the cost of one DVD in this case (£20), but as weve seen in Beavis, the supreme court can and does make judgements that surprise everyone, in Beavis they DID allow damages that are far higher than any actual loss.

 

2. The Norwich Pharmeucitical process has been discussed at length before and it appears quite simple for a party to obtain name and address information of BILLPAYERS relating to IP addresses (In one recent story though, it is claimed the downloads were in 2013 but the IP data is recent, it is quite likely that the IP in 2013 may relate to someone different in 2015, it certainly would in a standard DHCP setup).

 

3. In the ACS Law case there were many people who claimed that they did not download the films in question, some clearly lied but others had a very good defence (i.e elderly couples who had no knowledge of bit torrent sites let alone how to use one).

 

4. IP addresses can be incorrect, the system used by these companies to harvest IP address has been proved in some tests to show errors, after all a single digit is of the utmost importance here.

 

5. An IP address identifies the bill payer NOT the downloader, problems would arise if there were multiple people using same connection, a shared house, a bedsit, college, workplace, unsecured or hacked routers, etc

 

6. In ACS Law it wasnt clear who the actual copyright owner was and whether the claimant had an actual right to start the action, the Judge thought not, this is why ACS Law then attempted to discontinue the action.

 

7. The previous attempt by ACS Law ended up with them and Mr Crossely being hacked by Anonymous, their entire unencrypted emails being leaked onto the internet (I have them and they are worth a read !), being fined by the ICO and then Mr Crossley fined and banned by the SRA, ACS Law went bankrupt, it would be a brave/foolish person to attempt legal action again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a pathetic website. It even looks amateurish.

 

Perhaps they threw it together overnight to make them look legit. FAIL!

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other issue is whether buying the copyright allows you to take action for breach of the copyright, which happened before the copyright purchase took place. It is not the same as buying a consumer credit debt, where there is a contract with terms and conditions. A debt can be sold on and the new owner of the debts has rights in line with the original contracts t&c's.

 

If the original copyright holder did not take action near the time of the infringement, what right has a new owner to take action ? A prospective copyright owner could look at a torrent download site, look at the files downloaded to see what has been popular and then look to purchase the copyright, purely to take forward legal action to make money. It is possible the courts may not like this type of action.

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

Have a read here:

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/copyright/the-internet-filesharing-and-copyright/if-you-re-accused-of-online-copyright-infringement/

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/consumer/copyright/the-internet-filesharing-and-copyright/what-to-do-if-you-re-accused-of-copyright-infringement-s/

 

You can admit the claim, deny it, or ask for more information before making a full response. You need to write back to Golden Eye and not Sky. If the letter does not have details of the work in question and the exact date and time you were alleged to have downloaded it, you should write to ask for these details. If they cannot provide them, they have no right to claim a settlement or damages from you. If it does show these details, check whether you can prove you were not at home when the downloads happened. There may be other people using your internet connection, and you are not responsible for what they download. Bear in mind that they need to be able to prove that it's you who downloaded films illegally. If they can't do that, they cannot sensibly take you to court.

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a pathetic website. It even looks amateurish.

 

Perhaps they threw it together overnight to make them look legit. FAIL!

 

Yes I'd refer a Judge to it as it does question their technical ability to track down the correct 'offenders'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a read here:

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/copyright/the-internet-filesharing-and-copyright/if-you-re-accused-of-online-copyright-infringement/

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/consumer/copyright/the-internet-filesharing-and-copyright/what-to-do-if-you-re-accused-of-copyright-infringement-s/

 

You can admit the claim, deny it, or ask for more information before making a full response. You need to write back to Golden Eye and not Sky. If the letter does not have details of the work in question and the exact date and time you were alleged to have downloaded it, you should write to ask for these details. If they cannot provide them, they have no right to claim a settlement or damages from you. If it does show these details, check whether you can prove you were not at home when the downloads happened. There may be other people using your internet connection, and you are not responsible for what they download. Bear in mind that they need to be able to prove that it's you who downloaded films illegally. If they can't do that, they cannot sensibly take you to court.

 

A previous story did say alleged downloading was in 2013 so this adds further complications.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Goldeneye are threatening to pursue a claim through MCOL, then it should be challenged on the grounds that the Patents County Court is the proper place for copyright claims. If Judge Birss is in the chair, Goldeneye can expect another stiff reprimand. See: Golden Eye (International) Ltd v Mr Mohamed Maricar and Golden Eye (International) Ltd v Mrs D Vithlani* (Judge Birss; [2011] EWPCC 27; 23.09.11)

 

Then of course, there is the Appeal Court case where Goldeneye were seeking an NPO back in 2012: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1740.html

The judge was also critical of Goldeneye's proposals for pursuing alleged infringements:

  1. The other aspect of the letter which had to be considered was the claim for a payment of £700. This was criticised by counsel for Consumer Focus as excessive. The judge agreed. He said that the scale of the infringements appeared to be largely unknown and could not be quantified without further disclosure. There was therefore no established basis for a claim for substantial or additional damages. The figure quoted was arbitrary. The judge said:

    "138. Accordingly, I do not consider that the Claimants are justified in sending letters of claim to every Intended Defendant demanding the payment of £700. What the Claimants ought to do is to proceed in the conventional manner, that is to say, to require the Intended Defendants who do not dispute liability to disclose such information as they are able to provide as to the extent to which they have engaged in P2P filesharing of the relevant Claimants' copyright works. In my view it would be acceptable for the Claimants to indicate that they are prepared to accept a lump sum in settlement of their claims, including the request for disclosure, but not to specify a figure in the initial letter. The settlement sum should be individually negotiated with each Intended Defendant."


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Goldeneye are even hosting on a shared box with around 600 different sites, and also have their whois info protected by a privacy service. Looking a bit deeper, it seems they could be a shady setup, exactly like RLP are.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...