You are taking the ACS propaganda as the single truth. The same web site stated last Year that they were moving to new offices, about to issue loads more Court cases and increasing the size of their team. The fact is that if ACS had won a single case in Court then it would be on the front page of their web site. Their postal address is still the same, so no new massive office, etc. Before ACS Law, Davenport Lyons are reputed to have taken some people to Court, choosing the easy options of those who had ignored correspondance and/or decided to not turn up in Court, so the judge had no option, but to settle the case in their favour by default. Check out the beingthreatened.com web site and read their speculative invoicing download for more information and the best cause of action to pursue. Either way, get your own independent legal advice. ACS know this is good business and easy money. They want you to pay up. The more people like you that do so without asking questions the more profit for them. Paying up is also an admission of guilt even if you pay up to make the whole thing go away. What's to stop you being a target again in the future?

You are advised to get your own legal advice as no one on here as far as I am aware a solicitor, but it's ironic that ACS are using a template to deny a template LOL At the end of the day, it's the facts that count. If you use a template a beer mat or a stone tablet, it's irrelevant. A letter of denial is a letter of denial. A Court isn't going to punish you for using your initiative to get your facts across. For me a single letter of denial stating no further correspondance will be entered into should be sufficient.

True and ACS are accusing you of the offence under civil law where it's based upon the balance of probability.

Only if you engage them to write to ACS on your behalf to practically ensure no come back. Most offer a free surgery to give legal advice in a hope to engaging their services (e.g letter writing). There are other options though. Citizens Advice Bureau is free and most House and Car Insurance policies come now with access to telephone legal advice from a Solicitor.

Let's all be clear here. This is NOT a [problem]. It's a perfectly legal process within current English civil law and Solicitor regulations. It may be unethical and sailing close to the wind with said law and regulations, but it is not a [problem].

20 Hanover Square is a virtual office. Loads of companies do it. ACS don't exist in the real world and the office is used for sending post to. In the past others have called in person to the office only to get another company representative meet them in reception. It is possible for FLAWLESS IMAGE to actually reside there.

Which is EXACTLY what they are banking on (literally). Only the scared, clueless, worried pay up. It is NOT the answer as it can be taken as an admission of guilt. The chances are that for the innocent, someone else has spoofed or hijacked the connection and if you pay up you just add yourself to the hitlist for more invoicing. Send a single letter of denial advising them that no futher correspondance will be entered into.

Maybe, but the negative publicity will eventually brow beat the SRA into action and at some time word will get around to the point that it will no longer become a viable venture for ACS. I worry that it will take someone killing themselves over receiving one of these letters for the press to pick up the story and end the whole debacle.

They DO need a Court Order. ACS Law got one to force ISPs to hand over the information. Otherwise the ISP could be sued under the Data Protection Act for disclosing personal information without due reason. The difference is how much an ISP is willing to fight the NPOs for their customers. Talk Talk said they would so they got left of the last NPO. Virgin Media made similar rumblings. Only the likes of BT and Sky (the latter no doubt for it's own personal reasons with Murdoch connections to the media) decided to roll over without a fight. The template blag is a ploy to get people to pay up. If the facts of a denial are included then it could be wrote on a beer mat and sent to ACS. Telling them to feck off in a polite manner and no further correspondance will be entered into would be the way I'd go, but to take legal advice is imperative.

Sounds like they are really getting desperate before the plug gets pulled. The recommended fine in relation to the offence is £50. Makes the mind boggle how anyone in their right mind would pay such an amount.

Shaggy, It's my opinion that to send one single LOD is the correct thing to do, but to clearly state that no further correspondance will be entered into. That way it could be considered harrassment if further letters are sent requesting more information and offers of settlement, questionnaires, etc.

Remember though that not everyone is innocent. Having said that, the monies claimed is not in line with the offence(s) claimed. Either way, ACS will be claiming the lions share of the monies, if based upon the Davenport Lyons model it probably is lucrative money. Why would they give up?

Check the latest Torrentfreak article on ACS. The article claims ACS have collected £1,000,000 from saps who have paid up within the first 11 Months of the mail shot. Now ponder on this and think why ACS pursue people so much and why they haven't run the risk of taking people to Court...

The quickest way will be to have a case taken to Court and their "evidence" ripped to peices by an expert and the case thrown out. Of course it could also go the other way and that will give them and other a green light to really hammer the population. All the time people pay up and the cash cow is delivering ACS will not take that risk.

Those sent letters are being accused of uploading, not downloading. With downloading you can retain (I believe, although I am no IT expert) a work for 24 hours for evaluation purposes. With P2P when you download you also upload at the same time. It's during the latter that a whole batch of IP addresses have been collated. So whether the work is still on a persons HDD, memory stick or DVD, etc is totally irrelevant.

Just my opinion, but these letters could potentially lead to legal proceedings. Don't give them any room to claim anything. Cover yourself by advising them that you will not be entering into any further correspondance, that way if they hassle you again without going to Court, it will count against them.

Guys, You may not hear for some time, or as early as next Week. The Davenport Lyons model was leaked some time ago and is probably similar to what ACS use. It's a game of numbers. ACS send out say a 1,000 letters. Some people pay in full, others offer to pay by installment, some ignore the letter, some deny the claim. Once they've hoovered up as much money as possible, then they will concentrate on those who ignored their letters of sent LODs. Scoobs

Opinion varies and none of us on here are legally qualified to advise, hence get independent legal advice. If it was me I'd reply once more stating the facts again as a denial and you won't be entering into any further discussion. If they respond again with an offer it could be deemed to be harrassment in my opinion. Remember, the number of cases taken to Court by ACS to the best of our knowledge is ZERO. Let's face it, if ACS took someone to Court and won they'd be shouting it from the roof tops as they did with The DEB. On their web site they have claimed that litigation was to be issued on more than one occassion soon, but we've yet to see evidence to back this up, or evidence of any kind come to think of it! LOL

word is that there is a two page article on all this although I haven't seen it Myself.

The text in red below probably states why ACS are cautious about going to Court and having their "evidence" tested, even under the balance of probability ruling. Whilst there is no prohibition against a party making an offer to settle in any way he chooses, if the offer does not comply with the provisions of Part 36, the consequences set out in the rule will not apply. Part 36 not only applies to claims, but also to counterclaims and other additional claims under Part 20. A Part 36 offer can be made at any time, including before the commencement of proceedings (CPR 36.3(2)), but must comply with the formalities prescribed by CPR 36.2 and accordingly has to: be in writing; state on its face that it is intended to have the consequences of Part 36; specify a period of not less than 21 days within which the defendant will be liable for the claimant's costs in accordance with CPR 36.10 if the offer is accepted; state whether it relates to the whole of the claim or to part of it or to an issue that arises in it and if so to which part or issue; and state whether it takes into account any counterclaim. CPR 36.3(4) makes clear that a Part 36 offer will only have the consequences set out in Part 36 in relation to the costs of the proceedings in respect of which it is made, and therefore not in relation to the costs of any appeal. Where a Part 36 offer is accepted within the relevant period, the claimant will be entitled to the costs of the proceedings up to the date of acceptance (CPR 36.10(1)). This will include any costs incurred by the claimant in dealing with the defendant's counterclaim if the Part 36 offer states that it takes into account the counterclaim (CPR 36.10(6)). The essential reading in Part 36, especially where an offer has been made by a claimant, comes in the form of CPR 36.14 - Costs consequences following judgment. If a claimant obtains judgment against a defendant which is at least as advantageous as the proposals within its own Part 36 offer, a court will order, unless it considers it unjust to do so, that the claimant is entitled to its costs on an indemnity basis from the date on which the relevant period expired, interest on those costs of up to 10% above base rate and interest on the whole or part of any sum awarded at a rate not exceeding 10% above base rate (CPR 36.14(3)). If a claimant fails to obtain a judgment more advantageous than a defendant's Part 36 offer then the court will, unless it considers it unjust to do so, order that the defendant is entitled to his costs from the date on which the relevant period expired and interest on those costs (CPR 36.14(2)). The sanctions set out above in respect of a claimant's Part 36 offer are not available to a defendant's Part 36 offer so there remains a more powerful incentive for a defendant to accept a claimant's Part 36 offer than vice versa. The Court of Appeal's controversial decision in BAA v. Carver [2008] arguably places at least some additional pressure on a claimant to accept a defendant's Part 36 offer. Under the old rules a claimant would have been entitled to the enhanced benefits in Part 36 where they bettered a defendant's payment into court or Part 36 offer, even if only by £1. However, the position since Carver is now much less certain. Where a claimant rejects a Part 36 offer and then, at trial, beats it by a small amount, the claimant may still be penalised on costs if the overall result is considered to be less advantageous than the defendant's rejected offer. As a result of Carver, strict monetary comparison is not now the only governing criterion - the phrase "more advantageous" was interpreted as permitting a wide-ranging review of all the facts and circumstances of the case in deciding whether the judgment obtained was "worth the fight", including more subjective factors such as the emotional toll of the litigation. However, Lord Justice Jackson has suggested in his recent preliminary report on costs that serious consideration should be given to a rule change to reverse Carver as it has introduced an unwelcome degree of uncertainty into the Part 36 process.

So, you used your initiative and looked on the internet and found a staple reply, so what. So, they don't believe you due to the above, so what. They are trying to frighten you into paying up. Experience so far (don't take my word for it, search the net including ACS's web site yourself) has shown a massive ZERO cases being taken to Court by ACS out of the thousands of letters they have sent out. If the wording of your letter is as you state here I'd be putting a complaint into The SRA, Watchdog and write to your local MP. This is the only way that this process will be stopped. Take independent legal advice, don't crack and pay up if you are innocent. Even if you were guilty of the offence, the offer of payment would be more in the region of £40-£60 as full and final settlement, but if you go down that route they may take you to Court to set an example. Scoobs

It's up to you, but given this is a civil legal matter I'd strongly advise you to take independent legal advice. A solicitor will cost you big bucks beyond the initial free 15-30 mins and the chances of being taken to Court so far have proven to be minute. You have the CAB or legal advice lines attached to home/car insurance policies nowadays. The thing to do is to not give any information away when you do your LOD, but this is still legally very much a grey area, what with IP hijacking, spoofing, unsecured wireless, etc. You need to check that your internet connection hasn't been hijacked by a virus on your PC/laptop, no kids or other adults in the household haven't done it, your wireless router has a password on it, etc.

As with anything to do with law it takes time. The SRA knows the Country is watching and Solicitors themselves also know the law. They will make sure they are 100% right before they do anything.

Well Yorky they've taken Him for some reason. Reading between the lines it's for His experience within filesharing, but the lack of mention of ACS means they maybe are unlikely to enter into a mailshot campaign. ACS's reputation is tainted within the media and with TBI's recent retraction to save face, I can't see anyone else of standing entering the arena at this time. ACS are small fry in legal circles and with only one solicitor can make thousands before the game is up. They can then return to everyday revenue streams for less gain. Reputation is a big thing within the law circles and if it's harmed within a big firm, will take years to recover, if at all. Most big firms have different areas of expertise and will not allow one area to affect the others, no matter what the revenue stream.

I can see our new friend being back on the (non)litigation track with filesharing claims. Check out this page Intellectual Property - Practice Areas - Cramer Pelmont - Solicitors