Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • There's no facility for a settlement "out of court" as such. But matters that are started under the "Single Justice" (SJ) Procedure can often be concluded without the defendant appearing. The SJ procedure, as the name suggests, involves a single magistrate, sitting in an office with a legal advisor, dealing with matters "on papers" only. Nobody else can attend. The SJ deals with straightforward guilty pleas. Anything where the SJ believes the defendant should appear, or which should be dealt with by the "ordinary" court are adjourned o a hearing in the normal magistrates'  court .As well as this, all defendants have the right to a hearing in the normal court if they wish. Nobody is forced to have their case heard under he SJP.  In particular, as far as traffic matters go, a SJ will not disqualify a driver and if a ban is to be considered, the case will be passed over to the normal court. Because, following your SD, you will be pleading Not Guilty (and offering the "deal"), your case would usually be heard in the normal court, meaning a personal appearance. To be honest, performing your SD at the court is a more straightforward way of doing things. It avoids any possible hitches involved in serving he SD on the court. But of course, as I said, most courts have backlogs which mean an SD may not be quickly accommodated. If you do end up doing your SD before a solicitor, check with them the protocol for serving it on the court. Do let us know what the solicitor says about Wednesday.    
    • Welcome to posting on CAG cabot, people will be along soon to help you try to sort this out. Please complete this:  
    • Quotes of the day penny mordaunt came out swinging with her broadsword, and promptly decapitated sunak while Nigel Farage, representing Reform UK, made contentious claims about immigration policies, which were swiftly fact-checked during the debate.   Good question though raised at labour about the 2 child benefit cap, which I broadly agree with, but the tory 'trap' assumes tory thinking - rather than child centric thinking. There should be no incentives to have kids as a financial way of life paid for by everyone else ... ... BUT the kids should not be made to suffer for the decisions of their parents Free school meals would feed the kids, improve their ability to learn, and incentivise them to go to school. As an added benefit ... it would invest in our nations future.   How far this should go is a matter for costing, social intent and future path of the nation, but not feeding our nations kids is an abomination. There should be at least one free school meal per day for every child who attends school. Full Stop. Its the cheapest and most effective investment in our future we could make.
    • Hey people, I've been browsing this amazing forum for the past year and recieved a letter today which has made me require some help. Received a claim form from Cabot in the Civil National Business Centre in regards to an Aqua Credit Card taken out in 2018. I failed to make payments due to financial hardship and have not taken out any credit or uses any forms of credit since. Received a lot of letters from Cabot and their solicitors Mortimer Clarke which I've ignored    By an agreement between New Day Ltd RE Aqua& the Defendant on or around 26/03/2018 ('ths Agreement) New Day Ltd RE Aqua agreed to issue Defendant with a credit card. The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due. The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice. The Agreement was assigned to the named Claimant. Cabot Credit Management Group Limited, acting as servicing agent of the named Claimant through its Appointed Representative (Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited), has arranged for these proceedings to be issued in the name of the Claimant. The named Claimant may be entitled to claim interest under the Agreement but does not seek such interest and instead claims interest under Section 69(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% p.a.from03/03/2023 until date of issue only, or alternatively such interest as the Court thinks fit THE NAMED CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS 1. 3800.82 2. INTEREST OF 379.84 3. Costs How would I go about this and what could happen? I don't remember much details about the card either.
    • cause like you said in post one, 99% of people think these are FINES (it now reads charge). and wet themselves and cough up. they are not, they are speculative invoices because the driver supposedly broke some imaginary contract by driving onto privately owned land which said owner may or may not have signed some 99% fake contract with a private parking co years ago, thats already expired or has not been renewed or annually paid to employ them dx  
  • 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 4973 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

I received my first letter in April sent of my LOD, then a month later received a second letter stating that they were doubling the original amount. I have just replied with a second LOD, not sure if I will hear anymore. Have sent all correspondence to Which magazine.

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

Hey guys, just a quick question regarding 'evacuate the dancefloor' lettter. What evidences to you have on your letters? I've got p2p protocol: bittorrent 6.2.0, related title: top 40 singles UK (2009-08-16). Just wondering if the letters are all the same or they tend to generate different evidences.

I received a letter 2 weeks ago and planning to send my first LOD by the end of this week...

Link to post
Share on other sites

All letters will be almost identical until somebody shows us otherwise. All letters will include an IP address which will almost certainly be related to your connection unless ip spoofing has happened or a mistake by the ISP has been made, (extremely rare). Other information on the letter will the file name they have stated was uploaded on your connection and the client the file was downloaded with.

 

They used to list the monitoring company but as of recent it seems more and more people are not being given this information. Probably due to their new monitoring company NG3 systems being totally unknown and as such their evidence could be in extreme doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ACS Law are using a company called NG3 Systems Limited as their "IT forensic experts"

NG3 Systems Limited are a Private Limited Company. Company No.06228621

The nature of their business is listed as Hardware consultancy and Software publishing.

Company registered on 26/04/2007

Operates from 31 Albatross Close, London, E6 5NX. - Imagery suggests this is a block of flats. Demographics sites support this "mainly 2 bed flats"

Current Appointments: 1 Director - Iranian, Name: TORABI, ALIREZA.

1 Secretary - Iranian, Name: GHALANSOUI, ANOOSHA.

Supporting Evidence: Various web searches show results of TORABI, ALIREZA involved in IP packet capture discussions.

 

freebsd-questions - week of 17 March 2008

 

http://unix.derkeiler.com/pdf/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/net/2008-03/msg00291.pdf

 

Subject also hosts a website called zangbar.com

 

[...] zangbar.com: "Alireza Torabi" owns about 4 other domains View these domains > is a contact on the whois record of 3 domains

2 registrars have maintained records for this domain since 2006-12-20 with 1 drop. This domain has changed name servers 6 times over 1 year.

Registrant:

Alireza Torabi

Alireza Torabi

London, LONDON W1

GB

Registrar: NAMESDIRECT

Domain Name: ZANGBAR.COM

Created on: 20-OCT-09

Expires on: 20-OCT-11

Last Updated on: 10-JAN-10

 

just found this from forums in April. As youtube posted earlier "their evidence could be in extreme doubt"

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 had received one of the 495 porn ones, back in April. Had responded with an LOD and have received a 2nd letter about a week ago. They not asking for any extra money. It looks like the letter is explaining what they ment with the first one, responsible for the IP and connection blah blah blah... Gave 28 days to respond.....which I shall, with another LOD. It does play on the nerves some what though. Its pretty shocking that the first letter anyone receives is that demanding money so that they dont take you to court. My, what a fair deal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have such strong evidence against the accused of the alleged infringement, then why has nobody been taken to court ???. Out of the thousands of letters that they send, the whole things very fishy. Which is why there appears to be no court action brought against people. I can not believe how long the SRA are taking in investigating this firm. It is as plain as black and white that there is something seriously wrong with their practices. Other professions would have to account for there actions. So when are ACS Law, or Mr Crossley ?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have such strong evidence against the accused of the alleged infringement, then why has nobody been taken to court ???. Out of the thousands of letters that they send, the whole things very fishy. Which is why there appears to be no court action brought against people. I can not believe how long the SRA are taking in investigating this firm. It is as plain as black and white that there is something seriously wrong with their practices. Other professions would have to account for there actions. So when are ACS Law, or Mr Crossley ?.

 

I suspect because it costs time and money to go too Court and it's a 50-50 result.

 

Just imagine if they lost, the whole thing stops there and then as the precedent would be that their evidence is not reliable in UK Law.

 

Even if they won, they would only achieve the ability to plaster it all over their web site.

 

Nope, threatening to take people to Court is far more profitable to the tune of £1,000,000 to date, so why risk spoiling it all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing to think about is there is a post over on Slyc which points to a German expert of an evaluation of the sotware used by one of these companies (Logistep) These were the people who were used in the initial claims by Davernport Lyons. It is the company which digiprotect used initially before setting up their own system.

 

The expert said that while the software looks to work correctly there are flaws and that no information is actually stored, ie the data that was supposedly uploaded / downloaded so if they all work like that how can they prove that a substantial part of the work was made available which is what is required under CDPA rules.

 

It can also not tell if your wifi was unsecured or hacked.

 

I think this is where the problem lies if you have all of this inforamtion something which the DEB will require then why this cat and mouse game, however because the DEB isn't compulsory this system will just carry on regardless as I can't imagine the SRA doing anything about it. It seems to me that they are just another toothless body which doesn't like upsetting any of the people it is supposed to keep in check.

 

Lets be hones the Davenport Lyons affair still rumbles on and it's only taken well over a year to get nowhere. It would appear that solistors view the SRA with contempt which I'm sure is how the people effected by this are starting to feel. I would have thought that after such stinging critism from the Lords it might have sparked them into action but apparently not. So onward and upward lets see how many of the general public we can scare and torment for year after year with no resolution in sight, and nothing stopping NPO after NPO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone actually just ignored these letters and seen what happens?

 

I recieved one for Cascada???? where they are requesting that I pay £295. Some things that interested me was that a) they dont have any real proof that would stand up in court (and this would be small claims court by the way because it's under £1000). b) How do they justify these charges. I did not download this file but even if I did, why would I pay more than the £10 max it is worth on itunes etc. (they are assuming that you share files, but have absaloutly no proof of this or it would say so in the letter). c) the isp address in question is currently still in use by someone else and registered to a different hostname. (you can search isp addresses via google).

 

I have spoke to my friend who studied law at degree level. He doesn't seem to think that I should take this seriously and just ignore it. He said that they will continue to send letters until they get bored, but he feels that this is a fishing mission aimed to extort money from people that worry or stress more than others. (they have not taken anyone to court as of yet, or so I believe)

 

He also stated that they cant just turn round and claim more and more money with each letter as this has to justified and they have already given you a settlement figure (some people have suggested that they double the ammount requested in second letter?)

 

So who knows, I think personally I will wait for the second letter and take it from there. Then if the money has doubled I can throw that in the pot for an explanation as well.

 

What are your thoughts on this? Is it too risky?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mrkerr, I ignored my first letter which I received a few months back and havent heard anything yet. Some people who replied have been contacted again, with the price going up.

 

Im not stating its is better to ignore, as some see it as risky, but its the route Ive chosen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply back to part 36 asking how the settlement sum was determined. I'm sure its a law he has to comply with this request, make his life hell. Apparently he doesn't like these kinda of requests. Oh also deny as well!

Link to post
Share on other sites

view the SRA with contempt that is how we should veiw these toothless wonders,after all they receive an income of sorts from MR CROSSLEY so why should they lose money because of a few complaints,there words not mine they only estimated a few hundred complaints,what a load of bull so i would say i strongly view the SRA with utter contempt

my opinion only

as for acs crossley the guy is the lowest creep on this earth playing on peoples fears your complaints would be better of going to watchdog and which ...for what its worth

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

peter_piper316,

 

I received a letter in April involving Media CAT and have had a second letter. It was the standard "we don't accept...based on a template...from internet..." crap, oh, and the claim is now for double the amount! (part 36 offer)

 

 

I also received the same letter about two weeks ago, sent off my second LOD last week.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I can't tell everyone how helpful they have been. I literally had just signed on the dotted line and was about to post it off when I thought I'd have one last look on the internet about ACS.... Which brought me here! Thank god!

Saved me £295! The letter I recieved was for Evacuate The Dance Floor. Going to be sending my LOD off soon. Going from what people are saying, I am expecting to recieve a second letter requesting double the amount? I have a couple of questions which I would like answered if possible!

1) Has anyone recieved a further letter after letter number 2, if so, what did it say and what did you do?

2) Has anyone actually put in their LOD why they have sent these exact word for word letters out to 100's of people which in it self, sugests its not legit and gaurantees they have no legs to stand on!?

3) He is the work of the devil and I just don't understand how he is still getting away with this. (granted - that wasn't a question, and just a rant! :-D)

Thanks again people...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I can't tell everyone how helpful they have been. I literally had just signed on the dotted line and was about to post it off when I thought I'd have one last look on the internet about ACS.... Which brought me here! Thank god!

Saved me £295! The letter I recieved was for Evacuate The Dance Floor. Going to be sending my LOD off soon. Going from what people are saying, I am expecting to recieve a second letter requesting double the amount? I have a couple of questions which I would like answered if possible!

 

1) Has anyone recieved a further letter after letter number 2, if so, what did it say and what did you do?

2) Has anyone actually put in their LOD why they have sent these exact word for word letters out to 100's of people which in it self, sugests its not legit and gaurantees they have no legs to stand on!?

3) He is the work of the devil and I just don't understand how he is still getting away with this. (granted - that wasn't a question, and just a rant! :-D)

 

Thanks again people...

 

Hi rkojosh,

 

In answer to your questions:

1) Yes, you will most likely receive another two or three letters after letter number 2 - I was accused of downloading Scooter - Jumping all over the world last year (I didn't think anyone would want to upload that...). After a 5 or 6 letter ping-pong all correspondence ceased (even though the last letter stated that they were filing for a summons).

 

2) They are legally allowed to do it... As stupid as the law is they can send out mass shots like these. What a wonderful legal system we have.

 

3) It's a given that no one would **** on him if he was on fire

 

Oh and finally... The whole "do I reply, don't I" argument.

Whilst I cannot be 100% sure about this, most sources indicate responding to the first letter. Subsequent letters are up to your discretion.

If Madonna would stop adopting third world children and pigs would fly and some of these cases went to court then it would bode better that you responded, but what's the chances of that happening?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the first round of letters that went out in April, has anyone had a follow-up 2nd letter - I'm particularly interested in those involving "Media CAT".

 

I did. I sent off an LOD immediately after receipt of the first letter. Received a second later days later basically just asking me to prove that it wasn't my internet connection. Also, "strongly" recommending i obtain legal advice. They state that they are confident that, despite my reporting of their activities to Consumer Direct, they are not breaching any legal rules

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you were waiting for things to quieten down, take a look at Companies House website. Then search company number 07213422. It appears as though an expansion is on the horizon.

 

Probably not. Companies frequently use their solicitors address as their own registered address. Larper could be in any sort of business and may just be clients of ACS.

 

Recently sent a firm LOD myself having received one of the Pron variety demanding £495.00. I anticipate the boringly predictable follow-up with the ludicrous accusation of 'template' usage / and or 'questionaire' in due course.

 

Whilst there seems to be plenty here about LODs, etc, there doesn't seem to be much discussion regarding the level of 'damages' levied by ACS Law

on those who may be guilty?

 

In the event you DID upload (say) a film. How many copies would you have uploaded (just a partial copy? one copy? more?). Remember your upload bandwidth will be significantly less than your download.

 

What does that equate to in lost profit? On one £15 DVD - less than £10. Plus costs - a quid or so for the court paperwork, standard letter, etc?

 

So EVEN IF you were guilty - why on earth would you pay these ridiculous amounts of 'damages'? Why not offer, say, £50, in full and final settlement? Obviously ACS would try and extract more, but would they have a leg to stand on if you had offered them an entirely realistic (even generous?) sum?

Edited by HenriIV
wrongly worded
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4973 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...