£295 is the standard "charge" for music. £500 for pornography, or so it would seem.

---- 8

Don't think you would see a summons in a hurry.....

 

 

Might be worth pointing out that under "The Bill of Rights 1689"**:

 

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void";

---- 8

 

Some VERY good information there. I love forums for just this wealth of community knowledge.

But as blashey has already admitted guilt the argument over the cost of damages would likely have needed to involve a legal professional, which would far outweigh the cost of making their agreement at £200. I agree the actual damages would likely have been in single figures, but to argue it in court whilst paying by the hour would have been more costly.

 

Until someone gets the whole matter into court to force an argument of the reliability of the methods employed and the calculation of quantum damages there will be no easy way just to argue the quantum damages from a position you are already at a loss at.

... yes you got caught... but remember the monetary payment isn't there to punish you, its to reimburse the 'SO CALLED' losses of these 'mugs' that you might or 'might not' have caused.

 

dont be out of pocket because theyre forcing you to pay X amount.

 

That is a very good point and one worth pursuing.

sorry but i think you are being fleeced blind

 

dx

 

I agree. But given that he/she admitted guilt there wasn't much hope for a better outcome - in my opinion. It was all a question of how much.

 

Glad you got it sorted blashey. Now at least you can sleep without that on your mind. Just a shame you never managed to get to the good advice before making an admission.

Well I got another response from them today. Post marked the 22nd. This was just a simple note to say that no separate response would be sent from their offices as it was being referred to my MP. So at least they're in touch at higher levels.

 

I thought it only fair to forward my MP the correspondance from last week where they effectively left me with only one day to respond. I also ensured I brought to his attention the Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7 and the Ministry of Justice's own Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 Part 4 (as in force on 5 April 2010), Section 4.4. Whilst I understand this is not a criminal case, if the MoJ believe first class post is suited to the serving of legal documents, then surely the DVLA should not expect a greater service for a lesser claim?

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/criminal/procrules_fin/docs/crim-pr-2010-part4.pdf

 

http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1978InterpretationAct.shtml

Hi, I've just received my second letter from ACS Law stating my first response (letter of denial) was a standard response which can be downloaded from the internet and therefore reject my letter. They are still demanding the same £295 for downloading the song "Evacuate the dancefloor". Has anyone else recieved a second letter alsoany advice would be appreciated.

 

Just respond to their second letter with no more information than the template. Simply restate your denial and respond such that you will treat any such further correspondance without evidence to support their claim as harrasment. Don't write too much. Just stick to your denial. Then as I 've said before simply file and ignore further letters.

I suppose its all down to personal choice. Pre action protocol requires entering into dialogue.To not do so leaves you open to problems further down the line. I do not have any legal knowledge but I have read the directves on pre-action protocol and I would suggest anyone read it themselves before taking the advice of well meaning posters.

 

That too, is my understanding. To not respond could be damaging in the long run. A simple reply and deny sent recorded, followed by a second reply and deny with a statement about harrasment sees it closed. After two responses you don't need to play letter ping pong anymore. Simply file and ignore anything else. I say file because you can then build a case for harrasment if they are not providing any further evidence to support their claim.

There's a wealth of information on here if you look. All the advice you could need is searchable.

 

I myself am going through the same rigmarole.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?279729-Continuous-Licensing-Malarky

What if the Driver was given permission to drive the car if he taxed it first?

 

The failure in such circumstances would be of the driver and not the Registered Keeper. Would it not?

 

That would be extremely difficult to prove. I know it's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but your are up against the probability - would it have been likely the keeper would have made such an arrangement? Is it realistic to expect someone else to tax the vehicle? How would they get the necessary documentation to do so? In all probability they couldn't. So I would expect the registered keepers responsibility would have been to ensure it was taxed prior to being used on the road and giving permission to be used.

You can probably still pay the fine without it even getting to court... if they respond to you promptly.

Ok I'm guessing this may not be as straight forward as I thought I may have been.

 

I will write to them with the facts and see what happens. I think thats the only thing that can be done.

 

Yes, I think honesty is always the best policy. But in the case of the DVLA it seems honesty is rewarded with punishment, not understanding. I hope it works out for you.

Thanks for your advise!!!!

 

Hmm, not sure it was advice, but maybe I was a little terse. I guess all I mean is you probably have your work cut out trying to explain why you didn't follow their rules. It's bad enough when you do!

Good luck with that!

 

I'm sure that they'll have fun with the admission that you didn't follow the required process if you failed to submit the V5. The fun I'm having even when I did have the V5 and sent it off as required is bad enough. I would imagine once you admit your failure to follow in their process they'll leave you no way out other than to pay up.

After checking the envelope it also shows the post mark clearly as the 18.10.10. So that's what they consider a fair process.

 

Firstly you will note the date of my response as the 20th October 2010, which is the date I have received your correspondence (Postmarked 18.10.10). It is my intention to deal with this matter promptly, but feel that the deadline you state for my response, 22/10/2010, limits my ability to fairly gather information and return it as requested.

I'll get my letter off in the post tomorrow morning, 1st class - with a proof of "sending". Because since all this fiasco I've now discovered if you do your postage online with Royal Mail by printing a label. You can take it to the post office and they will stamp a receipt, which you print at the time of the label, to prove you have posted it. All for the price of a 1st class stamp.

Glad someone else is on board zoomboy.

 

You might enjoy a read of this thread, one of the men who exposed this and has managed to have his day in court

 

http://www.bikechatforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=185543&highlight=clerkenwell

 

Thanks for that. I'll give it a read when I calm down a bit!

 

I just got home to find a letter from the DVLA. They want me to provide them with a copy of the Certificate of Destruction and confirm it was part of the Gov't Scrappage scheme. So it arrived today (20th) and they have said "No further action will be taken until the 22/10/2010 to enable you to reply." (Letter dated 14th)

 

Well how am I supposed to get the certificate of destruction? That would be what the party who destroyed it (the Trader) would have as I no longer owned it when it was destroyed. I also quote from my first letter "the vehicle was sold under a trade scrapage scheme"

 

So I'm a little annoyed again right now. I shall chill for a while before I compose my response.

Interesting that they see your act of informing your MP as a threat. It's not like you threatned to send your dad round to beat them up!

 

They have no complaints process so what else can you do? Go for it let your MP know, maybe the more of us that do something above them will force a change for others... it's nice to at least hope. It's easy enough to write to your MP, you can do it online at writetothem.com - it works. I've done so 3 times this year.

 

Ultimatley your MP can send a complaint to public sector ombudsman, which you can't do without the help of your MP.

I'm simply intrigued as to why they put that in their literature if, as you mentioned, they're so sure they have enough evidence already. What would forensic analysis of your PC add to their case or details of your Router for that matter?

 

It couldn't add a thing, and they're not interested in pursuing any of it at all. That would cost them money. All they want from you is cash. They don't even want to go to court - they just want cash. If you roll over easy and pay they smile all the way to the bank. Put up a bit of a fight and they'll bluff and bluster, but ultimatley do nothing.

 

I'm sure they'll keep your record open as they have a 6 year period they can follow up in. So if something changes in their favour then they can use that to go back to revisit everyone. I would think unless your LoD stated something that they would be embarassed about publicly or places them at risk of treatening someone unfairly, eg. harrassing a "public or influential figure" or disability or extenuating personal circumstances, they'll be keeping you on file.

 

But there's no way ACS could accept even a forensic examination of your router and/or PC as evidence to support your innocence, it would be merely to confirm your guilt. As I said they'll argue that you have more than one PC, or it's not the original hard drive, or you have used tools to wipe the data - none of that demonstrates innocence.

Has anyone permitted ACS to 'examine' their computer in order to refute their allegation? I'd be more than happy to but lets face it who exactly are they going to send along to do this?

 

Why would ACS even want to do that? It's not in their interest - they believe they have enough evidence, let them run with it. If you feel you can attempt to have your PC's hard drive as evidence they'll probably smile at your expense as they say "So that's the only PC in your house and is the only one you've ever owned and you can of course prove that too?"

 

It's easy enough to destroy the evidence was ever on your machine. What they are stating is that at a given date and time your connection was used to upload the work. Not that it was ever on your machine. That said, how can you even begin to prove that at the time and date specified it wasn't on your machine?

 

The answer is simple. Offer no evidence to support your innocence. The more you play their game, the more likely it is that you offer yourself as an expert and demonstrate a more plausible argument for them that you could have been responsible. It is for them to offer evidence to prove your guilt. Only offer counter arguments to questions they ask, not to ones they don't.

 

* My 2c - opinion only, not necessarily based on expertise or knowledge.

 

Do not use offensive language or angry emotive language. For example you may be ‘upset’ or ‘disturbed’ by their letter, but avoid being ‘outraged’.

 

Do not make threats (particularly ‘empty’ threats) or promises.

 

Be truthful.

 

Do not expose ideas to them that might form the basis of your defence if you were to go to court.

 

Do not libel the company. If you must make comment on the professionalism (for example) of ACS:Law (which is ill-advised in any case) make explicitly clear in your wording that this is your personal opinion. This is particularly pertinent if your letter is to be seen by third parties, for example if you decided to send courtesy copies of your letter to a consumer or regulatory body.

 

Do not make any kind of ‘offer’ without first taking legal advice or being exceptionally sure what you are undertaking.

 

If they have made inaccurate observations in their letter it is unlikely to hurt your case to record these in your letter (for the benefit of any future court proceeding). For example, they may have made reference to an enclosure which was not supplied; point this out.

 

From a wiser source than I. beinghtreatened template letter.

Well done!

Got a letter from Bob today.

 

Thank you for your recent email regarding the problems you have experienced with the DVLA.

 

I have written to the Minister at the Department of Transport asking for his response to this issue and as soon as I receive a response I will get back to you.

 

Clock is ticking with responses trying to meet Gov't key performance indicators. Working in local Gov't I'm familiar with the "target" mentality and the goals they must meet.

Well I received my second letter from ACS:Law today after 4 months of hearing nothing from them. Saying that my case is still live and they do not accept my template letter and I have to pay up within 14days.

 

I am going to write my second LOD stating I standby my 1st LOD and I have nothing more to offer and I will not be communicating with them again. I have spoken to a solicitor and they have advised me that my 1st LOD is valid and they have no real reason not to accept it.

 

Do you think it worth saying I am aware of their recent situation where they were hacked and DPA was breached and if my details are found to be on that list I will be taking action against them?

 

Personally, I wouldn't go baiting them unnessecarily. I'd save that until they actually pursue you further. You don't want to get caught out making an erroneous statement. So short sweet and to the point.

there was a website i found where u could check to see if you were on it. i'll try to find it

 

I believe it was taken down as it wasn't in the best interests of those it listed. As damning as it was to ACS it was seen as more detrimental to those on it.

thats not true im worried

 

And that's perfectly understandable. But I believe you have been given good advice, based on your admission. Putting on the blinkers and hoping someone else tells you something you want to hear isn't in your best interests.

 

You have admitted guilt. Now you must pay, it's now just a question of how much.

Ahh, I see. In which case the DVLA will probably be within the law as they'll be handing out data which could be obtained publicly from the electoral register. There are rules about what data can be passed on so it's unlikely to contain your date of birth or things like that. They would also be very foolish to do anything in breach of the guidelines set by the ICO - they have powers to fine lax organisations up to £500k and rumour has it they are looking for an example to be set.

 

I'm hoping that the example is ACS:LAW, but I'll settle for the DVLA if that's the case