Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments on your post in red
    • Thanks for your reply, I have another 3 weeks before the notice ends. I'm also concerned because the property has detoriated since I've been here due to mould, damp and rusting (which I've never seen in a property before) rusty hinges and other damage to the front door caused by damp and mould, I'm concerned they could try and charge me for damages? As long as you've documented and reported this previously you'll have a right to challenge any costs. There was no inventory when I moved in, I also didn't have to pay a deposit. Do an inventory when you move out as proof of the property's condition as you leave it. I've also been told that if I leave before a possession order is given I would be deemed intentionally homeless, is this true? If you leave, yes. However, Your local council has a legal obligation to ensure you won't be left homeless as soon as you get the notice. As stated before, you don't have to leave when the notice expires if you haven't got somewhere else to go. Just keep paying your rent as normal. Your tenancy doesn't legally end until a possession warrant is executed against you or you leave and hand the keys back. My daughter doesn't live with me, I'd likely have medical priority as I have health issues and I'm on pip etc. Contact the council and make them aware then.      
    • extension? you mean enforcement. after 6yrs its very rare for a judge to allow enforcement. it wont have been sold on, just passed around the various differing trading names the claimant uses.    
    • You believe you have cast iron evidence. However, all they’d have to do to oppose a request for summary judgment is to say “we will be putting forward our own evidence and the evidence from both parties needs to be heard and assessed by a judge” : the bar for summary judgment is set quite high! You believe they don't have evidence but that on its own doesn't mean they wouldn't try! so, its a high risk strategy that leaves you on the hook for their costs if it doesn't work. Let the usual process play out.
    • Ok, I don't necessarily want to re-open my old thread but I've seen a number of such threads with regards to CCJ's and want to ask a fairly general consensus on the subject. My original CCJ is 7 years old now and has had 2/3 owners for the debt over the years since with varying level of contact.  Up to last summer they had attempted a charging order on a shared mortgage I'm named on which I defended that action and tried to negotiate with them to the point they withdrew the charging order application pending negotiations which we never came to an agreement over.  However, after a number of communication I heard nothing back since last Autumn barring an annual generic statement early this year despite multiple messages to them since at the time.  at a loss as to why the sudden loss of response from them. Then something came through from this site at random yesterday whilst out that I can't find now with regards to CCJ's to read over again.  Now here is the thing, I get how CCJ's don't expire as such, but I've been reading through threads and Google since this morning and a little confused.  CCJ's don't expire but can be effectively statute barred after 6 years (when in my case was just before I last heard of the creditor) if they are neither enforced in that time or they apply to the court within the 6 years of issue to extend the CCJ and that after 6 years they can't really without great difficulty or explanation apply for a CCJ extension after of the original CCJ?.  Is this actually correct as I've read various sources on Google and threads that suggest there is something to this?.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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 4966 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

It's been reported that the SRA are to report on the ACS saga by the end of the month. How long has this investigation been ongoing? A year, more or less! What a joke! Does anyone seriously believe they will stop ACS? They'll condemn the tone of the letters as being threatening. But ACS can challenge the findings and continue in the meantime. Another investigation, another year... Maybe they'll agree to tone down the letters. But will the practice be stopped? I don't think so. If ACS are in contravention of guidelines what will happen to them? Do they get fined? Does the fine go to the SRA? Do they get struck off?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been reported that the SRA are to report on the ACS saga by the end of the month. How long has this investigation been ongoing? A year, more or less! What a joke! Does anyone seriously believe they will stop ACS? They'll condemn the tone of the letters as being threatening. But ACS can challenge the findings and continue in the meantime. Another investigation, another year... Maybe they'll agree to tone down the letters. But will the practice be stopped? I don't think so. If ACS are in contravention of guidelines what will happen to them? Do they get fined? Does the fine go to the SRA? Do they get struck off?

 

Well we can only hope that the SRA will do something radical to ACS Law, but we will just have to wait and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember many years ago watching a real-life show about US cops, they put a cop dressed as a tramp in a doorway with some dollar bills hanging out of his pocket, not surprisingly, some passers-by helped themselves to the money, the cops then pounced and nicked them, seems like the above is just the modern day equivilant.

 

Andy

 

I think this would be considered as "Entrapment".

 

"Entrapment arises when a person is encouraged by someone in some official capacity to commit a crime. If entrapment occurred, then some prosecution evidence may be excluded as being unfair, or the proceedings may be discontinued altogether".

 

It would be hard to argue that ACSLaw were acting in an "official capacity"

Edited by 8of9
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this would be considered as "Entrapment".

 

"Entrapment arises when a person is encouraged by someone in some official capacity to commit a crime. If entrapment occurred, then some prosecution evidence may be excluded as being unfair, or the proceedings may be discontinued altogether".

 

It would be hard to argue that ACSLaw were acting in an "official capacity"

 

But it is known that Digital Protect (or whoever do the work for ACS) have been putting files up and then just watching to see who downloads them.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a different note, has anyone had a reply from Gallant Macmillan to their 1st LOD. Their initial letters went out around 6th July and requested a response within 21 days. Can anyone update?

 

I am sure that I read that someone had received a reply from their LOD, after a few days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'accused' account holder in my situation just sent out the first LOD to ACS LAW recorded delivery. Think it said 21 days to reply. How ever... its a relief to see that letter sent.

 

They tried to tweak the template LOD but the wording was so beautiful, it expressed everything that they wanted to say but couldnt.

 

The end states its legally bound with a sig too. And they added extra regarding their defence.

 

If they come back with the template excuse, then il make them send the LOD again in a different font :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we can only hope that the SRA will do something radical to ACS Law, but we will just have to wait and see.

 

 

Im relying on SRA too. Infact - i really need to send them my complaint to aid this! stats to be in their favour.

 

What kind of outcome could we expect if successful? Because i bet ACS wont return any of the payments. And there will be some stupid loop hole where they create a new company, transfer the willing staff and start again ( sounds familiar )

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the SRA will sweep it under the carpet, however it is not the first time Mr Crossley has been in trouble with them so hopefully they can come down hard on him this time.

 

My LOD was a template, I am expecting them to reject it, I shall then write and ask them what basis in law they have for rejecting a letter which complies with the code of conduct.

 

Now then, have you all written to your ISP's?? This is a question you need to be asking them, feel free to use this as a template, I'm sure they wont reject it:

 

Did (Insert ISP Provider name) at anytime indicate to ACS Law that you would not oppose a court order requiring you to release my data. If this is the case can you inform me on what authority in my contract with you and under your obligations to the Data Protection Act you did so as it appears you may have breached Data Protection Legislation.

 

Make sure you send a copy of the letter to these people:

 

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that I read that someone had received a reply from their LOD, after a few days.

 

I believe that was the legend 'queen-peanut' on the 17th, surely there must have been some others? Loads of GM 'accused' said they were going to send LODs. Just wondered what other experiences were;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did (Insert ISP Provider name) at anytime indicate to ACS Law that you would not oppose a court order requiring you to release my data. If this is the case can you inform me on what authority in my contract with you and under your obligations to the Data Protection Act you did so as it appears you may have breached Data Protection Legislation.

 

As far as I am aware there is nothing in the Data protection act that requires a data holder to oppose or contest a court order by law.

 

Please do complain to the ISP and ask them why they have not contested the evidence presented in court as it is clearly flawed and identifies innocent people. Ask them if they are going to refuse to co-operate with further court orders (like Talk Talk do) and ask them why not?

 

Another point you should ask your ISP is, have they charged ACS law for the data they provided? It has recently come to light that ACS Law may have tried to reclaim costs incurred to them from the ISP, where in fact they have never been charged for the release of data.

Check your paperwork to see if the money being ‘claimed’ includes this fee.

 

It’s about time the ISP’s started defending their subscribers. If we complain enough….they may listen!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, seen somebody post that The One show is showing their article on this tomorrow (16th July). Well I can inform you it has been pushed back to the (22nd July).

 

Sorry :(.

 

Was anything mentioned in tonights prog?, I was at football unfortunatly...

 

Sent my LOD recorded del on tue, now its a waiting game...

Link to post
Share on other sites

No mate, changed again, wont post any more info on it as their schedule changes from day to day and don't want to give any more dates out in case they change again. Infact I haven't actually heard when it will be shown after it was obviously cancelled on the 22nd. We will be able to watch it on iPlayer when its been shown. Sorry for any inconvenience it may of caused to anybody if you stayed into watch it and it wasn't on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was anything mentioned in tonights prog?, I was at football unfortunatly...

 

No show again.....

......WILL SMITH last week,TOM CRUISE tonight. Crossleys being "bumped" off the programme by some big names!! :rolleyes:

 

From Slyck Forum

"icon_post_target_unread.gifby Hickster » Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:38 pm

Hi Guys Regarding the "One Show", I am in touch with one of the people involved and I have been told that it has currently been put back due to further investigation. I think they are going to do a bigger story than what was first planned. It WILL happen so lets just wait for it. I am sure it will be a GREAT Piece".

Edited by 8of9
added
Link to post
Share on other sites

haha i have sky player - im recording it on series link so i can miss it each time and replay it. I wont upload it though. Dont want ACS law sending me any more letters :p

 

I interested for some media coverage on this actually. Im surprised there hasn't been anything in the SUN with some major headline about piracy and how the music industry loose out on POTENTIALLY BILLLIONS of dollars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that was the legend 'queen-peanut' on the 17th, surely there must have been some others? Loads of GM 'accused' said they were going to send LODs. Just wondered what other experiences were;-)

 

 

howdo all, not heard a sausage since, i cancelled sky, just watchin one show now, hope its on, and yep its entrapment, if they wanna proceed wi court thats fine, only cost you a quid a week after u've filled in a means form etc, so bugger em, we're are still in recession regardless of whatever anyone else says. they can bite me bum :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent lod a few days back. copied some template. am really fuming about this as have never and would never download any mos crap. i cant believe sky didnt inform me someone was requsting my details...is that legal? i would like to meet this solicitor. got better things to do than play letter ping pong with these muppets..might seek some legal advise for compensation. can u claim for stress caused???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ozzy MOS

Just going back to your post of a few weeks ago,

 

 

Like a lot of people I have found this site after recieving a letter from Gallant Macmillan on friday accusing me of sharing Ministry of Sound - The Annual 2010 in december, or more accurately I should say the letter addresses and accuses my father. Still trying to work out how best to address this, I admit I did download the file, but my father, who did not download it, and did not authorise me to do so, is the one who the letter is addressed to. Would it be wise of him to send a LOD and deny all knowledge? Does anyone know if it is in any way possible that this software company could have recorded the MAC address of the particular machine the file was downloaded to? :confused:

 

Were you accused of downloading the whole album or just one track, and did the torrent contain the full album?

What I'm wondering is that if the torrent contained the whole album then there are many artists that appear on it, most signed to other labels. Ministry of Sound will obviously have permission to use their work on "The Annual 2010 but have these other artists given their permission for their work to be used in this way by MOS & ACSL and, if not, aren't ACSL guilty of making their work available for download themselves?

Do the other artists even know that this is happening? and if they did would they allow it?

(This has probably been answered elsewhere and if it has I do apologise)

 

8of9

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you admit (pay) for the single track of the said album, guess what happens next?

The accuser advertises his success, gets more sponsorship (on a no win no fee basis) then goes for the next track on the album, you've paid once how can you deny the next one?

He's a genius, he needs to be right up there with loan sharks, estate agents, tape worms and other parasites..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi back in February i got a letter from ACS law and promptly sent off my letter of denial. Todate i still havent heard back. Then today I got another letter from Gallant Macmillan saying i had downloaded MOS electronic Eighties and that I have again to pay £350. This time they dont mention court proceedings but say if i pay up i can keep the album! . I have drawn up anohter letter of Denial but havent sent it off yet. Which mag are aware of this new firm but say that Gallant said that they will look at all lods and Ministry of sound will look at each case on merit before taking things further. I am really panicing now i havent done this downloading but if its happened twice how many more times? Gallant say that unsecure browers etc are no defense and that they will pass on all lods to mos . should i pass on my lod or ignore it this time and should i worry anymore re this as opposed to acs and this seems more of a threat this time. I am due to go on holiday to finland on monday so dont need this hassle - please can someone help put my mind at ease. I know i have done nothing wrong but I CANT afford to pay anything let alone the stress etc

Edited by stanwixman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stanwixman,

 

the point being if you have done nothing wrong, nothing illegal... then they can do whatever they like!

In this case though it is up to them to prove you did download/share/upload whatever, which because you didn't do any of the above is going to be pretty difficult, and why should you even consider paying them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4966 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...