I really do hope he refuses the application, this cannot have escaped his attention, he must now realise even without any technical knowledge its nothing more than a legal [problem]. Is there a twitter feed I can follow as I'm away for most of next week and won't have pc access. I'm desperate to see what he has to say on monday.

Go for it CMW and show us mortals that British justice will not be hijacked to screw innocent members of the public.

There is a quote from our mate Andy on this BBC news webpage:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11418970

Its says:

All our evidence does is identify an internet connection that has been utilised to share copyright work”

Andrew Crossley ACS: Law

So I look forwward to him taking my interent connection to court as I sure as hell didn't download any trashy dance music, nor did I authorise anybody to do so. No offence to any fans of trashy dance music who may be using CAG

Developments on ACS Law's website

 

http://www.slyck.com/story2058_ACSLaw_Email_Database_Possibly_Leaked_onto_The_Pirate_Bay

 

(Click torrent link)

I wonder if AC will get a letter of claim from any of these credit card holders whose details may have been leaked after he made them available for upload on the web... OOPS Wasn't me your honour, I sent an LOD but it was a template and got refused.

The very same pre-action protocol that GM have already broken by not including it in their letter of claim. Confused? Me too!

Exactly, the code clearly states he has to send you a copy of the code, not that he has to make it available on his website. I think failing to comply with that code, by his own admission on his hilarious claim letters would be yet another reason for him loosing any court case.

was it be -unlimited at the time of the alleged infringement? pretty sure be unlimited are, or were, part of BT?

They got my ISP wrong as well on their supposed evidence. I have only ever been with 2 ISP's and never with the one they claim have identified me.

As to the Be Un Limited - o2 question. Both of these companies have different terms and conditions and tarrifs, even if they are owned by the same company you're ISP is the one you are under contract too, the company you pay your money too. I think Woolworths and I'm sure it was B&Q were owned by the same parent company, however if you bought something from B&Q and it broke and you took it back to Woolworths they would tell you its nothing to do with them. Same applies here if you are an o2 customer you are not a Be Un Limited customer. I wouldn't tell him though.

This is my first post and I don't want to have to search through all the posts so apologies if I'm asking for info/advice that's already been given.

 

I have received a letter from a firm of solicitors called Gallant Macmillan accusing me of illegally downloading an album by Ministry of Sound . I did not download this album and the only evidence they produced was an IP address (which they say is my IP address) a date and time when I am alleged to have downloaded this music and the name of a p2p network (bittorrent). I have never used bittorent. On the date and time that they say these files were dowloaded I wouldn't have been home as I wouldn't have got back from work.

 

They demanded that I pay them £375.00 as a settlement within 21 days. I ignored the original letter as it looked like a [problem] and I was told if I ignored it they would just go away.

 

Unfortunately, they haven't gone away and have now sent me a second letter threatening to commence court proceedings if I do not respond in 7 days. The wording in this second letter is somewhat ambiguous and I don't really understand it.

 

I don't really know what to do and am concerned and worried about all of this and what don't know what action can be taken to get them off my back? I've now been advised to send a letter of denial and wonder if anyone has such a letter that they've sent that I could see a copy of as I'm not sure how to word it or how much/little information to include.

 

As I said earlier I did not download this album and in fact my wife has the CD so we legally own a copy of it.

 

Sorry if this post is long winded but any help would be much appreciated.

I think you'll find if you read their [problem], I mean claim letter again they are accusing you of UPLOADING this file not downloading it. If you didn't upload it then in your reply do not mention you own a copy of it on CD, they don't need to know that and they will probably try and use that as evidence that you did indeed make it available for other people to download from you.

Just tell them you didn't do it and you won't be accepting their kind offer of settling out of court.

Anyone heard from ACS since the tribunal announcement in regard to a new claim? The deadline for BT to supply the names from the November 2009 NPO was 19th August or thereabout. 10 000 names supposedly! Not like ACS to hang around...

 

 

Anyone know whether ACS can trade any names that they obtain through their NPOs? When DL ceased their actions did they pass on their information to ACS?

I've not heard from them for a while and its a shame. I only get bills and junk so getting these demands from him makes me feel kind of important, its a bit like having a special friend

. Also on the date I was "accused" without going into too much detail I know my computer wasn't even switched on (but I can't prove it- how can you??), but I wasn't sure whether to mention this in my next letter.

Feel free to say that, all they will say in reply is, that proves nothing, your PC does not need to be turned on for someone else to be using your connection without your knowledge or authority.

Their initial letter is designed to scare the s*** out of you when you read it and pay up to make it go away. Thats the reaction I had. My initial thought was this must be true, I didn't do it but as its in my name I must be responsible as they must be respectable lawyers who don't make mistakes.

I'm so glad I didn't pay up as the CAB advised me to do.

It's so annoying, I phoned them up and argued about the lod and he said write back in your own words. I don't understand why he couldn't take my denial over the phone. Has anyone actually sent a second letter of denial and had a third letter off acs law, if so is that when they issue court proceedings or has no case gone that far?

Apparently you wil get another with a questionaire in it, you are not legally obligded to fill that in, all they are trying to do is to get you to incriminate somebody else.

I live alone but may well say I share my broadband account with Andrew Crossley of ACS Law.

As you said about Talk Talk,I'am sure that they have more info than they are giving us. When they have asked for the ISP provider they will be given the info in the style of Be-Unlimited at that time used by B Sky B. So if it said Talk Talk they would obviously ignore it. IMO.

Thats not what it claims on my letter, it merely states that my ISP (Internet service provider) XXXX has identified me as a subscriber. I am not a subscriber to ISP XXXX I am a subscriber to ISP YYYY if you see my point, the company they have named has different terms and conditions and tarifs.

The company you have named there, Be Unlimited are indeed an ISP with their own T&C's quite different to all the others and soon you will not need a BT line to subscribe to them.

I think it would all help anyone if it ever got to court if you can show even little things like that, when lets face it, none of us can actually prove we didn't do it just as ACS or any of the others can't actually prove we did. I Like to think that me being of previous good character and not Mr Crossley already having been dealt with 3 times by the SRA who cannot even identify who you pay for your internet service would be believed by any judge in the land on his so called evidence.

@kilotango22 - Just a little note to say that the ISP they are quoting is the one who had that IP address on line at the time. Please remember that O2, Orange, Plusnet, Sky etc etc rent lines off of other companies to make sure they can supply their quota.

That may be the case, but if you are a customer of orange and your interent goes down you don't call up sky to enquire whats wrong, your ISP is the firm you are under contract to, they are the ones you pay your money to and they are the ones you give notice too when your time to quit comes.

By your reckoning and it could well be right, talk talk customers should also be getting these letters, but their ISP doesn't roll over.

http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/solicitors.page

I wouldn't be telling them they have breached protocol, I haven't even told them that the ISP company which have supposedly identified me as a subscriber is not a company I have ever heard of, I'm with somebody else, I assume their mail merge for their template letters has screwed up along the lines, must be difficult getting all them 1000's of templates correct.

If I'm a lucky one and get taken to court I'll drop it all in front of them then, should be worth a few quid to me

Hi, I'm about to write my first LOD to GM. (I KNOW for a fact that I did not download what they said I did, so am pretty sure my wireless connection has been breached, or someone's made a mistake somewhere).

 

As far as pre-action protocol is concerned- 1) would I be breaching it if I simply denied downloading/uploading the file and didn't give a long winded reply about what I think might have happened (its all spectulation anyway!)? I know the current advice is to give a LOD with very little detail in but has this bitten people in the bottom at all?

 

2) Have GM breached pre-action protocol at all? The letter I recieved makes no mention of it. It was basically "pay £350/£375 or we can take you to court", which in itself I feel is a breach, but I have no legal knowledge on which to base this assumption. I would love to be able to trip them up on the very points they are trying to use to their advantage. There's more of us- we should be able to think of something.

 

This whole farce has caused me to lose sleep and weight. The stress is causing problems concentrating and enjoying my life. These people are **** in my opinion- they know full well that there will be some margin of error in all this and that innocent people will be caught up in it. And even if it were about "stopping people downloading" what's wrong with a reasonable settlement and a warning. I know people who download cos they think they won't get caught. I've told them about my letter (ironic or what?) and its stopping them doing it right away, so well done GM you've done your bit, but I refuse to let you pin the blame on and penalise me for something I simply haven't done.

All you have to write is, I didn't do it and you have satisfied the rules as far as I'm aware, they won't accept it no matter what you write.

As far as pre-action protocol goes, this is what it says about the letter of claim they have sent you:

(e) give details of any funding arrangements entered into.

I would bet money they didn't send you a copy of the code as they are required to do, its 22 pages long and would add a fortune to their postage costs, so they actually breach the code themselves but expect you to play by its rules.

Hi

I send this denial letter and after 2 weeks they send me another letter and still want money, what now?

Please help.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20867[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]20868[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/78/acs1.jpg

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/1172/acs2.jpg

Legally, as far as I am aware, you have done all you need to do to satisfy the rules of pre action protocol, you can now ignore them until you receive a court summons (which you won't get) or you can write again denying it again and just add you will not respond again. Bare in mind, you will get a 3rd letter and a 4th perhaps, they just want to break you. Stick to your guns.

The only thing I don't like about them using 2nd class is it can take 4 days to get to you so if they post if friday night, it gets collected monday, processed monday night and delivered upto 4 days later which takes you back to friday, they give you 14 days to pay their blackmail from the date of their letter.

Everyone that writes to them should forget to put a stamp on the post, they have to pay a surcharge then to recieve it, which is the cost of 2nd class post plus a pound, fill it up with pizza leaflets and other crap to push the thickness up and it will cost them even more, just to get a letter telling them to go and f*** themselves.

Good video - He did bumble a bit but he got the msg across. My LOD is going off tomorrow morning recorded post. These people really do make me sick.

 

I want to know if they chase people that may have shared it in America or such?

Was this file planted to catch people out? - Seems a very corrupt way of doing things dont you think?

 

Viewing that video tells me what a solicitor said to be jokingly - by replying to them and saying 'well take me to court!' Could actually scare them away as I think we all know the evidence they have against any of us would never stand up in court, and to be honest the Crown Prosecution Service would never allow it to go that far.........

The CPS don't get involved in this type of 'case' If he chooses to take people to court he just pays his money and takes his chance, if he does that and looses then his whole game is up and the rest of the clowns playing it won't thank him for spoling their fun and taking away their income.

I'd be almost tempted to ask them what proof of innocence they would accept. Lord Lucas made a speech in the lords, and in that speech he stated, it is impossible to prove your innocence. You could say you were on the surface of the moon at the time, their reply, sorry, we don't accept that as its not you we are saying did it, it was someone using your interent connection. Oh well sorry you say, I didn't give anyone permission to do that, sorry they reply, we don't believe you. I would post a link to Lord Lucas's speech but I can't find it myself.

i agree: he is not doing anything illegal. he's just being disingenuous about his intended and ongoing litigation. it's just a licence to print money. i believe the only people who are going to stop this are the ISPs. the House of Lords; the SRA; Which; the One Show... the list goes on and on. none have halted him in his tracks. the only ones who can are the ISPs. when he requests the NPO from the court the ISPs should stand up to him. they surely know that there have been no legal proceedings in the tens of thousands of names they have provided except for one or two i believe in the DL cases where there were default judgements. there should really be a campaign against the ISPs rather than crossley

I agree, I am campaiging agaisnt my isp, no details will be given incase he links them to the real me, basically, he states I am a subscriber to a particular ISP, I'm not and never have been. I'm trying to find out from my isp why they have supplied my details to this other ISP, I also asked them if they stated to ACS that they would not oppose a court order. They didn't answer either question. Their reply, we have to comply with court orders. Second letter going out, told them a simple yes or no answers the question about opposing a court order, copying all letters to Information commissioner. I'm like a mad dog with a bone now.

i agree with you regarding the outcome. not sure about the DEB, though. will ACS be obliged to use the three strikes route? or is that mainly for the ISPs? surely ACS can continue to pursue alleged copyright infringers with reference to copyright law as he doing at the moment.

I don't think he will stop until he is either struck off, not likely in my opinion or convicted of a crime as a result of this, as I don't think what he is doing is basically illegal I don't think that is likely either.

He certainly wont stop as a result of bad publicity, the guy used to be a DJ, he is on an ego trip and probably loves all the attention.

seems the SRA are dragging out their investigation even further. from slyck today:

 

"spoke to the SRA today - couldn't give me any more information than the fact that its still ongoing. I asked how long these things normally took and she said because they are still getting quite a large volume of complaints it will remain ongoing as they have to take all these into consideration also, especially as the format on some of the letters have changed! Asked me to call back in about a months time."

 

pathetic. should be the SRA that are being investigated. the old boys club. i hope the "format of the letters" statement doesn't refer to GM as they are a seperate investigation altogether. can't remember anyone suggesting the format of Andy's letters have changed to a more conciliatory tone! when it eventually concludes i've no doubt it will be a damp squid, with a smack on the wrists for Andy, but recognition that the tone of his letters has changed!!!!!????

 

it was being reported by broadband genie two weeks ago that the investigation was winding up and would be concluded at the end of July! the SRA are to solicitors what the CRS is to DCAs!

I'm no expert but I don't think his letters are illegal, if any of us sent menacing letters though demanding money we would get a visit. I'm fully expecting nothing to come of their investigation and he will carry on with what he is doing regardless.

This new Bill might be the thing what stops him. I quite like the 3 strikes idea, but as I don't fileshare I'm not bothered. I am bothered about receiving letters from dodgy solicitors though trying to extort money out of me.

If they threaten anymore ill start threatening them with a a solicitor who deals with the CWU. Is £3 a week worth the cwu sub. I think so...

I don't think you will find your Union legal service cover this type of work unless you pay them, this is from the CWU website:

| Legal Services - old page | Personal Injury | CWU Legal Advice Helpline

I've got my 2nd LOD ready to post, it basically says exactly what I said in the 1st, which was a template.

Thing is, their evidence is flawed, if they did have the balls to take anyone to court, in my case they have said my ISP have identified me as a subscriber on their network, but the ISP who have apparently identified me are not my ISP. You can just see it when they say to a judge, ISP name XXXX have named the defendant as a subscriber to their network and you provide proof that you are actually in a contract with ISP xxx and were at the time of the alledged offence. I'm not telling them that though, don't see why I should.

The whole [problem] seems so amateurish.

Approximately four weeks.

Thanks Zero

I'm noy saying do it but when I spoke to a solicitors with a very good name yesterday.

 

They said say to them well take me to court then!!!

 

I think what they were trying to say is that it won't stand up in court.

Oh I wont be paying, I am just asking how long it may take to get a rejection letter from them.

I wouldn't pay for something I haven't done even if a judge told me to.