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

2 points re Cascada name change from Kopie to Eshuijs

1 if ACS Law have changed the name on the court order after using it surely it makes the court order null and void and therefore they obtained the iP addresses's unlawfully or by deception.

2 If The Cascada track was 1 file in the named torrent file it does not necessarily mean that particular file was downloaded or even part downloaded.

 

If anybody can confirm or deny these points please let us know

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

Can I just ask is your Court Order dated the 17th February 2010 or has it a different date on ?.

My date is the same also the name is only changed from Kopie to Eshuijs on the front page, on the back it still reads Allan Kopie

Link to post
Share on other sites

My date is the same also the name is only changed from Kopie to Eshuijs on the front page, on the back it still reads Allan Kopie

 

Mine also has the name change from Kopie to Eshuijs. Also, the ip address does not match my pc.

Strange how most of (or all) the cases are for the tracks by "cascada" or "The ministry of sound".

 

Don't think I'm even going to reply to these [problematic].

 

Watch this if your still paranoid YouTube - Davenport Lyons - threatening letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although i'm sure I didn't download the track I have no way of proving it as my PC gave up on me months ago and I had to replace it with a spanking new Laptop. Will they be able to take this away even though I purchased it in March 2010 and this supposed download upload happened last year. As I only received the letter yesterday they can not accuse me of ditching the evidence either. I just do not want them to take away my new laptop!

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]Will they be able to take this away even though I purchased it in March 2010 [...] I just do not want them to take away my new laptop!

 

This is a civil case. They can't take anything away.

 

The only "evidence" they have is an ip address that was gathered via a piece of software that employs a tehnique called deep packet inspection. This effectlvley and in very simple terms, intercepts data flowing between two points, and from that discovers the ip address. There are however, many explanations as to how an ip address can be incorrectly gathered.

 

This "evidence" has never been tested in a court and is extremley unlikely to be, for many reasons.

 

Don't panic

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, got my letter from Gallant MacMillan 2 days ago about mos the annual 2010 have havent slept a wink since!!

They said i made it available for download 27/11/09, as like most of you the ip address is nothing like mine and the want £375!!

Is everyone is in agreement that if i sent a letter of denial it wont be taken any further?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone had any correspondance from ACS lately regarding copyright holder Darker Enterprises?

 

I received a letter of claim from ACS in April in respect of movies that Darker Enterprises allegedly have the copyrights to. I sent a LOD and have heard nothing since. Seems I should've received a second letter from ACS ages ago.

 

I'm wondering if Darker Enterprises have dropped the case (I see from earlier posts that they're having problems renewing their shop licences).

Is anyone else in the same boat as me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sample Letter of Denial

 

 

ACS:LAW

Andrew J Crossley

20 Hanover Sq,

London,

W1S 1JY

 

(insert date)

 

RE: Letter of Claim Dated (insert date) concerning “(insert file in question as mentioned in the letter)” (“The Work”)

 

Dear Sir,

 

I am writing in reply to your letter of claim dated (insert date) stating that my connection was used in an infringement of copyright, using peer to peer networks which allegedly occurred on the date (insert date) and concerns the work “(insert file in question as mentioned in the letter)” (“the work”).

 

You assert in your letter that the infringement was apparently traced to my internet connection. I note that I am not personally being accused of the infringement, as you have no evidence to this effect. Nevertheless, I categorically deny any offence under sections 16(1) (d) and 20 of the CDPA 1988. I have never possessed a copy of the work in any form, nor have I distributed it, nor have I authorised anyone else to distribute it using my internet connection. I note that section 16(2) of the act requires a person to either directly infringe copyright, or authorise someone else to do so. I have done neither, and you have not provided any evidence of my doing so. As such I cannot and will not sign the undertakings as provided by you.

 

As you seem to be perfectly aware, it is impossible to link an IP address to a particular person or computer without further detailed analysis, which requires a level of expertise I do not possess. Furthermore the delay in your sending of a letter of claim precludes any such analysis. In your letter you state that “it is unlikely that a simple denial (without further explanation) will change our view of the circumstances”, unfortunately I do not have the expertise to provide a detailed explanation. As such I can only conclude that I have been a victim of foul play.

 

 

Yours Faithfully

 

(Your name)

 

Hi

anyone send this ? let us know if this letter can halp us or what is answer from ACS Law

 

p.s. in my letter is they have my personal details from Be Un Limited but i dont have internet from this company i have from O2 , how its happen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a letter from ACS Law yesterday. I downloaded an album in 2009. I used utorrent to download it (like an idiot) The letter included lots of legel stuff, stuff I do not understand. The one thing I do know, is that my ip address is included in the letter as is the exact time and date that I downloaded the album. I have to pay £300 or it goes to court. What I am worried about is, if I sign the form and pay (I dont have a problem with paying), this will be an admission of guilt and it may open up the floodgates. I can see from reading through the posts that ACS Law seem to be a little on the unscrupulous side and will stop at nothing to make money. I dont know is this matters or not but I already had the original copy of the cd that was sealed but didnt want to break the seal just to rip the cd to my ipod. Stupid and misguided fool I am, I thought it made it ok for me to dl the album.Can anyone offer me any sound advice? :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi all.

i note that one of the three persons mentioned in the ownership of evacuate the dancefloor is manuel rueter aka dj manian.

he has and is involved in many songs which will appear as singles but also as many compilation albums available on p2p websites.

many people will have come on here to see if acs is real and lets be honest you all will of downloaded the file or a relative will have and you want to see if you can get away with it.

the point i am making is that if someone pays asc law for lets say evacuate the dancefloor off either the album or a compilation album with that on, can this guy on the court order who has interest in another song off the same download then persue for liabilty for the same amount for another song, so if cascada album has 15 tracks on - next month can he issue another court order for his next track. then some people will pay through the nose 15times after downloading one album?

and if the letters and subsequent payments of fines provoke more music execs to pursue for each individual track then millions of people will be screwed as so many people do it on a daily basis.

None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi all,

thanks for the advice, i got the letter from g&m saying i owe £375 for downloading the album mos the annual 2010. I did download the file however the date they have given is incorrect as it states on my p.c the correct date when i downloaded it. their date is a month out. what should i do? deny i downloaded this file on this date?

 

any answers would be much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys, first time on here, I have just recived the letter from ASC:LAW yesterday. Its stating the fact Ive downloaded that casdada evacuate the dance floor song and is wanting £295!!!! This is a JOKE! I dont listen to that type of music Im into my Indie/Rock mixture!!! I spoke with o2 and asked them about the "Be unlimited" and they are O2's equipment provider or somthing???? Im not going to accpet somthing that Ive not done! we live in a block of flats it would not surpise me if my connection had been hacked or my ip has been spoofed as I hear its easy for a person who knows about this stuff to do? Im going to be seeing a solicitor sometime next week to get a bearing on what to do if anything as I feel its a [problem] to scare people out of money and I wont stand for IT!!!!!!!Any info you guys have would be great :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't write to them, they're not going to anything trust me. Its a [problem], they send thousands of letters out and they hope as many people as possible get scared and pay. There's also a few scaremongering comments left on here and I'm in no doubt that they work for the [problematic].

 

Even if they had solid proof that you downloaded the songs from your ip address, they can't prove which person in your household actually downloaded the file. Reminds me of the cops who pulled over a car for speeding and the driver and passengers all sat on the back seat before the police tapped on thier window. "I wasn't driving" LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

@TudorBlue and mos lawsuit!!

 

If you did download, or more accurately, make the "work" available to third parties via p2p networks, the sum of money claimed is dispraportionate to the potential loss of sales for the rights holder.

 

I would seek legal advice with a view to making a counter offer for an amount in the region of about £20.

 

Check out Michael Coyle at Lawdit Solicitors - they specialise in this area.

 

regards

 

tp123

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've contacted Sky who said that they did pass my information onto ACS Law, but that was on 15th April, whereas the stamp on the High Court of Justice Document is dated 17th February. That doesn't really add up?

 

ACS Law obtained a court order for Sky (and other ISPs) to provide the names and addresses of ip address holders on the 17th Feb. The ISPs had to provide this information within a specified time. It seems that Sky provided it on the 15th April.

 

I am not sure on the technicalities of the infrigement if it concerns individual tracks from a an album, for example; if you downloaded multiple tracks from an album, but not the track ACS refer to in the letter.

 

Regarding the time issue, I believe they make the file available for download for a long period time in order to "catch" more victims. For this reason, I'm sure the times and dates will vary for individuals. The "work" I was accused of making available[...] last year, is still available for download as of last week!

 

As I said previously, if you have infinged copyright, seek legal advice with a view to making a counter offer for an amount in the region of about £20. Check out Michael Coyle at Lawdit Solicitors - they specialise in this area.

 

Bear in mind though that NO ONE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO COURT. What evidence do they have that YOU as an indivdual made the "work" available to third parties or authorised anyone else to do so? NONE

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

just wandering that it seems like they have sent atleast a thousand of these threats to people. is it even liable in a court to do such thing? also the fact that the internet is addressed to one person but anyone could have downloaded it, does it make the bill owner liable? ive dealt with solicitors once and they were quite professional. these lot seem like [problem] artists who've hired some whizzkid geek who knows a bit about computers. decided to target peoples ips willy nilly and seem to think that is concrete evidence demanding 37 times the amount of the actual price of the cd. also if they did decide to take someone to a small courts would it cost them a lot and also due to location would they take the nearest person to them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]also the fact that the internet is addressed to one person - EDIT - not a person, a device - but anyone could have downloaded it, does it make the bill owner liable? ive dealt with solicitors once and they were quite professional. these lot seem like [problem] artists who've hired some whizzkid geek who knows a bit about computers. decided to target peoples ips willy nilly and seem to think that is concrete evidence demanding 37 times the amount of the actual price of the cd. [...]

 

Ha ha - You've got it spot on mate!

 

However shaky their evidence and imoral their practices, it is in fact not a [problem] but a scheme that employes Civil Procedure Rules. Pre-action protocol and peoples' fear and ignorance as tools to extort money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i spoke to the the soliciters gallant mcmillan yesterday and they said they posted 7000 letters out

 

So if just 20% of people pay, 1400 x £375 = £525,000

 

Half a million for some creative letter writing!

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...