Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The reason for the photos is to show you weren't displaying a permit.  They are supposed to check that the permit hadn't fallen off the dashboard. There is no point in appealing to PPM.  The very people who deliberately set up the site with rubbish signage to catch motorists out are highly unlikely to find against themselves. You've said several times that you think the company who you met with called PPM in so these are the people you need to contact in writing to request they call PPM off.  Until you do so we're going round in circles. If you don't want them to have your e-mail address simply set up a secondary e-address.  
    • Please see attached redacted judgment for further infoVWFS (UK) LTD - Salisbury CC - Judgment - 20240507 V Final _copy redacted.pdf
    • Make sure the WS is sent 14 days before the hearing. You can e-mail the court theirs.  In the subject line put the case number, the names of the parties and "Witness Statement".  Obviously click on "Return Receipt". Send Simple Simon his by 2nd class post - all VCS are worth - and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.
    • The outlet is in Camden Town and was set up in 2006, a year after my husband established the business, in addition to selling at exhibitions, online, shows, events, and having licensing agreements in some places overseas.  The only thing I have stopped doing since I got ill is the physical stuff, which I’m working on. The business has not changed name or anything like that either. I’m not sure where the original contract with Camden is but the management must still have it. My husband died in Jan 2017, and until Sept 2018, I would take the stock in every week; after that I was sending it in by post. I went in now and then when possible to re-do the display but that was about it. No one had access to any files until 2020. Moved house in 2020 thought would have to pull it all, Covid had just hit as well. The person in question said he would be interested in taking over and paying the rent etc. so I said I would let him sell the pictures for nothing as long as he would ‘keep it warm’ for me.  Obviously, everywhere was closed for lockdown. During this time I was working out how to go forward.  In May 2022 I told him I couldn’t  give anything away for free anymore, and put in place the wholesale agreement.  I’ve disregarded any discrepancies from before this date. I sent over the jpgs electronically, so I’ve still got them too. He hasn’t got any original files like .psds negatives or memory cards etc, I’ve got proof of all ownership/copyright. A co-op is whereby a small number of neighbours work on a rotational basis so they each of them can have time off, that way everyone doesn’t need to be there at the same time, he had never been an employee of mine.  The only reason I allowed him to have the files in the first place as I didn’t want to lose that side of the business.  It’s a good, constant source of income. However, the rent was becoming crippling as I believed there was something fishy going on well before this as there’s so much cash dealt with there, and I couldn’t go in regularly in person, and I’m sure sales weren’t being recorded properly and cash was being pocketed. My husband was too busy to be doing any stock control properly, he wasn't really into paperwork, and the guy who was ‘helping’ me after my husband's death, was making things very difficult for me to implement a solid stock control system by refusing to co-operate on simple things like using email etc. which I thought was a smokescreen, so I severed ties with him just before I made the agreement in question. I sent about 100 images, jpg files, sent via We Transfer. I’ve got the confirmation of which files were sent with dates. I will have to go through closed bank accounts and previous tax returns to get a proper estimate.   Before I made this agreement, I was selling retail there, this is a wholesale agreement so I’ll have to do some calculations but it is definitely in the thousands.  I haven’t got his his home address, and I don't think he's got any sizeable assets. I’m also worried that he might send the files overseas and start selling them there. I know he’s not stupid enough to sell them online. He knows for sure how serious this is, but he’s been chancing it and thinks I’m stupid, if not soft and stupid. I don’t know if this would work but I am thinking that when he does contact me, I tell him we need to talk, tell him I know what he’s been up to, and strongly urge him not to order any more prints from wherever he is having them printed because it will make things much worse for him if he does. Then when I do tell him about the gravity of the situation, maybe a few days later, I think it will scare him into complying because the consequences definitely trump the few quid he thinks he is saving by getting his own printing done. Tell him an amount that I want back for lost revenue, and make it clear that if he doesn’t destroy the files and if I find out he is still doing it at any point down the line, I will seek prosecution for copyright infringement and fraud, which I will. I don’t know how I can enforce any of this without involving the courts though. I will be able to tell, though, and he will know this. And the only reason I am doing this now rather than before, is that I couldn’t prove anything until now.  It was screamingly obvious from the beginning though, as he wasn’t ordering enough from me to pay the rent, let alone make a profit. If I decided to come down like him lie a ton of bricks straight away, how would I go about a cease and desist, would I have to get one from the court? And what do I do about the stock he currently holds? It has also occurred to me that he might file for bankruptcy or similar if things get heavy, where would that leave me? I could put the feelers out for a brand-new person to take it on, obviously without giving them access to files, that is an option. But that comes with its own set of issues. Also, would there be any implications for me, if I kept quiet for now? Let him order again from me as if nothing has happened, as it will be any day and I want to get all my ducks in a row first ideally….   Thanks again
    • I’ve also just realised their online website they’ve got 12 photographs of my vehicle, including close ups of the inside?? Not sure why that’s relevant.  The time stamp on the first photo is 13:57, the PCN incident time is 14:12. 
  • 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

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 4978 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

  • Replies 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hello all

 

My dad has just recieved a 3rd letter from them, once again stating they recognise that our previous response was a template taken from the internet, and that their open offer of compromise is withdrawn.

 

They have now sent a offer to settle under part 36 of the civil procedure rule, asking for £625 instead of the original £500. We have 14 days to pay it. my dad is now getting more worried about it, so some advice would be appreciated.

 

yes send them another lod and refuse to accept their claim and offer. one letter should be enough to cover both.their aim is maximum harrassment of a lot of innoccent people

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes send them another lod and refuse to accept their claim and offer. one letter should be enough to cover both.their aim is maximum harrassment of a lot of innoccent people

 

It is my view that is the name of the game and in fact they brag on their website that they have already got considerable moneys in doing just that.

 

Apart from the fact that their claim has little merit under English Law as it stands (and they know it), it is hardly realistic to imagine that a firm of that size could actually handle several thousand court cases at once, or that their clients would put up the very large sums involved for court fees.

 

Of course it may occur to them to try a few to scare the rest, but when they lost well, the game would be up wouldn't it?:eek:

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont know if it has been tried but has anyone tried finishing their LOD with something along the lines of:

 

"I do not expect any further corresspondance from you unless it is either to inform me that the matter is closed or with details of the confirmed court date which I will vigoursly defend.

 

Should you contact me with your spurious demands and harassment for money then each letter will be charge at my regular hourly rate of £xx.00/hour. By replying to this letter or sending out future demands not complying to the above you are agreeing to to these terms which will be enforced and passed to a third party if necessary and whos associated costs you agree to be liable for" :)

 

I remember a post somewhere on here where someone wrote as much and got a DCA to reimburse him for 'training costs'.

 

Let them stick that in their template and smoke it!

 

Yorky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my view that is the name of the game and in fact they brag on their website that they have already got considerable moneys in doing just that.

 

Apart from the fact that their claim has little merit under English Law as it stands (and they know it), it is hardly realistic to imagine that a firm of that size could actually handle several thousand court cases at once, or that their clients would put up the very large sums involved for court fees.

 

Of course it may occur to them to try a few to scare the rest, but when they lost well, the game would be up wouldn't it?:eek:

 

David

 

Davenport Lyons took one or two to court, then bragged about it to anyone who would listen. Curiously the only cases they have ever taken to court were undefended, so that they got a default judgement. I was, and still am, deeply suspicious as to whether they were ever genuine cases :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,I recieved one of these letters about 2 months ago, we are on tiscali and they were asking for £500. I sent the template LOD found on beaingtreatened.com.I recieved another letter just yesterday stating that they will not accept a template letter as a denial. I am now in the process of writing my second letter of denial, again from the templated off of the above webiste. I think i will also point out the fact that both of the letters sent to me regarding this were also both template letters. See what they say to that. After this letter we will just ignore them until if/when we get a court summons!Stick it to the man!xx

 

Surely a good reply would just to send a quick reply to them stateing that you do not accept their letter accusing you of copyright infringement because it is a template letter..hee :)

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Received my third letter from ACS on Saturday, also informing me that my second LOD was a template, even though I state clearly that the download couldn't have been made _rest o information I'll save for court (if they do go ahead).

 

Been stressing over it, I got accused of downlaoding gay porn (Army F***ers)- the same one mentioned in Watchdog case- Now, why would so many other people want to download the same gay porn movie at the same time? There isn't a good enough logical reason!

 

I'm going to send another LOD and refuse the offer. I will fight them. I am innocent, and my advice to all, is do not panic, and think that your same boat as mnay others! Together we will fight the b******s!

 

Harris

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not being chased by these people.

 

It is worth noting however, that I have been threatened on a regular basis by better people than this and for much larger sums, (five figures in one case).

 

If you have sent an LOD (no matter what bullsh*t they come back with) the ball is in their court. If you insist on adding more -'any action you may bring will be vigorously defended' along with 'we will not correspond further on this matter' will do.

 

As stated Daveport Lyons never won a defended action in the same circumstances. Their operation relied on the same threats and bluster to extract money from the faint hearted.

 

If it was me I would have tired of this by now and simply said 'Put up or shut up' but thats up to you guys.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant take the credit for this as its come from Slyck.com, makes interesting reading and may help anyone replying with a LOD to ACS:Law. It is from the Government Digital Britain consultation paper.

 

icon_post_target.gifby Townie » Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:39 pm

Time on my hands wrote:Consultation on Legislation to Address Illicit P2P File-Sharing

Starting Date: 16-06-09

Closing Date: 29-09-09

 

This consultation sets out the Government’s legislative approach for addressing the problem of illicit use of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharing technology to exchange unlawful copies of copyright material.

 

http://www.berr.gov.uk/consultations/page51696.html

 

 

Having read many times how ACS/DL or whoever insist there is, despite us all knowing there is none, a requirement to secure a wireless network. Reading the above consultation paper I came across this little snippet on page 33.

 

Quote:

 

• There is no legal obligation on consumers to secure their wireless routers or to check to

ensure their security has been breached. All ISPs as a matter of course offer some

form of protection for wireless connections, although they cannot ensure that

consumers install or use it correctly. It is also the case that many of the standard or

recommended protections can be breached with a little expertise.

In other words, while the process by which rights holders is reliable at identifying the internet

connection used, it cannot be regarded as a reliable indication that the broadband subscriber

identified was the individual responsible for the infringement or will have knowledge of the

individual responsible. This could have implications for any decisions to impose more punitive

sanctions under the code, such as requiring a more robust level of evidence.

These issues would need to be addressed as part of the notification – for example giving

directions to information on how to properly secure a wireless connection or information on the

legal position and the way in which P2P technologies operate.

 

Unquote.

 

From the horses mouth ,so as to speak, the Government confirm there is no legal obligation, something to point ACS to the next time they make such a claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, while the process by which rights holders is reliable at identifying the internet connection used, it cannot be regarded as a reliable indication that the broadband subscriber identified was the individual responsible for the infringement or will have knowledge of the

individual responsible.

 

They are dead wrong about it being reliable with regard to the Internet connection used. IP address spoofing is both simple and commonplace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just received a 3rd letter off ACS after sending my second letter of denial 4 weeks ago. Its definately a template as it starts off by stating that to date they have received neither payment or response from me! (untrue they responded to my 1st letter of denial). I was working at the time and date in question and couldn't have downloaded scooter but they wouldn't listen and still demanded the £500.07. Anyway this latest letter gives me 7 days to pay or compromise the original sum and states I am at real or immediate risk of proceedings being issued against me without further reference or recourse to me. It goes on to say if they do issue proceedings they will seek an award for damages together with an order for immediate interim payment of £1000. It says they urge me to use this final opportunity to settle early within the timeframe and failing which they reserve the right to issue proceedings without and further notice or warning. It also says if I am unsure what to do to seek independant legal advice from a solicitor or CAB! What should I do? just ignore this or write to them again but they are just ignoring what I have to say? Thay are very Menacing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had my 2nd letter this morning from that so called law firm ACS:Law.

 

I sent my first LOD back to them in June (when I had my first letter) & they have said I did not respond to their 1st letter & I had 21 days to reply.

The fee has doubled from the first letter, it was originally £500 and now in the 2nd letter it has doubled to a £1000.

I thought it was up to the courts to decide how much money you get fined & not this Mickey Mouse law firm ACS.

They also say in the 2nd letter to pay within 7 days.

Another thing thats bugged me is the bank details they have sent out with the letters, What law firm asks for information like that!

Oh yeah & the signature at the bottom of the page, is it a signature.

 

Will be interesting what Crossley's next tactics will be, I personally think he is trying to scare us all & he won't have a penny out of me.

As im going to say show me the evidence Crossley of what I am supposed to of done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,got my second letter today as well.same thing that they said that i did not responed to their first letter,the thing is i sent by registered post ,phoned the post office and they said it had been received and it had been signed for,and they will email me the proof,guess what acs law will get in the next post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly they are just using the standard DCA tactic of sending out a load of computer-generated letters at predetermined intervals, irrespective of whether you have corresponded with them previously. Which makes me think that it is even less likely to go anywher near a court room, as that kind of behaviour is unlikely to go down very well with judge.

 

When you look at it logically what would they be putting before a court?

  • We optained an IP address using a secret method, which we will not divulge, and so cannot prove that it is accurate in any way, shape, or form.
  • Even if the IP address is accurate, we cannot how that the defendant did the actual downloading, or even that any downloading took place
  • We are completely ignoring any letters of denial that we receive
  • We are claiming damages that bear no relation at all to our actual losses, and changing the amounts demaned as well

 

I don't think so somehow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have recieved a second letter in the post today, saying the same thing as above, I however never responded to their 1st letter so I will be sending a lod off by reg post tomorrow! Has anyone had anything other than a 2nd letter? Has this gone any further with anyone else???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recieved a 2nd letter today but did not respond to the first one. Mine if for supposedly downloading Scooter...which i certainly did not do, but cannot vouch for everyone who has ever been on my pc. What should i do???

They are now asking fo £500 or it will go to court.

 

Has anyone tried the tele no?

 

Thanks

Worried:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi People,

 

i received my second letter today - exactly 3 months after the first letter. I ignored the 1st. and will continue to ignore the rest

 

I for one wont be paying a penny, I've never downloaded "jumping all over the world" by Scooter, and neither would i want to (its naff to say the least). I currently have Sky Broadband, and they provided me with a router which is password protected and does not allow p2p traffic through, so how on earth they have come to this conclusion is beyond me. They say i have downloaded this audio via emule which is p2p software and uses certain ports, all of which are barred when using the crappy router that sky provide.

 

I've also heard on many occasions that ISP are selling this info onto companies so that they can conduct this kind of behavior.

 

I'm a network engineer and i work for a mobile broadband company (no names) i can see on a daily basis what users are doing, what protocols they use (and yes that includes p2p over HTTPS connections) and what sites they visit, we have even developed scripts / programs to determine behaviors for certain users. In no way shape or form do we send letters or block users from using certain services, however stopping people from using services like skype, p2p, voIP etc is extremely easy.

 

I'm baffled to understand why the government is not asking ISP's to block users from downloading over p2p, for most ISP's if not all, its the single highest consumer of bandwidth in the network (if you allow it), most customers just leave their p2p applications running all day & night.

 

I would love to hear some more info from watchdog on this, and would love to hear any outcome from any court cases, none of which i bet have been attended to by the accusers.

 

Jeffers

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4978 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...