Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Man in the middle
      Summons to court for a S87 (1) offence

      By Man in the middle · Posted

      You haven't returned to the thread to give us your views, but a couple of other things strike me which you should consider: 1. You say that at no time was your father's licence revoked by the DVLA. It didn't have to be revoked. It expired in September and his "entitlement to drive" (of which the licence provides proof) expired along with it. He could only continue driving whilst his application was being processed by virtue of s88, and it seems clear to me (based on what you have said) that he was not able to take advantage of the benefits provided by that section. 2. The letter he received threatening to revoke his licence was probably a template letter sent when any medical issues are brought to the attention of the DVLA. But it is clear that beyond September until it was eventually renewed, your father had no valid licence to be revoked. I believe a "not guilty" plea in court will fail. The basic facts are that your father's licence expired in September, it was not renewed until February because the DVLA were looking into his medical declaration and he could not take advantage of s88. So in December he had no licence and no entitlement to drive under s88. The facts that he believed he was fit to drive and that his licence was eventually renewed may mitigate the offence but they do not provide a defence. I also asked whether he had received a summons (very unusual these days) or whether he had received a "Single Justice Procedure Notice". The way to proceed from here differs slightly depending on what he has received so if you let me know, I'll advise further.  
    • Andy111
      General question about CCJ's if not enforced or extended after 6 years

      By Andy111 · Posted

      Well, what I've read from various sources suggest if a CCJ is 6 years old that if becomes pretty much ineffective for enforcement purposes in its original form.  And that if it's about to expire then the claimant needs to apply to the court to extend the original CCJ within the final year.  Even if they do apply for an extension within the 6 years they have to have a very strong argument for doing so such as the person being out of the country or could not be traced, basically show they were actively still perusing the debt I guess. Now if a claimant ever does apply within the 6 years to extend the CCJ, would the person named on if be notified by the court that such an application has been made?.  In my case I've heard nothing from the court so assume no such application has been made.  The original CCJ in my own case is now a year beyond the 6 years of issue so must now make things even less likely again. So whilst the CCJ exists that they have not enforced it in that time must surely make it unlikely they can now take it back to court because as said it would be very rare for a judge to agree to such action now. That said, I guess they now can't use the CCJ to continue with any action for an attachment order to our mortgage either?
    • tobyjugg2
      US elections November 2024 [amended 18/04/24 - HB]

      By tobyjugg2 · Posted

      Donald Trump now banned from countries including Canada and UK as convicted felon WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK There are 37 countries that bar felons from entering, even to visit.  
    • tobyjugg2
      Should we trust Sunak or the next PM to fix the Country's problems? (title revised 24/10/22)

      By tobyjugg2 · Posted

      Well, they trashed their last election manifesto pledges, so nothing new really is it? They just find weasel words to try to claim they haven't actually failed if you just look at it just a little squinted and in this particular way  - and are stupid.
    • honeybee13
      Should we trust Sunak or the next PM to fix the Country's problems? (title revised 24/10/22)

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      I think they're inventing stuff now. They seem to know they won't be around to implement any of it.

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

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

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

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

Delta82
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4966 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

count orlok

count orlok

Posted
Posted

Surely the laws they are using to get IP details are designed to stop peodophiles and terrorists and should not be used in this way. In fact I would have thought what ACS are doing should be outlawed by data protection and privicy laws.

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

multi

multi

Posted
Posted
It's hardly BT's fault, they were ordered by the court along with all the other IPs to disclose the information, if they hadn't they would have been in contempt of court.

 

Not true. Utterly and completely wrong. We know for a fact that these solicitors send out a letter asking the ISP to veryniceleythankyouverymuch not challenge the NPO.

 

If they refuse, they are simply dropped from the NPO. TalkTalk have done exactly this and there has been...

 

No retaliation. Whatsoever. No contempt of court, nothing. They are simply not on any of the latest NPOs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
multi

multi

Posted
Posted
Quite so. I wish anyone luck in finding an ISP that will guarantee to refuse to comply with a court order ;)

 

That's easy.

 

TalkTalk.

 

Neutralize UK File-Sharing Legal Threats – Join TalkTalk | TorrentFreak

 

Although, to be technical, TalkTalk reply to the nice letter they are sent before the NPO with a negative answer. They are not persued any further. They are dropped from the NPO.

 

TalkTalk have stated that they are willing to defend their Choice to refuse the NPO in court if they have to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Scooby Doo69

Scooby Doo69

Posted
Posted
It's hardly BT's fault, they were ordered by the court along with all the other IPs to disclose the information, if they hadn't they would have been in contempt of court.

 

BT could have chosen to contest the NPO. Virgin Media and Talk Talk did and they were dropped from it. If the evidence was not so questionable, they would have still been left on.

 

BT have chosen to sell their customers down the river by being so spineless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
multi

multi

Posted
Posted
Haha really? which ones then?

 

All they can do is defend/oppose the court action and with the data bill about to get passed into statute I cant see any judge opposing a request for information.

 

S.

 

TalkTalk.

 

Neutralize UK File-Sharing Legal Threats – Join TalkTalk | TorrentFreak

 

ACS law are such cowards that they simply do not bother pursuing ISPs who refuse not to contest the court order. They are simply dropped from the NPO instead. Remember, they are working on a no-win-no-fee basis so any sort of expensive action to force ISPs to hand over the info directly eats into their profit margin. Also TalkTakl would have a very good chance of winning if it ever went to Europe on the issue of proportionality.

 

Everyone should be asking why their ISPs are not doing the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The GodMother

The GodMother

Posted
Posted

Hang on if the info they are being given is possibly faulse, as in the p2p info, they how can we for certain say the court order is real?

 

As H&P has said b4 look at how many solicitors are not having action brought against them when they lie, use deceptive methods etc.

Bryan carter has been known to and the evidence posted on here to send docs that look like court docs and to a untrained eye they are. Also how many time have we heard on here that **** have sent letters saying they have contacted the courts ordering the pass judgement against you for failing to file a defence when they clearly know you have??

 

Have anybody actually contacted the courts re the order or even spoken to the ISPs legal team about it?

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jpts33

jpts33

Posted
Posted
It's hardly BT's fault, they were ordered by the court along with all the other IPs to disclose the information, if they hadn't they would have been in contempt of court.

 

Back on P99 a letter has been shown from TBI Solicitors. On that letter it clearly shows that BT "Do not intend to contest it" - the court order to disclose our details that is. TalkTalk showed ACS that they would fight against these court orders and were dropped from any proceedings immediately. Which in my opinion shows how weak a case these solicitors actually have, but IMO shows how much companies like BT don't give a stuff about their customers and this is probably the reason that there is such a high percentage of BT customers getting chased by ACS and TBI.

 

So when my contract ends with BT in a couple of months I too will be dumping them for another company, whether I 'd be better off or not is not really the issue in my eyes, but it will loose BT another long term faithful customer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
derr

derr

Posted
Posted

I contacted BT legal services about the court order and he said they had beenordered too. however at the time I didnt know that TBI were representing more than one company- so I didnt ask him specifically about mine (IN RELATION TO Goldeneye granted by Mrs Justice Proudman) and others are being written to in connection with GMBH media. Is there a way of contacting the courts. the copy of the order I saw was for a judgement in October 2009. I also saw in my letter that it cost the firm £12500 to get the info from the ISP so I take that to mean BT made some money from this. I have just terminated my contract with BT

Link to post
Share on other sites
andydd

andydd

Posted
Posted (edited)
yes but other ISPs are standing on a principle and not giving in.

 

HHmm..The above link about Talk Talk is very interesting although its not 100% clear that ACS Law didnt chase them (in fact Tiscalli) because they didnt roll over and hand over their customers details (like the other ISP's did).

 

Lets face it though, I think it won't be too long before this sorry saga will be bought to an end one way or another, unfortunatly Mr Crossley will be rolling in the money he has received from this dubious process.

 

Andy

Edited by andydd
Link to post
Share on other sites
n11186

n11186

Posted
Posted
HHmm..The above link about Talk Talk is very interesting although its not 100% clear that ACS Law didnt chase them (in fact Tiscalli) because they didnt roll over and hand over their customers details (like the other ISP's did).

 

Lets face it though, I think it won't be too long before this sorry saga will be bought to an end one way or another, unfortunatly Mr Crossley will be rolling in the money he has received from this dubious process.

 

Andy

I was with Tiscali when the take over happend and i got a claim from ACS, and i also was going to leave but it was took over by TalkTalk and because TalkTalk thought more of its customers i decided to stay with them, so it looks like Tiscali screwed its loyal customers befor TalkTalk took over.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaggy123

Shaggy123

Posted
Posted
Nice one and i think all customers should do the same thinking as you M8 LEAVE BT i would not give them any of my business ever again and also tell as many friends and family as pos to protest with you.

 

so is there no point in proving to them that you were not at home in the periods they say you were infringing?

Why are TBI seemingly looking predominantly at July 2009?

I am furious at BT too for getting me into thsi situation- have cancelled my broadband subscription in protest

 

I doubt they'll be bothered although if you were in a 12 month contract expect them to come after you for the remainder of it.

 

Oh, and good luck in finding an ISP who wont comply with a court order.

Link to post
Share on other sites
n11186

n11186

Posted
Posted
I doubt they'll be bothered although if you were in a 12 month contract expect them to come after you for the remainder of it.

 

Oh, and good luck in finding an ISP who wont comply with a court order.

Thanks m8 good luck to you to, but it might pay you to do some research or then again,
Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaggy123

Shaggy123

Posted
Posted
Thanks m8 good luck to you to, but it might pay you to do some research or then again,

 

I'm fully aware Talk Talk didn't comply. Who is to say it wasn't a one off and in future they will?

 

Who is to say the ISP you left wont stitch you up by adding your IP to the list next time the court order comes along?

Link to post
Share on other sites
multi

multi

Posted
Posted
Hang on if the info they are being given is possibly faulse, as in the p2p info, they how can we for certain say the court order is real?

 

As H&P has said b4 look at how many solicitors are not having action brought against them when they lie, use deceptive methods etc.

Bryan carter has been known to and the evidence posted on here to send docs that look like court docs and to a untrained eye they are. Also how many time have we heard on here that **** have sent letters saying they have contacted the courts ordering the pass judgement against you for failing to file a defence when they clearly know you have??

 

Have anybody actually contacted the courts re the order or even spoken to the ISPs legal team about it?

 

People from another site (sorry apparently can't link it, or mention it's name (cough beingthreatened, cough slyck) have been at the hearings. They are 100% real and appear on the court's lists of upcoming cases when they happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
multi

multi

Posted
Posted
Are they?

 

Which ones?

 

Read up. TalkTalk

 

I'm fully aware Talk Talk didn't comply. Who is to say it wasn't a one off and in future they will?

 

Who is to say the ISP you left wont stitch you up by adding your IP to the list next time the court order comes along?

 

They have refused to comply with more than one. This makes it - by defenition - not a one off. They have also stated that they will continue to do so, possibly even once the DEB is passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
n11186

n11186

Posted
Posted
I'm fully aware Talk Talk didn't comply. Who is to say it wasn't a one off and in future they will?

 

Who is to say the ISP you left wont stitch you up by adding your IP to the list next time the court order comes along?

If only i could see into the future, you have a great gift m8, Any chance of next weeks lottery numbers? PS the ISP i left doesn't exist anymore end of Tiscali is now TalkTalk. But hey you stick with whatever isp you wish to stop with and i will do the same.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaggy123

Shaggy123

Posted
Posted
If only i could see into the future, you have a great gift m8, Any chance of next weeks lottery numbers? PS the ISP i left doesn't exist anymore end of Tiscali is now TalkTalk. But hey you stick with whatever isp you wish to stop with and i will do the same.

 

Will do. I'll also remain consistent with my defence of the charges. Feel free to keep contradicting yourself in yours.

 

:roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Caimbeul

Caimbeul

Posted
Posted
I was with Tiscali when the take over happend and i got a claim from ACS, and i also was going to leave but it was took over by TalkTalk and because TalkTalk thought more of its customers i decided to stay with them, so it looks like Tiscali screwed its loyal customers befor TalkTalk took over.

 

Not true, I was previously the Customer of an ISP who were bought by Tiscali and Tiscali then by Talk Talk in May 08. ACS accuse me of supposedly infinging copyright sometime on a date after May 08. This is after Talk Talk took them over yet my supposed details have been given to them??

Link to post
Share on other sites
n11186

n11186

Posted
Posted
Not true, I was previously the Customer of an ISP who were bought by Tiscali and Tiscali then by Talk Talk in May 08. ACS accuse me of supposedly infinging copyright sometime on a date after May 08. This is after Talk Talk took them over yet my supposed details have been given to them??
Yes this is true thats why i think Tiscali cashed in befor TalkTalk took over.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Caimbeul

Caimbeul

Posted
Posted
Yes this is true thats why i think Tiscali cashed in befor TalkTalk took over.

 

Not sure if i follow but if the supposed infringment took place after they were bought by talk talk this would suggest that talk talk let the info go not tiscali (in my case at least). Even then the court request in my case was dated in 2009. This would definately than have to be handled by talk talk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaggy123

Shaggy123

Posted
Posted
Not true, I was previously the Customer of an ISP who were bought by Tiscali and Tiscali then by Talk Talk in May 08. ACS accuse me of supposedly infinging copyright sometime on a date after May 08. This is after Talk Talk took them over yet my supposed details have been given to them??

 

Like I said previously, good luck to people in trying to find an ISP who wont cough up when ordered.

 

Yes this is true thats why i think Tiscali cashed in befor TalkTalk took over.

 

That doesn't make sense. The date of infringement has been given as when he was with Talk Talk. Looks like your foot stomping has come to nothing and you're still with an ISP who coughs. Whatcha gonna do now?

 

Not sure if i follow but if the supposed infringment took place after they were bought by talk talk this would suggest that talk talk let the info go not tiscali (in my case at least). Even then the court request in my case was dated in 2009. This would definately than have to be handled by talk talk.

 

Looks like at some point Talk Talk coughed. They might have stopped coughing now but it appears they have history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4966 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.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...