Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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 4974 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 4974 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...