Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The important thing to know is that MET - although they will send you threat after threat about how they will divert a drone from Ukraine and make it fall on your home - hardly ever do court. Even in the very small number of cases where they send court papers, if the Cagger defends, they drop the matter before the hearing.  They have no real intention of putting their rubbish claim before a judge.  The aim is to find motorists who are terrified of the idea of going to court and who will give in when the court papers arrive. Thanks for doing the sticky and well done on finding F18's thread.  Do what they did.  On the first page - I think post 19 - there is the address of the CEO of BP.  Write to them, lay it on thick about being genuine customers in the various premises, mention the small kids, the very short stay time, attach any proof of purchase - and request that they get the invoice cancelled.
    • Thank you for that, I have obviously already been convicted so I think the appeal lodged is for the previous offence? Sorry if that doesn’t make sense. I suppose my only concern is that weds I go there and they don’t let a stat dec happen. If they do then as you say and solicitor says it’s highly likely I’ll be happy with the outcome. But I’m being told there’s no guarantee for the stat dec to be hard Weds as that’s not what the hearing is proposed for. Solicitor has stated that you can put a stat dec before a magistrates at any time so it shouldn’t be a problem.   
    • I re-read the extract from your  solicitor's letter this morning and think I might understand what they have in mind. I believe (and it’s only a guess) their strategy is this: 1.    You will make your SD 2.    You will enter fresh pleas to the four charges (not guilty) but will offer to plead guilty to speeding on the understanding that the FtP charges are dropped. 3.    If this is accepted they will attempt to argue that the two offences were committed “on the same occasion” 4.    You will be sentenced for those two offences (the sentence depending on whether the “same occasion” argument succeeds). They also have a plan in the event that your offer at (2) is unsuccessful and you are convicted again of the 2xFtP charges (and so face disqualification under “totting up”): 5.    They will make an “exceptional hardship” argument to avoid a ban. 6.    If that is unsuccessful they have already lodged an appeal in the Crown Court against that decision. (This is the only “appeal” I can think of). 7.    They plan to ask the court to suspend your ban pending that appeal. If I’m correct, I’m surprised the Crown Court has agreed to accept a speculative appeal (against something that hasn’t happened). The solicitor says this is to lodge it within the normal timescales. But you will have 21 days from the date of your conviction (which will be next Wednesday) to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court, so there is no need for a speculative appeal. I have to say that an application to have your ban suspended pending an appeal is unlikely to succeed. The Magistrates Court is unlikely to agree to it for one very good reason: if they make such an order (suspending your ban until your appeal is heard), all you need to do is not to pursue the appeal and the Magistrates order suspending your ban will remain in place. Hey Presto! No ban and no need for you to trouble with an appeal. Perhaps he will ask for your ban to be suspended for (say) three months or until your appeal is heard (whichever occurs first). This potentially creates a problem because if your appeal is not heard in that time either your ban will kick in or you will have o go back to court to get the suspension extended. But the solicitor obviously knows more about these things than I do. I would want to be very clear about this solicitor’s fees and what he proposes to charge you for. As I said, there is absolutely no need to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court. That can be done if and when it becomes required. But I am still firmly of the opinion that it is overwhelmingly likely that you will not need to progress beyond point 2 above. Point 3 is optional and I don’t know whether he solicitor has made It clear to you that the only thing you will avoid in the event of success is three penalty points. You will still be fined for the second offence and your driving record will still be endorsed with the details, but no penalty points will be imposed. Do let us know how it goes.  
    • I'm really trying, but worst case I can't find what are my options?
    • John Lewis' Privacy Notice states that their CCTV Systems does not use facial recognition or collect biometric data - so I assume it should be fine?    Thank you a lot for your reply. I've scheduled my first therapy session ne t week. Really the time to turn my life around..
  • 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

  • Replies 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The whole ACS Law/Slyck thing was hillarious....Crossley just refers back to his old debt collector default position eventually by using lanaguage such as "you have failed" lol

As with any debt collector or solicitor for that matter, the minute you put them in their place & tell them what is what they soon back off.

The only way people like Crossley even remotely succeed is because of the still many people out there who will cave into him from the start sadly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all again, I have just received a 3rd letter. Whats worrying about this one is that I had only sent off my LOD to the 2nd letter last week.

 

Its totally freaking me out as I was thinking that it would be at least a month before I'd hear back from them again....if ever. I'm one of the MediaCAT bunch from February and received a 2nd letter at the begining of June. I did not do what I'm being accused of (well my IP is being accused of) neither did I allow anyone to do so.

 

Am now seriously thinking about getting intouch with Michael Coyle at Lawdit, as has been stated on this forum. Has anyone been in contact with him before? Did it help? It seems that this 3rd letter will be the last "good natured" one before a court summons. Got an FAQ letter attached in with the "invoice", not that it makes any difference to the fact that I never did it. Fee has not changed, and have 14 days to respond. Feeling some real pressure here......

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is trying to scare you into paying, this is how it works. The letters get more and more threatening, ranging from "last letter before court" or "part 36" offers etc. The chances of you going to court are slim but its that slim margin that usually is enough to scare people into paying, guilty or not. As a guilty person is actually in exactly the same position as an innocent person in this situation, as in you can not prove you didn't commit the offence.

 

Your options,

 

1, Ignore it,

2, Pay up and it goes away,

3, reply and probably get a 4th letter.

 

If you have clearly stated your case in your first and second letters, and do not want to pay then you are probably best to ignore it.

 

P.S, the reason his reply was fast is because it is coming to the end of this batch of invoices, he has another 45,000 ip's to sort out soon if nothing changes with regards to the law and judges handing out the court orders with out thinking of the consequences.

Edited by youtube
Link to post
Share on other sites

He is trying to scare you into paying, this is how it works. The letters get more and more threatening, ranging from "last letter before court" or "part 36" offers etc. The chances of you going to court are slim but its that slim margin that usually is enough to scare people into paying, guilty or not. As a guilty person is actually in exactly the same position as an innocent person in this situation, as in you can not prove you didn't commit the offence.

 

Your options,

 

1, Ignore it,

2, Pay up and it goes away,

3, reply and probably get a 4th letter.

 

If you have clearly stated your case in your first and second letters, and do not want to pay then you are probably best to ignore it.

 

P.S, the reason his reply was fast is because it is coming to the end of this batch of invoices, he has another 45,000 ip's to sort out soon if nothing changes with regards to the law and judges handing out the court orders with out thinking of the consequences.

 

Paying up ISN'T the answer, unless of course if you are guilty (even then the monies claimed is out of proportion to the offence). All you are doing by paying up when innocent is marking yourself as a target for further claims. Yes, it may be a mistake or more than likely someone has hijacked your IP or spoofing it, so chances are more infringements will come to light.

 

Anyway, why would you pay if you hadn't done the infringement?

 

I've said all along, a single LOD stating the facts without giving away unnecessary information and advising no further correspondance will be entered into should suffice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, new user, been following thread since page 110 when I got my first letter in march/april time, used the great advice here to construct my first LOD and everything else.

I need to reply to my 2nd letter soon but am struggling with what to write, wondered if anyone can help or point me in the right direction, i'm not stupid, but as this is legal stuff, detailed help would be great, thinking for myself is no good lol!

 

it's a media cat case, "no payment,satisfactory response" "response was template response,declined to accept at face value" "if it becomes necessary to issue proceedings" "therefore urge you to use this opportunity to settle"

 

also included is a fact sheet.

 

thanks in advance,

BH

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, new user, been following thread since page 110 when I got my first letter in march/april time, used the great advice here to construct my first LOD and everything else.

I need to reply to my 2nd letter soon but am struggling with what to write, wondered if anyone can help or point me in the right direction, i'm not stupid, but as this is legal stuff, detailed help would be great, thinking for myself is no good lol!

 

it's a media cat case, "no payment,satisfactory response" "response was template response,declined to accept at face value" "if it becomes necessary to issue proceedings" "therefore urge you to use this opportunity to settle"

 

also included is a fact sheet.

 

thanks in advance,

BH

 

First let me say I am no legal expert and you are advise to seek independent legal advise, but if you have already issue a LOD, my response would be that you note their contents and you position remains unchanged and refer them to your first LOD. The most important point is to advise them that you will not enter into any further correspondance. This way if they fish again it could be construed as harrassment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paying up ISN'T the answer, unless of course if you are guilty (even then the monies claimed is out of proportion to the offence). All you are doing by paying up when innocent is marking yourself as a target for further claims. Yes, it may be a mistake or more than likely someone has hijacked your IP or spoofing it, so chances are more infringements will come to light.

 

Anyway, why would you pay if you hadn't done the infringement?

 

I've said all along, a single LOD stating the facts without giving away unnecessary information and advising no further correspondance will be entered into should suffice.

 

Was just outlining all his options.

 

Oh by the way, one thing to note. No mater of your actions how you handle your particular case, you are at no way at more risk of receiving more letters for potential future cases no mater what you choose to do. If your ip address pops up on the lists, denied previous or paid. You will receive a new letter regardless. If evidence started falling out of the trees "ie made up" the people involved would have long jail sentence because of the millions of pounds claimed and received and more to come, I really doubt ACS would pursue this path.

 

The absolute worst thing you can do in any case is sign the contract thing you will receive with your first letter. This is a 100% admission of guilt and could lead to worse consequences if "you" are caught again sharing the file/files. So I would advise no body to sign this and if you are guilty of said offence contact a solicitor to bargain down the fee to a more reasonable level and insist on not signing this "contract" (I cant remember the legal name for it).

 

I wonder what the outcome of the Ofcom digital rights review will be. Discussion is due to end on the 30th of July, will be interesting.

 

Oh one quest i would like to ask, what was the outcome of the One Show thing? has it been cancelled because nobody was willing to appear in front of the camera because of the sheer embarrassment factor of being accused of sharing porn? Or will the feature continue with out an interview?

Edited by youtube
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK ACS Law are back in court today to get more addresses,

Court Hearings - Proceedings Before the Masters' Chancery Division

Proceedings Before the Masters – Chancery Division

 

ROOM TM7.08

Before CHIEF MASTER WINEGARTEN

Wednesday 7th July 2010

At half past 11

Media C.A.T. v BE Unlimited

 

Prepare for a new batch of letters, unless we can get the ISPs to fight back as so far from the thousands of names and addresses and subsequent letters, not one person has been taken to court over this.

 

BRITISH JUSTICE.........i think not:cry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK ACS Law are back in court today to get more addresses,

Court Hearings - Proceedings Before the Masters' Chancery Division

 

 

Prepare for a new batch of letters, unless we can get the ISPs to fight back as so far from the thousands of names and addresses and subsequent letters, not one person has been taken to court over this.

 

BRITISH JUSTICE.........i think not:cry:

 

What on earth is going on now ?. Why is a single provider being taken to court ?. Maybe the provider has taken the company to court ?. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

my response would be that you note their contents and you position remains unchanged and refer them to your first LOD. The most important point is to advise them that you will not enter into any further correspondance. This way if they fish again it could be construed as harrassment.

 

Agree

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

BE Unlimited, the ISP on todays NPO are also one of the ISP's on the 19 Nov 09 NPO, which states in Clause 11.

Within six months of the date of disclosure referred to in paragraph 3 above, the Applicant shall provide to Respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 a written report stating precisely from the relevant names disclosed (1) how many of those persons were sent letters of claim, and (2) against which persons legal proceedings were issued."

BE Unlimited are Respondent 1. They should have got a report from ACS Law by now. If they have received it and it says what we all think it will say, that noone has been taken to court, then they should have contested the NPO.

 

Another ISP not standing up for its PAYING SUBSCRIBERS!! grr.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

BE Unlimited, the ISP on todays NPO are also one of the ISP's on the 19 Nov 09 NPO, which states in Clause 11.

BE Unlimited are Respondent 1. They should have got a report from ACS Law by now. If they have received it and it says what we all think it will say, that noone has been taken to court, then they should have contested the NPO.

 

Another ISP not standing up for its PAYING SUBSCRIBERS!! grr.gif

 

 

So, does this mean that the other ISP's are?

Have any of them received a report as to how many have been taken to court? Have any of them confirmed that they have even asked for the information that is legally obliged to be provided?

It does seem to be curious that only BE Unlimited are being targeted on this NPO as all the others were targeted on the February order.

 

Could it be that they have, after all, been working together on our behalf, quietly and unassuming in the background, collecting their evidence, not wanting to alert Mr Crossley of their intentions, waiting for the right time to strike back to champion the innocent .......OOOPS, so sorry... I got a bit carried away!!!!!!

 

Anyway... it still goes on

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the courts only list 1 defendant........... and as BE probably in alphabetical order would appear at the top the rest are (I am not certain) but probably on there.

 

 

Does this mean that there is going to be another batch of claim letters sent out ?. :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that there is a new company entering this business.They are Gallant MacMillan a company based in Soho. My friend tells me that the letter the received has the same allegations that are not unsimilar to ACS. Anyone else received a letter ? Thay also post in the highly trackable and reliable second class post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@captain-123 . Apparently it is for £ 375 'ish around April 10 for alleged offence. Ministry of Sound I have been informed. However it says that Easynet has identified my friend as the owner of the IP address, but they are not with Easynet....strange !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Easynet rent their bandwidth to other companies along the line of BT which rent to Sky at least I think that is the case.

 

So in the same ball parks as ACS. Do they mention the monitoring company?

Edited by captain-123
Link to post
Share on other sites

@captain-123 I understand that, however if they say that it was Easynet who gave out the details, I know for a fact that the supplier was not affiliated to Easynet. Which then beggers the question, how did they get the details of my friend ? Is there file sharing going on amongst these solictors. How ironic would that be !! There is one big diffence in the letters they send out, if you are willing to pay the price they are asking, you can keep the downloaded file as long as you do not share it. The Gallant MacMillan web site is apparently www.pay-2-play.co.uk

Edited by floppydog
Bad spolling
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Easynet rent their bandwidth to other companies along the line of BT which rent to Sky at least I think that is the case.

 

So in the same ball parks as ACS. Do they mention the monitoring company?

 

You are right. Easynet lease their lines out.

 

Is this confirmed as a new player in the mailshot campaign?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, i just registered here, by doing a search about a letter for galland macmillian, asking for 375 for filesharing a ministry of sound file, it states i can keep the copy but not to share it, it states the ip address, date and time, what do i do??? thanks for any answers

Link to post
Share on other sites

MASTER WINEGARTEN

Tuesday 27th April 2010

 

At 11 o’clock

Ministry of Sound Recordings v Entanet International Ltd

 

Entanet International Ltd is a wholesaler of broadband - although generally to business / resellers rather than direct to the public.

 

This is what was posted on slyc . com

 

I'm not sure what has happened if your friends ISP has no affiliation with Entanet or isn't on the NPO. I don't think that solisitors are allowed to pass information to one another

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...