Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You can easily argue your case with no sign on the nearest parking sign
    • Same issue got a fine yesterday for parking in suspended bay which was ending at 6:30 yesterday, next thing I see a fine 15 minutes before it. The sign was obstructed 
    • Hi all, an update on the case as the deadline for filing the WS is tomorrow i.e., 14 days before the hearing date: 7th June. Evri have emailed their WS today to the court and to myself. Attached pdf of their WS - I have redacted personal information and left any redactions/highlights by Evri. In the main: The WS is signed by George Wood. Evri have stated the claim value that I am seeking to recover is £931.79 including £70 court fees, and am putting me to strict proof as to the value of the claim. Evri's have accepted that the parcel is lost but there is no contract between Evri and myself, and that the contract is with myself and Packlink They have provided a copy of the eBay Powered By Packlink Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) to support their argument the contractual relationship is between myself and Packlink, highlighting clause 3a, e, g of these T&Cs. They further highlight clause 14 of the T&Cs which states that Packlink's liability is limited to £25 unless enhanced compensation has been chosen. They have contacted Packlink who informed them that I had been in contact with Packlink and raised a claim with Packlink and the claim had been paid accordingly i.e., £25 in line with the T&Cs and the compensated postage costs of £4.82. They believe this is clear evidence that my contract is with Packlink and should therefore cease the claim against Evri. Evri also cite Clause 23 of the pre-exiting commercial agreement between the Defendant and Packlink, which states:  ‘Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 A person who is not a party to this Agreement shall have no rights under the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999 to rely upon or enforce any term of this Agreement provided that this does not affect any right or remedy of the third party which exists or is available apart from that Act.’ This means that the Claimant cannot enforce third party rights under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and instead should cease this claim and raise a dispute with the correct party.   Having read Evri's WS and considered the main points above, I have made these observations: Evri have not seen/read my WS (sent by post and by email) as they would have recognised the claim value is over £1000 as it includes court fees, trial fees, postage costs and interests, and there is a complete breakdown of the different costs and evidence. Evri accepts the parcel is lost after it entered their delivery network - again, this is in my WS and is not an issue in dispute. Evri mentions the £25 and £4.82 paid by Packlink - Again, had they read the WS, they would have realised this is not an issue in dispute. Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states:  (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line. (c)  Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency   This supports the view that once a user (i.e, myself) selects a transport agency (i.e Evri) that best suits the user's needs, the user (i.e, myself) enters into a contract with the chosen transport agency (i.e, myself). Therefore, under the T&Cs, there is a contract between myself and Evri. Evri cites their pre-existing agreement with Packlink and that I cannot enforce 3rd party rights under the 1999 Act. Evri has not provided a copy of this contract, and furthermore, my point above explains that the T&Cs clearly explains I have entered into a contract when i chose Evri to deliver my parcel.  As explained in my WS, i am the non-gratuitous beneficiary as my payment for Evri's delivery service through Packlink is the sole reason for the principal contract coming into existence. Clearly Evri have not read by WS as the above is all clearly explained in there.   I am going to respond to Evri's email by stating that I have already sent my WS to them by post/email and attach the email that sent on the weekend to them containing my WS. However, before i do that, If there is anything additional I should further add to the email, please do let me know. Thanks. Evri Witness Statement Redacted v1 compressed.pdf
    • Thank you. I will get on to the SAR request. I am not sure now who the DCA are - I have a feeling it might be the ACI group but will try to pull back the letter they wrote from her to see and update with that once I have it. She queried it initially with 118 118 when she received the default notice I think. Thanks again - your help and support is much appreciated and I will talk to her about stopping her payments at the weekend.
    • you should email contact OCMC immediately and say you want an in person hearing.   stupid to not
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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 4957 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

I agree. I have also had a letter last week demanding £300 for one song which they claim I downloaded 6 months ago. For now should I just ignore the letter and hope it goes away

 

harbs, consensus here is you do reply with a letter of denial, as it is, unfortunately, a legimate letter you have received

Link to post
Share on other sites

i was going to post a letter off already got it written, but i have contacted my mp. she has taken the matter up in contacting the authoraties and will be dealing with it on my behalf.. maybe could be a good course of action. if we get more mp to handle it this injustice might stop

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recieved a letter dated 3/06/10 regarding the download of "evacuate the dancefloor" on 21/08/09.

 

ACS law are looking for £295 within the 21 day period to settle the matter.

 

looking at previous posts it would appear that if i was to pay even though i didnt download the song/ album then the likely hood is that i would then continue to recieve letters at later dates looking for further compensation for other items that have been downloaded via my IP address.

 

Regarding the LOD. There is a web site called www.beingthreatened.com which has a letter that you can use as a template and has other advice which seems pretty helpful.

 

I have spoken with SKY who have on my account that they recieved a request for my details due to these proceedings. (date 14/04/10). have SKY been duped or has this been legally obtained?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if SKY has been told that they must give out your details, why have they not notified you that there is a problem with your account. When I contacted SKY when I received my first letter in April they denied any acknowledgement of a court order. I even contacted the legal department, which got me know where. Well I have just sent off my second letter of denial today. Now I am just waiting for my third letter from them, as I do not think that,that will be the last that I hear from them. But you never know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I am just waiting for my third letter from them, as I do not think that,that will be the last that I hear from them. But you never know.

 

You have made your point, (Twice), if they come back again just ignore them.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have made your point, (Twice), if they come back again just ignore them.

 

David

 

Yeah, I agree there will be know further correspondence from me I have made that clear in the letter. Do not want to get into letter ping pong with them, I have wasted enough of my time initially on worrying about this whole thing.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Help!... I got my first letter from ACS LAW, must have reached my door almost a month ago, and have not writen or compose my LOD yet, I recieved it abit late. due to a holiday or more than likely been abit confused about it :confused:. and clearly passed my 21 period date ..

.I think its the date when it arrived by post, and not the date on top of the letter

After tooth combing through these posts, it seems to be a must to write a Letter of denial.

Would it effect my First LOD if it was late a two or so weeks late from the 21 period or

am i in trouble .

anyway I am not paying either way... Court or no court because

i didn't do it ....:(

 

Edited by MothBall88
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just write and send your LOD off straight away, then like the rest of us wait and see what happens. It is likely that they will write to you again, asking for double the amount. Like they have done with the majority of victims on this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it effect my First LOD if it was late a two or so weeks late from the 21 period or

 

am i in trouble .

 

In answer to your question - no.

 

Sending an LOD is indeed considered the thing to do. However despite their upbeat website, ASC have yet to provide any evidence that they have taken anyone (who made it plain they would defend) to court, let alone won a case.

 

I wouldn't suggest it but I'm pretty certain even if you wrote 'F*** off, I will see you in court' the result would be the same.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you! Zero thats a piece of mind...:)

Somehow i compose it by using the templates as guides

By royal mail say. and not an email.. Maybe sent the LOD recorded deliverly...

 

Glad to join everyone who posts here... ... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, apparently Cascada had a No 1 with this on July 5th, even tho my letter states the "work" was released on the 17th July. Now I'm really confused. Is there another track with the same name i'm confusing this with. Or did bill, ben and little weed (the rights owners - and "joint owners") not have anything to do with the actual single release that got to no. 1?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you! Zero thats a piece of mind...:)

Somehow i compose it by using the templates as guides

By royal mail say. and not an email.. Maybe sent the LOD recorded deliverly...

 

Glad to join everyone who posts here... ... :D

 

Always send any correspondence to ACS Law via recorded delivery, so that you have proof that it has been sent and that they have received it. We are not dealing with genuine people.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully this is more bad exposure for this disgraceful firm. With bad publicity, they might think twice about continuing. Like other firms that have worked in this area and then stopped. Though I do not think that Crossley and his associates have any sort of conscience, so it will probably go straight other their heads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree -

 

My interpretation of the proposed code, and in particular the following parts;

 

3.2, 4.4, 5.6 and 7.5

 

is that it will effectively end the ACS:Law business model as it currently stands. It seems that the whole copyright infringement "business" will be cleaned up -

 

  • Copyright owners will be able deal directly with ISPs.
  • Allegations of copyright infringement will have to be evidentially robust and accurate, and proven to be so.
  • The process of matching IP addresses to subscribers will have to be proved to be accurate.
  • Provisions for grounds of appeal on which a subscriber may rely.

The sooner this comes in. the better.

 

I agree but there is still one major stumbling block - "The process of matching IP addresses to subscribers will have to be proved to be accurate". Wireless connections can be compromised ie: unsecured network or hacking for example. How can any "process" be completely accurate in these circumstances. Moreover, how can an innocent person whose IP address has been identified as a copyright infringer prove otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if SKY has been told that they must give out your details, why have they not notified you that there is a problem with your account. When I contacted SKY when I received my first letter in April they denied any acknowledgement of a court order. I even contacted the legal department, which got me know where. Well I have just sent off my second letter of denial today. Now I am just waiting for my third letter from them, as I do not think that,that will be the last that I hear from them. But you never know.

 

Oh Sky, BskyB, Easynet. Which one art thou? All p*****g in the same pot of no information.

 

IP adresses are harvested and ISP's identified. ISP's are contacted and informed of the intention of applying to the court for the details of IP address (Norwich Pharmacal Order), and if they will oppose the application. The court order is then obtained and ISP provides the details.

 

Of course Sky knew (or at least someome knew, depending on which department you got through to).

Did you get referred to "coenquiries" - the all new fully automated Sky information service that advises you to "contact ACS Law". (Yeah did that!) They are a complete and utter waste of time and offer no help whatsoever If you push them they will tell you when they recieved the court order. (but you already knew that because you have a copy too!)

What they wont tell you is when they were first notified, of course, because that would have been helpful.

 

.......Oh by the way, we (Sky) have noticed that your downloads have gone over the monthly allowance, again, so we are automatically upgrading you to our "unlimited " package so that you can carry on.... there's nothing to worry about. The increase in your monthly subscription will automatically be applied.

 

I am no longer with Sky Broadband

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4957 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...