Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
    • Just to update this. I did apply to strikeout and they did not attend the hearing. I won by defualt and the hearing lasted 5 minutes (court only allocated 15). The judge simply explained that the only matter he was really considering is if the Defendant could have any oral evidence to defend the claim. However he said he had decided that based on their defence, and their misunderstanding of law, and their non attendence he did not think they had any reasonsable chance so he awarded me SJ + Costs on the claim form + the strikeout fee. Luckily when I sent the defendant the order I woke up the next day to a wire trasnfer for the full sum of the judgement
    • Hello, I am wondering if someone can advise. I sold some goods via an online platform who essentially middelmans and authenticates luxury goods.  I have sold over 100 times with them in the past without issue but a while ago I had a sale go wrong, whereby they claim they never received the shoes in the parcel and instead received empty boxes. They wont show any photos of what they received. I considered whether to pursue them or the courier, and decided to pursue them because the UPS tracking indicates no issues at all, but also because they are the ones that contracted with UPS.  I sent them a PAPLOC which they claim was "lengthy and pre written" which is true because I simply adapted a previous one. They rejected any resolution so I issued a claim using an adapated thread from this forum from before against i believe evri. Anyway they filed a defence which essentially says that they think I shipped empty boxes and never shipped the shoes and am commiting fraud. However, I have weight records of every parcel I ship (and have done since 2019) and they have provided no evidence to support their claims. They also failed to comply with CPR request for inspection of certain documents within their defence, such as a report by their authenticator who they claim emptied the box (Although I know this is false because they have had literal job offers for "Warehouse staff" with the job description of opening and sorting incoming orders (OWTTE) so I also think here that I have a ground that they are trying to mislead the court, which once again is likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings. The amount is just over £1,000 I'm now wondering whether I should apply to strike out their defence / apply for SJ on the grounds that the defence is totally without merit and will obstruct the just disposal of proceedings by making me wait months for a trial that they are bound to lose and upon them having absolutely no proof to support their claims, and me having weight records, as well as the fact they failed to comply. I am aware the fee for this would be £303 but the trial fee would be £123 itself so the difference is £180. Any advice please?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

ACS:Law copyright file sharing claims, Gallant Macmillan - and probably some others along the way...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4965 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

That would work for prying eyes, but if any enforcement agency were to get hold of the disk that wouldn't be enough. "Deleting" files merely marks the space they occupy as free, the data remains and can easily be recovered (unless it is heavily and completely overwritten). It is possible to zero fill the space, but that is not necessarily for novices.

 

Correct, there are a few utilities out there that will Zero fill the index.dat files securely to DoD level prior to delete.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

if it has not been downloaded offer for an independant deep packet inspection to be paid for by ACS,if and when it comes back as clear sue for defamation i am in the proccess through which to begin a action against DAVENPORTS ,nothing has been downloaded from this computor so i got no worries

on the other hand Davenports have a lot to worry about i just cant wait for a case to be brought against me in fact i have demanded they begin action imediately

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

if it has not been downloaded offer for an independant deep packet inspection to be paid for by ACS,if and when it comes back as clear sue for defamation i am in the proccess through which to begin a action against DAVENPORTS ,nothing has been downloaded from this computor so i got no worries

on the other hand Davenports have a lot to worry about i just cant wait for a case to be brought against me in fact i have demanded they begin action imediately

patrickq1

 

Any forensic analysis of the H/D would be pointless, it could easily be replaced after the alleged download event.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if it has not been downloaded offer for an independant deep packet inspection to be paid for by ACS,if and when it comes back as clear sue for defamation i am in the proccess through which to begin a action against DAVENPORTS ,nothing has been downloaded from this computor so i got no worries

on the other hand Davenports have a lot to worry about i just cant wait for a case to be brought against me in fact i have demanded they begin action imediately

patrickq1

 

 

Interesting - I certainly think they are just looking to make a quick buck off those who panic and pay up without seeking proper advice.

 

The problem they will always have is proving the offense. I can quite clearly prove that my PC was not used on a given date. I can do this because, like a lot of people, I have several PC's, laptops, iPhone etc. which all connect using the same external IP. So unless they also capture the MAC address, who's to say which PC needs to be tested? I say it is the one sat in the corner of the box room that hasn't been used for over a year..... And, even if they captured the MAC address whats to stop me spoofing it or changing the NIC?

 

Also, (no I am not a cybercriminal and I haven't had one of the letters), One of my PC's has 4 different hard drives, each separately bootable with it's own OS and is quite capable of running with any 3 of those removed. In fact, it could run quite happily booting off a Ubuntu live CD with no hard drive, using a USB memory stick as a storage medium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any forensic analysis of the H/D would be pointless, it could easily be replaced after the alleged download event.

 

 

Exactly! Their case is based on untested, unreliable and unprovable methods. They know this, but they also know that it's easy to scare people into caving in, especially if you bamboozle them with technical jargon....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the danger if it ever went to court is that they were to turn up with a "expert witness" who claimed it was proof positive and the defendant was not technically clued up or represented... I'm sure not many judges know anything about the concepts.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

The crux of their allegations is that a particular ISP address has been used at a particular time, they have no evidence as to what computer was used, or if indeed that the registered user was actually implicated or if they had an 'open' network or if it had been hacked into (there is enough open software allowing someone to do that). They can't even get the file size right, they've accused some people stating that the file was over 100MBs & others that the size was 40 odd MBs. If they can't get that fact right what chance with any of their evidence? Particularly as similar claims using the technology they are depending on was thrown out of the courts in Italy & Germany as unproven & their forensic experts thought of as quacks. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you replaced it the dates would nt match up my hard drive has not been replaced it is the origional...it would be noticable if it had been...so i have absolutely no problems with times and dates ....but it will cost them dearly for a solicitor to act in the manner they did goes against their own ethics i would say so as for reputations this would damage them pretty badly .....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol.

 

My dad got in touch with someone in the law world, but he wasnt too sure. He was like you should either pay or ignore. Not much help really.

 

I notice Mr Terence Tsang hasn't been mentioned for a while. Still intrigued by him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of people are either too scared or too brainwashed in this country these days sadly.

We all have a "You must not rock the boat" attitude when it comes to anything like this/or with the world of finance & legal stuff etc..

Well sod that - im 1 of the one's who does rock that boat, always have & always will do :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of people are either too scared or too brainwashed in this country these days sadly.

We all have a "You must not rock the boat" attitude when it comes to anything like this/or with the world of finance & legal stuff etc..

Well sod that - im 1 of the one's who does rock that boat, always have & always will do :evil:

 

I think that is the basis of this operation.

 

If you do the sums:

 

They are reported to have sent 6000 letters, demanding around £500 a throw.

 

If they have managed to scare only 1 in 10 into paying up, they have raked in £300,000.

 

I have still not heard of a single court claim being issued.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a letter 2 weeks ago demanding £500.07 of cource i will not be paying them a single penny.I have sent my first L.O.D today and wait to hear from them.Also I wrote to my local M.P. who in turn has written to Jack Straw and will contact me when she has his response.letter have also gone to tha I.C.O and the S.R.A. Will keep you up to date with any news i get.Trading standerds have also become involved in this matter and tell me they will investigate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is the basis of this operation.

 

If you do the sums:

 

They are reported to have sent 6000 letters, demanding around £500 a throw.

 

If they have managed to scare only 1 in 10 into paying up, they have raked in £300,000.

 

I have still not heard of a single court claim being issued.

 

David

 

I do hope that any person who has paid up will now ensure that a full refund heads their way asap :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either ACS are waiting to send out their next batch of threats or they've realized what a horrendous misjudgment they've made in thinking they can take on the public like this....me thinks its the later :wink:

 

Could be, but as some of the bodies at ACS came over from Davenport Lyons they must of known it would hit the fan. Think they will run it until there is so much publicity that people simply stop paying them.

 

david

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received one of the ACS letters last night. As a recipient they're threatening and worrying. Especially when my girlfriend read it.

 

Short of reading the whole thread (which I will tonight when I get home) can anyone summarize actions required ?

 

What's a LOD that others have sent ?

 

Much appreciated.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4965 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...