Scooby Doo69
-
Posts
149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Scooby Doo69
-
@derr There is good news and bad news. The good news is that if you have sent a LOD all you need to do is sit tight and the issue will more than likely go away. I agree with the point that telephoning them is only confirming that they have bait at your property to pursue (it's not unheard of for a virtual IP address such as a printer to be accused). Each nugget of information given over is like a gold mine for the Solicitor to pursue. If you haven't already done so, send a firm Letter of Denial and advise them that you will not be entering into any further correspondance on the matter. Don't tell them anything else such as who lives at the property, status of wi-fi security, etc. Now the bad news. Get some security on your Wi-fi router today. It's like leaving the front door of your property open, going on holiday and being suprised when you return to an empty house. Whilst the security (like most things in life) aren't 100% fool-proof, it certainely makes this more secure. It looks like some low-life has attached themselves to your internet connection and used it to download stuff. Good luck!
-
No problem David, it just important for newbies the facts are straight. I doubt whether the case is ficticious as the Solicitor could be held liable. As for the others, who knows as they weren't reported on. BBC NEWS | Technology | Game sharers face legal crackdown The fact still remains that these cases were uncontested(?), cost money to litigate, the result is unpredictable and even if they win they have no guarantee of seeing the damages.
-
Ignorance is no defence to the law and leaves ACS in a situation where they do not know if you admit guilt or not and means they will more than likely have another stab at you. I haven't received one of these demands, but if I did I would send one single LOD and let them know that I would not be entering into any further discussion on the matter.
-
Fellow Scooby, It's all about a question of priorities. You are categorised probably as a non-payer. I expect the list goes as follows: 1) Those who paid up or state they are going to pay 2) Those who admit guilt, but claim they can not pay 3) Those who deny guilt, but have given vital information away (e.g. questionnaire, etc) 4) Those who did not reply 5) Those who deny guilt 6) Those who deny guilt and know the law, are legally represented or clearly prove they are unable to pay It's not a moral crusade (althought that's what they are claiming), it's all about the Pound sign, so work out where you are on the list and unless the process is wound up by a change in the law, you will more than likely hear at some time via another demand for monies, just not yet.
-
cashins, to confirm, Davenport Lyons DID take at least one person (maybe 3?) to Court and got defualt judgements. This means the Defendant(s) did not submit a defence or contest the cases in Court and DL were 99% onto a winner (Civil Law is based on the balance of probability, unlike Criminal Law). To the best of our knowledge, ACS Law haven't taken anyone to Court over this and you can be sure if they did and won would have it splattered all over their web page and the media. The issue comes with the process being untested in a contested case and they run the risk of losing and setting a precedence for torrent copyright infringement, thus instantly losing the legal threat and the cash cow drys up overnight. Of course, even if they win, will in affect the income from the mailshot campaign? Probably only a little. Time is of the essence here and milking the process before the hammer comes down and going to Court all takes time, Months in some instances.
-
Doesn't mean to say they haven't done it though does it? That's avoiding the question. In the unlikely event of having to go to Court you need to be seen to be as helpful as possible. You know whether anyone else int he property lives there. By saying that you have asked them and no one else has uploaded the artice, covers all bases. Can't see how that will incriminate You or them, but in a sentence has nulified most of their questionnaire. Just leaves the question of wireless encryption, which we all know is a grey area and one which ACS will probably never go to Court over.
-
All, Just some thoughts. ALWAYS sign a letter in person via pen. It's more personal. If you are innocent, write one short, but concise letter stating it wasn't you and you have no knowledge of anyone else in your household having done the deed. The most important factor here is to mention that you do not propose to enter into any further correspondance. That firmly puts the ball in ACS's court and they will have to take court action or be considered for unproffessional misconduct. It's like closing your front door to a Sales person who sticks a foot in the door way and still tries to talk to you.
-
Fine/Settlement is a play on words. If you have a debt that is passed to a collection agency they will add on their fee and then attempt to collect the amount on behalf of their client. It's normal in such circumstances when the debtor pleads poverty to arrange payment by installments. At the end of the day, this isn't about putting the World to rights, but making money for a business. The leaked DL business model showed that the Artist/Artist company got less than 10% of money received with the majority going to the law firm. I doubt whether ACS Law want to win the fight against piracy as their revenue stream would dry up. After all their is no statememt on their web site in reply to BPI hanging them out to dry....
-
Nothing unusual Rob, a Court would do the same if they dished out a fine. Each case would be discussed on it's merits. I guess the person pleaded poverty. This closes that avenue to the defendent of the claim.
-
Talk about giving them the noose to put around your own neck with this questionnaire. I suspect they will focus on whether 1) You admit the claim or have knowledge of anyone else that has? 2) Who has access a computer at the time of the alledged claim? 3) If yes to 2, did the computer have wireless capability 4) If yes to 3 was wireless network secured? 5) If it was secured, by what method of security? Of course, those that are clued up know that even if a wireless network is secured, it is hackable within minutes and there are no current leglisation requiring an individual to do so. If I am right about any of the above questions, of course, they open an avenue for further correspondance and can be seen to be an admission of guilt. Crossley admitted the account holder may not be the person sharing files illegally. As a result, he said, the letter, would also invite the recipient to name the person they thought was responsible. If you don't know as I've said before say you have no knowledge and are ending correspondance.
-
I'd say unless someone has left themselves wide open for potential prosecution, ACS have moved onto harvesting their new set of defendents to see who will pay up. The chances of being contacted again from last Year diminshes with each day. ACS could revist them at a latter date, but from correspondance around the end of the Year, indicates to me that they had one last bash at getting people to pay up. In a way, it works in everyones favour if they don't contact this batch again as it proves them to be unreliable and could be construed to be bullying. Of course, this also costs money in postage, etc.
-
Hi Rob, Apologies, no offence intended. If you haven't done it, then I'd guess you don't want to pay the monies demanded! Put an end to it now then. Explain no one in your household has committed the alledged offence, you don't know who would have and consider the matter closed. You will not be entering into any further correspondance. This puts the ball firmly in their "Court" then. Makes your situation very clear. They would have to take you to Court then, otherwise any other correspondance could be considered harrassment.
-
Rob, If that is your real name I'd suggest you delete your username and re-register under a different alias. It has been known for ACS to trawl the net to try and get a "dossier" upon their defendants. I'd also suggest you delete any posts under the current username. Also be advised that this is a public forum and if you found it, you can be certain that ACS Law and others are reading it! Sounds like ACS are fishing. Would be good if you could scan the questionnaire in (removing all personal references) and post it here, but more import, send a scan into beinghtreatened.com. I'd strongly advise against replying to them with to much information. If you didn't do it, then tell them so, you have no knowledge of who has, will not be reply to further correspondance, end of story. If it was me, I wouldn't be filling out any questionnaire. This new ploy will only serve opening an individual up to more questions, letters, "legal" threats, etc. Of course take your own legal advice.
-
Just a thought, but I'd advise anyone going to their Doctors claiming stress unless they are 100% genuine. For some life insurances, etc, you may find the premium going up somewhat or being refused, etc, if your medical record states you have been treated under a Doctor for stress. Am not going to disclose how I know this for obvious reasons (this is a public forum, if you can read it so can ACS!), but food for thought.
-
Jakethesnakeuk, As I posted above, it costs time and money to take people to Court, even through the Small Claims Court. The outcome for ACS is uncertain in Court, even if they win. Why spend hundreds or thousands of pounds going through Court, when threatening via letter probably costs them less than a tenner each time using a templated approach? As long as there is a long line of gulliable punters to pay for the privilege then why go to Court? Work out the numbers. 20,000 letters at £500 a pop with ACS taking the majority share for each payee from a mailshot. Might start a law firm Myself
-
No offence taken and you have never implied it. In the euthoria though, anyone who have an opinion that states what ACS are doing within law is jumped up. Let's face it, ACS Law is a business. To survive, the business needs to bring in revenue. The facts remain that from the odd case here and there about OAPs and disabled people receiving these letters, no one under UK law has discredited the evidence in an official capacity. We all know, going to Court is a lottery in most cases, especially in a Civil Court. It will cost both sides money until a winner is announced. Even if it is ACS, doesn't mean to say that every case will provided them payment, especially if loser can't pay. If I was the SRA I'd look at the posts on the ACS web site. Claims of Court proceedings being issued, etc, but no updates on the outcomes.
-
Flyyyte, For the avoidance of doubt, I am not for ACS Laws approach, just offering another opinion. My opinion is that ACS Law are stating that their evidence is correct and are claiming monies. An individual has the right to deny said claim and then it's down to ACS to test said evidence under English Civil Law when the balance of probability decision comes in. Where they are being clever is playing upon people's ignorance or fear into paying up. Unless an individual stops the process dead and calls their bluff, they open themselves up to further correspondance, hence why I would make the statement denying the claim, having no knowledge of anyone in my household being liable and therefore consider the issue closed and will not enter into any further correspondance. Which leads me to believe that until ACS go to Court or an independent authority looks into the evidence technique, the British Public can expect many more of these letters and ACS coffers will continue to swell.
-
Not really, the directions on here from PEN and me should suffice. The Slyck forums tend to be more on the ball regarding the ACS saga.
-
Good luck, just remember to not give away anything personal on the net. If the worst comes to the worse (and history shows that ACS don't prosecute normally), then you'll be means tested. Chances are it would add to the likelihood of ACS backing out taking legal action as they want their large cut now, not at a £1 a Week for the next 10 years or so LOL
-
What we all need to remember that in law ACS aren't doing anything illegal. Sure they are sailing very close to the wind, but they are also no mugs and know the law. Your ordinary punter doesn't and some panic and pay up innocent or not. There is no test case that ACS can refer to, nor is there one that opponents to ACS can refer to either. All ACS are doing is exploiting the weak and ignorant into paying a sum that they say is reasonable. Unless there is a change in the law (like there was for ambulance chasing firms) then until the gravy train dries up they will continue to send letters before moving onto another venture.
-
Check out the excellent beingthreatened website and get as much legal advice as possible. Most Solicitors will give you a free half-hour, Citizens Advice Bureau is free, most insurance policies (car, house) come with legal advice for small cost if not free. No one on here or at beingthreatened (as far as I am aware) are solicitors or of the like, so you need to get proper independant advice, but it all helps understand the "process". If it was me and I was innocent, I'd not pay for something I didn't do. I'd write a single firm, but immotive letter of denial, stating that I do not admit the claim, will not be paying for something I hadn't done and have no knowledge of anyone who could have done the claimed offence. I'd also tell them that I will not be entering into any further correspondance on the matter as I had made my position clear. This gives ACS Law the option of taking you to Court or dropping the matter, or further correspondance could be considered harrassment. It also closes the avenue of suggesting that some else on a possible wireless network doing the deed, etc. Just my opinion and as stated seek independant legal advice. There is good legal advice out there for free.
-
Agree with you pen that it's a dangerous game to play and ignorance is no defence to the law. It could send out a message to ACS Law that the person is ignoring a serious matter and they could apply for a judgment by default. I personally haven't received one of these letters, but work in a similar enviroment (IT legal). If I did I would send a single letter of denial and advise them that I do not propose to enter into any further correspondance. ACS Law know that their evidence is untested in UK Law and run a 50/50 chance of getting a result and thus setting a precedence. They will probably continue to milk the market whilst it proves profitable. If (and it's a big if) they do choose to test a case in Court they will carefully pick and choose their defendant to maximise the chance of success without turning them into a victim. Just my personal thoughts
-
The simple answer is they do NOT have an office as such. As has been communicated many times on the Net, ACS Law have a registered address only where mail can be sent and collected from. Saves on overheads no doubt and gives the impression of a credible organisation. I suspect the reason you got short thrift when you turned up is that no ACS Law people were on site and no one from another company there wanted to collect the letter. LA Law it ain't! LOL
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS