Jump to content

stunned_monkey

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About stunned_monkey

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If your product has a 10 year warranty, and the company who sold it cannot supply the replacement part within that time, do they have to give a refund? My advice is to avoid the sensor bins on sale at www.autobin.co.uk . We've had ours 6 years and now need a 3rd lid. Unfortunately the way they process their warranty claims is simply to make you pay £25 for a replacement lid. Except they don't have any in stock and can't say when they'll have any. What are my rights here? Can I demand a refund of the retail price? They are still listing the complete bins for sale, but refuse to issue one a
  2. Stop talking to the reseller. That lot really made my skin crawl, and seem to be graduates of the school of debt collectors. If that is indeed their attitide, why would you want to use their software, where such a minor infraction results in attempted extortion? Especially as they tacitly endorse it anyway, by simple virtue of not employing suifficiently strong anti-piracy measures (try running a dodgy copy of Creo and see how far you get I suggest you give them one chance to honour their offer for startups *which you were going to use*, or you'll switch to Fusion 360 an
  3. IMO they're getting way too big for their boots in pursuing this course of action. They're annoying genuine and future customers off with this policy. I suggest you tell them your situation and that you were about to embark upon a licencing process but have been put off by their behaviour. By chance, I too am in a position where I'm involved in a startup. Because of my experience with SW - and despite us all knowing it prety well, we've elected to switch to Autodesk Fusion 360, which has a refreshing and VERY pragmatic licencing policy which I believe will see SW's crown toppled wi
  4. dx has it pretty much covered. Remember for them a threat letter costs almost nothing, and saying it's from their "enforcement officer" or othersuch is merely a tactic to scare you. And it's working. Their behaviour smells a lot like the stuff you'll read on the debt forums... One thing to go and have a google on is "pre-action protocol". It's the stuff they have to send you as a formal warning before initiating legal action. I think you'll agree they haven't done this (it includes setting out all the evidence against you, which will be less-than-concrete IP/MAC address stuff - especially
  5. Thanks for the replies! It was stated in SP's reply to our original appeal, and referenced in POPLA's summary. So a contract is only formed in this case when we actually pay? ie a technical loophole. I'm pretty familar with debt collectors and am not "scared" of them in the way the uninitiated often are (in fact it was the reason I joined CAG in the first place many moons ago - for actual debt problems, now long gone!). That said... when you say unregulated, may I assume this means they *don't* have the power to affect my wife's credit file? She works as a m
  6. Thanks, I believe I've already provided most of the info above. Yes there were ANPR photos. We don't have the original letter and the date was some point in late August and almost certainly arrived within 14 days. Appeal was submitted online. The facts of the case are not in dispute.
  7. After parking in the rooftop park of the Gateway Shopping Centre in Trowbridge (Boots, New Look and Next), my wife received a parking charge notice from Smart Parking. At the time she parked there, she went looking for a machine, and found one with a cover saying "not in use". She went further and found a second, identically covered. She assumed all the machines were out and without walking the full area of the car park trying to find another machine, went about has business in Next for about 30mins. The charge would have been 80p. I appealed the charge to SP on their website (as her
  8. I received mine by post and email. It sounds like you're in the same situation as a previous post: You're a legal user and they're trying to press you on a technicality. Tell them to **** off or you'll switch to a different package and let the licence you do have lapse. You aren't the droids they are looking for. For people like me wanting to do non-commercial stuff with SW I suggest an independent windoze install on a dual boot machine. In the SW-only installation, disable the network adapter.
  9. jozzle: Well first off, don’t reply to them at all. It’s very unlikely they’ll pursue you any further than their threat-o-grams. You may also get calls from their reseller claiming to “want to help”. I blocked the number. I regret ever answering them. SW make piracy easy for a reason. You are learning the software and one day might be in a position to want to buy it. Harassing you in this way is a very good reason why this policy may backfire. They left me alone when I told them categorically that I wouldn’t be buying a license (because I could not afford to) and was no longer usi
  10. Hi jozzle, sorry to hear they’ve got their claws into you too. But you say you’ve read the thread through yet ask how it went for us all. First things first: DON’T REPLY or acknowledge their threat in any way. Do you use the same PC to collect email from the domain which you own (registrant details available from a whois lookup) which can be tied to a clear CAD usage for work? eg if your domain is “freelancecad.com” or “davedoesmechanicadesign.com” then they might have an arguable case. They will have tied your email address to the mac address of the machine on which you’re usin
  11. That information is not available unless I tell them – which is kind of my point. As it’s not information which is allowed to appear on a credit report, my honest answer would have to be “not in the past 6 years”. I wonder if they’re allowed to refuse me if I refuse to disclose information to which they aren’t entitled? Sounds like you guys don’t know either No, I’ve never been made bankrupt and settled almost all of my debt, several by agreement (partial), and one by getting it written off due to them admitting to not having my original credit agreement. CAG was of imme
  12. It's a few years since I was in trouble with debts, and on a much more even keel these days. Or to put it another way, all my previous woes have long since dropped off the bottom of my credit history (ie 6 years). Recently in applying for financial products (mainly mortgages), I noticed they ask the expected questions about bankruptcy, credit defaults and even simply making special arrangements with a creditor. So far so obvious. What bothered me was they ask if you have "ever" had/done any of these. To which my answer would be "not in the past 6 years" if I were being truthful
  13. Hi, I think the headline is that you aren’t the prey they’re searching for. It was an oversight on your part and you’re very sorry and have now activated the license *you already owned*. As much as they shout and scream and stamp their feet and threaten to advise their clients to commence court action, my experience suggests these are all just scare tactics. I suggest you write to them and state categorically you will not be buying an additional license, but will continue to use the license(s) you already had and have now correctly activated. This is something very easy for them to che
  14. I would like to emphasise my question from an earlier post, and I suspect this is the way they're "finding us": Do you personally own the internet domain to whose registered address they've sent the letter? Do you use the same computer to collect/send email? This is, I believe, the connection they're making - they're recording the machine’s MAC access, and sniffing email traffic (this is easy, it's unencrypted), then doing a lookup on that domain and if the name you tack onto your emails matches the owner of the domain, they shout hooray and send a threat-o-gram to the domain's regi
×
×
  • Create New...