Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks jk2054 - email now sent to OCMC requesting an in person hearing.
    • 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.
  • 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 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

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

 

I wouldn't even waste a stamp on ACS. Email is fine.:D

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

One thing that concerns me is the fact that all advise STATES the only way to stop them is to not pay. People who are guilty SHOULD pay, so the two seem to contradict each other and will always lead to a flow of cash....

 

What people really need to do is constantly complain to all the said regulators / watchdog etc. Nothing been changed within a month? complain again and again and again and again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that concerns me is the fact that all advise STATES the only way to stop them is to not pay. People who are guilty SHOULD pay, so the two seem to contradict each other and will always lead to a flow of cash....

 

What people really need to do is constantly complain to all the said regulators / watchdog etc. Nothing been changed within a month? complain again and again and again and again.

 

They aren't really concerned if you're innocent or guilty, that's not their primary aim. Don't think they are doing this out of concern for copyright holders. They are doing this to earn £££s and lots of it! So if you pay then all you're doing is funding their next round of letters etc. The SRA need to get tough with Mr Crossleys scheme and quick!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So whilst the advise for guilty people has to be "seek legal advise from a professional", people should read a little more deeply into that and realise that it is only said because in the eyes of the law is the right thing to say ;).

Edited by youtube
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh on a side note, any one accused of using a torrent should note that during a torrent transfer, the only information that is divulged between the computers talking to each other is the IP address (of a router) the client being used e.g bit torrent / vuze and the version of said software. NO information regarding, computer name, network MAC address is every divulged over this connection. So all in all you have as much right to claim copyrighted material you have rights too was downloaded by anybody whos ip address you can gain access too. THAT is how poor this evidence is.

 

The BBC could slam millions of us for fines just for accessing their site, they would log our IP address, make up some file sharing log and claim we did it, how could we ever disproved it!!!!

 

DO NOT PAY UP TO THIS **EDITED**!

Edited by car2403
Removing potentially libellous comments
Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread really should carry a health warning ;)

 

There's a number of new members joining to share their specific story regarding this debarcle. When reading their stories, consider that you don't know those people or their motives for posting. I'd like to say that everyone that comes to CAG is open and honest, here to help or be helped, but we know that isn't always the case. If the story is unbelieveably true, it probably shouldn't be believed. ;)

 

Oh, it would be useful if we could stick to the forum rules. I know emotions run high, but we have the future of the forum/site to consider while posting.

 

Health warning over :lol:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Very Interesting !. The first would seem to imply that the less you say the better, but i wonder what difference being on benefits or having a solicitor would make ?

 

As for the 2nd one, am I correct in my reading of clause 2, where Digital Protect admit to putting copyrighted works on P2P networks with the aim of using them as bait to catch people ?

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the same for NG Systems ?.

 

Good question!

 

Is this the "monitoring program" ACS:LAW are relying on to provide their "evidence"?!

 

From their website:

 

eyeNet

eyeNet Is a Powerful & Fast Traffic Analayser Featuring DPI - Deep Packet Inspection Technology

 

Google: ng3sys .com

NG3 Systems Ltd

Not exactly a well known company is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Kinda hard to understand with the broken English, its a shame we don't have access to the actuall document.

 

From what I can make out a rating of 10 is certain win in court. Possibility to have admitted the offence but not settled.

 

rating of 5 is what seems to be given to people who flat out deny it.

 

any one going through a lawyer gets a rating of 3 and its not really worth pursuing.

 

This does not related to the possible way ACS could be operating though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

My dad recieved a letter from ACS last june, the first letter was asking for £500, he then got a second around 6 weeks later demading £1000, then in the October of 2009 another asking for £350.

 

He ignored the first 2 (against my advice) but i sent a rather, um, shall we say, stern LOD in reply to the 3rd. We have not heard anthing since this was sent (early oct 2009). D o you think he;s decided to move on or should we expect it to pop up again in the future?

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

My dad recieved a letter from ACS last june, the first letter was asking for £500, he then got a second around 6 weeks later demading £1000, then in the October of 2009 another asking for £350.

 

He ignored the first 2 (against my advice) but i sent a rather, um, shall we say, stern LOD in reply to the 3rd. We have not heard anthing since this was sent (early oct 2009). D o you think he;s decided to move on or should we expect it to pop up again in the future?

 

Many thanks

 

 

Well I think he must have moved on by now, judging by the amount of letters that he has sent to others. It surely does not take that long to take people to court. There obviously is know evidence there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great site - thanks for all your efforts.

 

I have had one of these letters and replie with a letter of denial before reading this thread but after finding the Speculative Invoicing Handbook.

 

I can say with absolute certainty that I didnt download the file that I am being threatened about although clearly I cant prove that. ACS:Law did get the correct IP address for my broaband connection.

 

A couple of questions:-

1. Is it possible for someone to spoof an IP address with p2p software?

2. If someone has managed to hack my wifi, am I legally responsible for it?

 

Once again, many thanks for a great thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bob92101 Yes, P2P networks usually throw in a bunch of random IP addresses into the swarm and no, you're currently not legally responsible for this infringement if you didn't do it or authorise another to do it. So someone hacking into your WIFI doesn't make you responsible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great site - thanks for all your efforts.

 

I have had one of these letters and replie with a letter of denial before reading this thread but after finding the Speculative Invoicing Handbook.

 

I can say with absolute certainty that I didnt download the file that I am being threatened about although clearly I cant prove that. ACS:Law did get the correct IP address for my broaband connection.

 

A couple of questions:-

1. Is it possible for someone to spoof an IP address with p2p software?

2. If someone has managed to hack my wifi, am I legally responsible for it?

 

Once again, many thanks for a great thread.

 

1. Yes it sure is and torrent programs always throw random numbers in so yes.

2. Not to my knowledge, after all if you've been hacked it's not your fault.

 

However if you get another letter with a questionnaire, don't fill it out, just send another letter of denial and maybe put a note in there about taking sanctions to get them to stop harrasing you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ shenme & wonkyfunk303 - thanks for the replies.

 

I dont really know anything much about p2p but I dont see how P2P networks can throw random IP addresses into the swarm - surely they can only communiate between genuine IP address?

 

So far as my wifi being hacked - I will have to bone up on wifi and keep it switched off until then!

 

Again TVM

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's cool! No probs! As for the wifi, it's not a legal obligation to have a secure wireless connection, but it sure helps keeping these pathetic vultures away!

 

It's a legal way to extort money, or attempt to! Well I'm over my 21days, sent later from day 2, not heard anything.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ shenme & wonkyfunk303 - thanks for the replies.

 

I dont really know anything much about p2p but I dont see how P2P networks can throw random IP addresses into the swarm - surely they can only communiate between genuine IP address?

 

So far as my wifi being hacked - I will have to bone up on wifi and keep it switched off until then!

 

Again TVM

 

P2P IP address may not actually exist or they may be geniune users hiding beind a proxy or perhaps a spoofed IP address, this was demonstrated on TV recently, was it 'Click' ?. I cant remember now.

 

Obviously nothing is 'unhackable' but wifi routers should be pretty safe.

 

It should have:-

 

1. WPA2 turned on (the higest level on encryption, other options are WPA and WEP

 

2. SSID turned off, (so other can't 'see' your network).

 

3. Change the derafult IP address, its normally 192.168.1.1 or maybe 192.168.0.1 (Sky routers)

 

4. Change default name & password, these are normally admin & password or something equally guessable.

 

5. MAC Filtering (this only allows specific puters to use the network).

 

As you can see there are lots of options, although normally only the first one is considered essential.

 

If you need help, if you have a router from your ISP they should help you, or if not Netgear support is good, I havnt used other makes.

 

A wise move is to make a backup of your current settings before making too many changes.

 

Remember DO NOT make any admissions to ACS about your router or anything, a simple LOD is all that is needed.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

not sent my leeter off yet but got 1 back from my MP

 

she has contacted the soliciter regulators for the best course of action and she has also requested what possible action acs law are being investigat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone!My mum received one of these letters a while back, I can't remember what month of the top of my head. They wanted £495 from us.I know for a fact that the file they claim we downloaded was not downloaded at all.I explained the situation to my mum and following some online advice I found her, she sent of a LOD.A few days ago they sent their typical 'you have 14 days to cough up or we'll take you to court response'.She is rather worried about it though and wants to go see a solicitor, I'm worried if she does this then she'll end up paying out money she doesn't need to.Could someone please just lay out the basics on acs law and their procedure so I can show her please, she really doesn't understand what they are.Many thanks all!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering how many people from the last batch (the £495 'porn' ones) that were received about April, have heard anything else?

 

Looks like the guy above has just heard again, I never sent a LOD and havent heard anything else. Whats others experiences?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering how many people from the last batch (the £495 'porn' ones) that were received about April, have heard anything else?

 

Looks like the guy above has just heard again, I never sent a LOD and havent heard anything else. Whats others experiences?

 

I did receive a 2nd letter saying that i had responded with a template and that the offer had now doubled.

 

I sent another LOD stating that nothing had changed and i did not want and further correspondance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received mine in April and sent off 1 LOD, as yet have not heard anything else. Lets hope that it stays like this although i am still expecting one more letter from them. I intend to send one more back if i get another one and that is it, and state on it that i do not want any further correspondance with them.

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...