Caimbeul - If you are not guilty of what ACS are alleging, simply tell them so: A second letter, simply stating that - (a) You did not upload the work. (b) Nobody else, to the best of your knowledge, uploaded the work. © You have not given anybody else permission to carry out said upload. This being the case, you are completely innocent of their claims, and will NOT be making any requested payment. In addition, you feel (if this is the case, of course), that their letters and continuing accusations constitute a form of harrassment, with a view to pressuring you to pay 'damages', for which you are not responsible. This being the case, you will NOT be entering into any further correspondence with them on the matter, and will view any additional letters from them as grounds for a harrassment case. As Shaggy has quite rightly said, they are NOT entitled to any additional information, or 'possible explaination' from you whatseoever; any suggestion on their part that they ARE is simply a fishing tactic, in the hope that you will say something which can be construed as potentially incriminating. **Please note - the above does not consitute any kind of legal advice, and is a suggestion for consideration only!! Always use your common sense when replying to letters such as this **

Scooby - you may want to edit your post; it's REALLY important that any newbies coming onto this thread don't get the impression that ACS' letters are any kind of [problem]. Technically, they're ABSOLUTELY NOT a [problem], and could potentially have real, legal ramifications if Crossley ever did decide to go down the route of testing a case in a court of law. In this instance (however unlikely), failing to reply to the initial letter could actually count against you in court, and so is not recommended. By all means, send ONE letter of denial, stating that you are not guilty of either downloading or uploading the work, and that you have not given your permission for anyone else to do so either, and THEN Leave it at that, if you're so inclined. (It should go without saying that this applies even moreso if a Part 36 offer lands on your doormat!)

'Afternoon all, The following has just been posted on another forum, and is reposted here with the absolute, written permission of the author:

LOL - just logged on to post that myself :D

I'm certain it may have already been mentioned in the preceeding pages, chaps, but felt I'd bring it back up here: One, other avenue of complaint would be the direct source of the Norwich Pharmacal Orders themselves (the legal instrument, which has compelled the ISPs to release Personal Data to Crossley in the first place) - Chief Master Winegarten. As I recall, Chief Master Winegarten had some quite seriously-seraching questions for Andrew Crossley, when he attended to request the second batch of NPO's back in November last year, and I'm fairly sure he'd be interested to hear from those of us who have been wrongly-accused as a direct result of this process. If you'd like to contact him, with a POLITE, TO-THE POINT LETTER, explaining: - How ACS:Law has been treating you - What pressure tactics (if any) you feel have been used to cause you fear - How ACS:Law hasn't taken a single non-paying case to court to date, and seems to have no intention of doing so... The address you'll need is - Chief Master Winegarten Masters Appointments Section (Room TM 709) Thomas More Building The Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Hope this is of use!! Please, please, remember - don't leave this for 'somebody else' to do - if we ALL make our voices heard, we CAN make a difference - and those who allow this to happen will sit up, and begin to NOTICE what ACS:Law is actually doing to innocent people, all in the name of making a fast buck. Rob Edited to add: For those of you who haven't seen the original 'Torrentfreak' article, here's a few brief extracts, pertinent to Chief Master Winegarten's comments from November 2009: Present at the hearing before Chief Master Winegarten (CMW) were Andrew Crossley and Terence Tsang from ACS:Law, representatives from UK ISP BT and three representatives from consumer outfit Which? Before the hearing began, CMW noted that he had received letters of complaint from the public about the scheme. As reported to TorrentFreak by those present, during the hearing Andrew Crossley made some interesting comments. After CMW expressed interest in what happens to an accused infringer after the court order is granted and a letter sent, Crossley said that his company was not suggesting that the recipient is definitely guilty in all cases, but the Internet account holder who receives the letter could perhaps help them to identify the person who had actually carried out the infringement. In justifying his application for the court order, Crossley said that they do it because “businesses are failing, jobs are being lost,” while citing dubious IFPI statistics (95% of all music is pirated) to justify his case. CMW asked Crossley how long the scheme would continue for, who replied “…for as long as P2P file-sharing continues Master.” When CMW asked why rightsholders were dealing with Media C.A.T and not directly with DigiProtect, Crossley said that “[Media C.A.T] happen to operate in the UK…dealing with UK companies…” In referring to the scheme ACS:Law and DigiProtect operate in respect of these hardcore porn titles, Crossley tried to suggest that they were doing a public service by helping to prevent the sharing of restricted movies on P2P. CMW responded by noting that “[this is] not a moral crusade” and that in his opinion, ACS:Law and DigiProtect were doing this “…because you want the money.”

Right folks - Have just had the following back from the Legal Complaints Service (see my post above): "Dear Mr. Stanley Thank you for your email. We have passed your email to our Designations Team. Your matter will be made into file and a member of this Organisation will contact you in due course. If you have any further queries, you may wish to contact the Legal Complaints Helpline on 0845 6086565 and speak with one of our helpline agents. Our lines are open between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday. Please note calls may be monitored/recorded for training purposes. Yours sincerely, [Name Removed] LCS Email Enquiries Team Customer Contact Centre " This tack (ie the "Seven Days to Respond" issue) is evidently different enough from the existing 'mass complaint' to warrant a seperate investigation, so I'd again urge anybody else here who's recieved the questionnaire and the '7 days' letter to email the LCS accordingly - again, see my previous post(s) on the format I used etc. Rob

No - you don't: Simply assert that YOU haven't uploaded the work, nor have you given your permission for anybody else to do so. That's the only bases that you need to cover.

Interestingly, following my written complaint, using the SRA's own on-line form, the auto-reply I received came directly from their Fraud and Confidential Intelligence Bureau.... ...Be really interesting to see what additional information their assigned agent requests, when they come back to me during the week!

As an additonal avenue, can all concerned copy their complaints, regarding the nature of this second letter and questionnaire, directly to the SRA themselves: Solicitors Regulation Authority - Contact us Keep up the good work, all Rob

Have just sent second written complaint to the Legal Complaints Service, regarding this second letter of Crossley's, and I'd ask everyone who's received the same letter to do likewise - the email address you need for this is: [email protected] It may be useful for you to follow the same lines of complaint as me (but please don't copy, word-for-word!) - Here's a brief rundown of the way I formatted mine: I am writing to issue an official follow-on complaint regarding law firm ACS:Law (SRA No. 513065). I originally complained to yourselves (via the SRA switchboard) on [DATE], having received a letter demanding a 'damages' payment to the sum of £[sUM], for allegedly 'uploading, via P2P software' an audio track (something I catagorically deny). I was informed that my complaint had been logged, and had been added to 'over 1000 existing similar complaints involving this firm'. Following this, I have received a second letter from ACS:Law (dated [DATE]), stating that my original response, denying their allegations, was unacceptable, as it appeared to be based upon a 'Template which is available on the Internet'. In addition, they have also now sent a 'Questionairre', to be returned "Within 7 Days" (Copy of letter and said questionairre attached), failure to do so which will result in further pursual of the matter. This request, and specifically the time period specified in which to provide a response, appears to be in direct contravention of the express advice given in the Ministry of Justice's Practice Direction for Pre-Action Conduct (Section III, Items 7.1 & 7.2). As such, I believe this firm is explicitly exerting seriously unprofessional pressure tactics, in an attempt to extort payment through threats of further action (to an extent which could be viewed as potentially approaching a form of blackmail). I require this specific issue to be logged as a seperate complaint to my first, and trust you will be able to advise me as to what action(s) will be taken at your earliest convenience. Yours faithfully Remember, folks - it's only by bringing these issues up with the regulatory authorities, that something will actually be DONE about ACS and their seemingly-bullying tactics. If you leave it for other's to do, you may continue to be hounded by this outfit for years to come!

Hey all, As promised, I've attached a .pdf of today's little missive from Mr. Crossley to this post. In fairness, I was actually expecting something far more eloquent and searching - this looks to have been drafted either in a real hurry, or by somebody with no real idea of what they're actually trying to accomplish (Mr. Tsang? Is that you, knocking out questionnaires these days?!) EDIT: Please note that the original questionairres, as sent, all seem to contain slightly different 'mistakes' in various parts (this mistake has been removed from the copy uploaded here); there is some speculation that ACS may be using these apparent 'errors' in an attempt to track people who post copies on forums back to their real-life identities. Make of this what you will! IMPORTANT NOTE TO THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED THIS SECOND ACS LETTER: As has already been noted on another forum, ACS' demand that a response is sent WITHIN 7 DAYS is completely against the advice given in the Ministry of Justice's Practice Direction for Pre-Action Conduct: http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_pre-action_conduct.htm#IDAVN2Q If you have a letter from ACS, asking for a response within such a ridicolously-short time-frame, keep it VERY safe; it's likely that the SRA will want to see these!! All thoughts greatfully received ACS Law Questionairre -anonymised.pdf

Thing is, though, ASC's letters aren't fines - merely 'offers to settle', as I understand it. Previous tactics we've seen, to secure payments from the accused letter-recipients have included varying the amount being 'requested', issuing highly-suspect 'news' items on their web pages, indicating that actual litigation was imminent etc., but this is the first time I've seen mention of settling via instalment

Just noticed this - what the hell??? moneysupermarket.com community - ACS Law - Letter of claim Poor chap at the bottom of the page appears to have received a TELEPHONE CALL from 'Jonathon' at ACS, asking him to pay his '£400 damages' in ten, easy monthly instalments of £40.00!! Rather makes ACS:Law sound like some kind of dodgy catologue firm, than anything else

Many thanks for that, Terran - exactly my own feelings on the whole Questionairre issue As promised, the questionairre will be scanned and uploaded (presume a .pdf is the best way on these forums?) over this weekend

Hey Scoobie No offence taken whatsoever - that wan't directed at you ...And, yes - I will be sending them a final letter on my wife's behalf, politely asking them to prove it, or to stop harrassing somebody who they see as an 'easy target'. EDITED TO ADD: **Which? Computing are actively-seeking other victims of ACS' - can everybody who's received one of these letters take five minutes, and drop them an email (at [email protected]) - it's likely that they will want to gather as much additional detail as possible from us all for their forthcoming feature on this whole fiasco**

Hi Scooby, Thanks for that; I rather suspect it's a little late for me to be changing my user name and or deleting posts, as I suspect that ACS has already picked up on one of my previous posts, regarding my wife being disabled, and consequently coming back to us with a follow-up letter far, far quicker than has previously been seen. I'll certainly be posting details of their new template letter, and questionairre over this weekend, and it goes without saying that they can go whistle, in terms of us providing them with additional personal information. We're not guilty of file-sharing, haven't given permission for anybody else to do so, and that's the end of it

Heads up guys! Just had a text from my wife - she has received a reply to our 1st Letter of Denial this morning. As expected, this is another ACS Template letter, stating that they do not accept *our* Templete Letter , and giving us 7 days to explain how our personal circumstances allowed my wife to let her internet connect be used for sharing files (which it most certainly was NOT!). Of possible interest, is that she is saying they have enclosed a 'Questionairre' for her to complete, which I believe is a new tactic? Not at home til tonight, so haven't had sight of this as yet - will report back later... Rob NB - Which? Computing are coming to see us next week, to take photos and details for their upcoming feature

- Flyyte.... Absolutely top-notch bit of piecing together of available information there - I take my hat off to you! On the back of this, I've been corresponding with 'Which? Computing', and it seems as though they're definitely putting together a feature on ACS:Law's way of operating (and have actually reported ACS to the Solicitors Regulation Authority themselves!!). They're arranging to visit myself and my wife, as a part of this, and I will most definitely ensure that the information you've posted here, Flyte, is passed onto them for inclusion. **Incidentally, but most importantly, it seems that Which are actively-seeking other victims of ACS' - can everybody who's received one of these letters take five minutes, and drop them an email (at [email protected]) - it's likely that they will want to gather as much additional detail as possible from us all.**

Errm - nope; this 'News' article has existed on the ACS Law site for quite some time, and certainly predates the latest high-profile criticism from the Lords, BPI, Which? etc, etc... ...Leads one to wonder just why Mr. Crossley/Mr. Tsang don't date these News features - perhaps they are relying on their latest 'victims' supposing that these articles are more recent tahn they really are?! In light of the latest bad publicity from numerous areas, Mr. Crossley has - far from giving the impression that he's 'enjoying' any of this - been resolutely "unavailable for comment", which is a real shame. Perhaps, if and when the Watchdog or Panorama researchers come calling, he might be more forthcoming regarding the questions we all want answering...?

'Morning all, Quick update, regarding my wife's situation, having just taken some time off work to get a grip on this: - Complaint made to SRA via telephone - spoke to a young lady called Kate, who advised that they'd had "thousands" of similar complaints, and were investigating (she had an email on her desktop, with prompts and advice for SRA staff taking such calls, and knew - straight away - which firm I was calling about, without me even mentioning them!) - Am also corresponding with Which? Computing, who are looking to put together an article on the issue. - Have enlisted the help of our local MP, who is currently liaising with Trading Standards. - Have written to several of the Lords who are enagegd in debate on the Digital Economy bill. - Have emailed BBC Watchdog More to follow, as it happens! Rob

Now - this makes VERY interesting reading folks; the Music Industry is going on record as distancing itself from ACS:LAW and their ilk: BPI distances itself from file-sharing lawyers | News | PC Pro What do we make of this??!! EDITED TO ADD: As already noted over on Slyck.com today, Which? are now saying that BBC TV's Panorama programme, as well as the Culture Show are showing an interest in featuring the story on ACS:Law's conduct. Although I haven't received a reply from Which? to my own complaint as yet, I'll certainly post the pertinent comments here when I do...

Loads and loads of publishers/sites now picking up on the story over just the past two days alone: Law firm threatens 150 innocent peopl... - Google News

Good man!! ...Although, on re-reading your original post, I'm not entirely sure exactly where you would stand, seeing as you are saying that you actually made an attempt to download the stuff they say you did? Anybody alse able to advise on this

NastyACS - Assuming you didn't download or upload the file(s) in question, you need to do some more reading here, and send in a letter to them, strongly denying their allegations, if these are untrue. DON'T just be tempted to not respond at all, as ACS may view this as having a stronger case against you, as others here have noted (Make sure you read this *entire* thread - it'll be worth your while!)

Fairly certain this has been mentioned previously, but here's the direct link to lodge a complaint with BBC TV's Watchdog programme, which begins again in the Spring - let's all drop them a line (it really is very quick and easy), and see if we can get them to invite Mr. Crossley onto the show: BBC - Watchdog - - Got a story