Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Mickgibbons1
      Shock !!EVRI has lost my parcel PS5 - court claim issued***Settled***

      By Mickgibbons1 · Posted

      Thank you to you all, you guys are amazing!! Yes of course i will be making a donation, i am very grateful to you all. Keep up the good work
    • JustAnOldGal
      Studio returns problems.

      By JustAnOldGal · Posted

      I'm not quite out of the woods yet. The email they sent me also said that I have £290 of arrears and it has been passed onto their collections department. If anything my account should be £10 in credit.  They haven't taken into account the trainers that were returned back in October. The other items have been credited to my account so it looks like I've still got work to do.  They are not very quick to reply to emails, although I've only sent one trying to find more information, and I have no idea what happens next. Half of me want's to get it sorted properly the other half just wants it over with, if that means a default then so be it. 
    • HP Mum
      Private Land parking issue

      By HP Mum · Posted

      No. It's a public (council maintained) road with some houses in it.   Some other houses back onto it too and those owners have right of way down the road to access the back of their properties.  Theres a few garages with private osp - so one drives out the garage, over the osp, and onto the public side road and then out on to the public main road.  Irrespective of whether the garages are used - the local businesses parking their cars on the private osp are ostensibly preventing cars from accessing the public roads.
    • dx100uk
      Private Land parking issue

      By dx100uk · Posted

      is the side street solely for access to your garages? who owns the land and thus the road? dx  
    • HP Mum
      Private Land parking issue

      By HP Mum · Posted

      A local business has been parking on an off-street parking space in front of my garages (in a side street).  I wasn't using them for a while so didnt bother to do anything.  But now a second local business is also using the osp - taking it in turns with the 1st biz.  This has started to nark me.    The employees choose to drive to work.  There is no private parking in their business's street.  But there are some underground secure garages in their street - which cost apx £2.4k/y to rent - which works out apx £6.60/d. (I believe one of the biz owners already rent one for storage purposes).  If the employee had to park on a meter it would cost them £6.60/h - £66 for 10h and have to move every 4h.  They just don't want to pay for parking. I haven't confronted either of them.  Instead I just put 2 clear "no parking" signs in front of the garages. And a note on one of the cars specifically saying that as they don't live or rent in the street and it's private land could they stop parking.   They ignored that.  And just put notes on their dash with a # to call if one needs the car moved.  There is a sign and they've been told in writing to stop parking. And they are just ignoring it.    I don't what a confrontation.    I don't want to go to the expense of bollards (other than maybe traffic plastic ones - but they'll probs just move them).  Council won't do zilch cos it's private land. And police won't get involved - unless I clamp/ tow the cars and then they'd be after me, not the drivers!    What's the best thing to do?

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

ACS:Law copyright file sharing claims, Gallant Macmillan - and probably some others along the way...

Delta82
 Share
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

  • Replies 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

stanwixman

stanwixman

Posted
Posted

As i said before I have had two of these letters now from both Gallant and acs law. I havent done it but if anyone has can these guys proove it? I have had two letters now so how many more are likely to arrive out of the blue - i cant keep sending lods off indef.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ozzy MOS

Ozzy MOS

Posted
Posted
Hi Ozzy MOS

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

 

 

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

 

I was accused of uploading/sharing the full album. presumably the individual artists licence the use of their tracks to ministry of sound? I'm not sure how it works from a legal point of view

Link to post
Share on other sites
balisala

balisala

Posted
Posted
Now if you type in "ACS:Law" into google..you get the following

 

ACS Law | InterSolicitors.co.uk

 

The post code is exactly that as mentioned above.:cool:

 

It gives a link to a web site for the company & an email contact addy for a Mr [email protected]

 

:cool::cool:

Also had a letter 3 weeks ago from ACS LAW asking me to pay them for alledged copyright infringement in sept 09, had no knowledge of this so have spent the cost of a 2 nd class stamp asking for more details, i believe this is a [problem] and expect a letter harrasing me. the original letter bleated on about costs and courts etc etc and advised me to seek the advise of citizens advise.

any ideas as whats going to happen next ? it will keep us all informed of the situation.:p

Link to post
Share on other sites
loling

loling

Posted
Posted

Well I recived my 2nd letter yesterday saying the same ol' stuff "templete blah blah blah" but yet again they have the cheek to send me a templete lol oh well it says ive got 14 days to cough up my monies....fat chance as ive done nothing wrong. Has anyone got any other letters after the 2nd one? just wondering what to exepct...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattyhatty

Mattyhatty

Posted
Posted

Regarding the 2nd Letter..

 

They will go down the template path as they know they have nothing else to accuse us of, so instead of reading the 1st LOD which is worded so well to the point that if they did take all LOD in, would suffice to stop all allegations going further, they try n reject it.

 

What could one say in defence regarding a template LOD for them to accept it after is has been refused....

 

Templates should be accepted in this case. As we are all being accused of the same infringement with the same defences with the same type of methodology. So why would our reply not be the same. ' YA GET ME!? '

 

its legally bound with a signature too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ANDREW CROSSFIRE

ANDREW CROSSFIRE

Posted
Posted

Hi Everyone, after reading this forum for many months, i thought i should share my story (though it's the same as everyone else's!)

I recieved a letter back in april for allegedly sharing a porn film back in september 09. At first i was furious that SKY had given my details out, reading this forum it seems SKY have given a lot of details out. I was also scared as i have used PTP sharing networks but i honestly have no recolection of the file in question (I know that wouldn't sound good in court!)

Luckily for me, my brother is a law graduate and my mom works for a solictor. I enlisted the free advise of her colleague who specialises in copyright law. He advised me to throw the letter in the bin as ACS were under investigation by the SRA, he also pointed out that the main reason for this was that their letters are far too threatening and the evidence is purely circumstantial.

Well, i got a second letter at the end of May reffering to the previous letter and thought it best to respond to this, i used one of the many templates available online and tweaked it a bit, sent it off 3 weeks ago now and have heard nothing.

Has anyone recieved a 3rd letter this long after sending their LOD?

 

I find it astonishing that Media CAT can claim against us, saying they are losing money when all they've done is buy the rights and upload the files with NO INTENTION of selling the media, check out their site, obviously expecting a lot of hits since April! - www.media-cat.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites
patrickq1

patrickq1

Posted
Posted
So Gallant Macmillan are going to scrutinise every LOD and pass it on to MOS.

 

I thought it was the solicitors job to do all the work. I can't really see the MOS reading hundreds of letters.

 

 

they should /would insist on a drugs test on this as well but also test themselves just to be on the safe side as we know the E used to symbolise the internet but it also is a symbol for the /?////////////// sound say no more coke fueled idioits imo...lol

please note this is just an opinion perhaps the sales of MOS has dropped through the floor seeing as the rap crap has taken over ...getting old ,

Link to post
Share on other sites
zero_flight

zero_flight

Posted
Posted
Well I recived my 2nd letter yesterday saying the same ol' stuff "templete blah blah blah" but yet again they have the cheek to send me a templete lol oh well it says ive got 14 days to cough up my monies....fat chance as ive done nothing wrong. Has anyone got any other letters after the 2nd one? just wondering what to exepct...

 

I received my second letter from ACS Law at the end of May, sent off a second LOD. Currently have not heard anything more from them and I hope that it continues.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8of9

8of9

Posted
Posted
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

 

I was accused of uploading/sharing the full album. presumably the individual artists licence the use of their tracks to ministry of sound? I'm not sure how it works from a legal point of view

 

I'm not sure of the legalities either but if the individual artists have given MOS permission to use their work then surely they are entitled to their cut? This then doesn't make any sense to me as another dozen or so in the share out wouldnt make it worthwhile.....unless the artists aren't aware what their work is being used for...!

Link to post
Share on other sites
blashey

blashey

Posted
Posted

last december my brother showed me how to get u torrent and he said i could download albums from sites to see if i liked them before buying them as i prefer proper cds but like to hear what i might like to buy

 

i downloaded an album in december 09 an 80s remix ministry of sound 80s album listened to it and didnt like it so deleted it

 

 

last thursday i open a letter from solicitors gallant and mcmillan on behalf of ministry of sound saying i was an illegal file sharer and would be taken to court unless i paid £370 sad.gif

 

i tried to explain i was naive and only wanted to listen before buying proper copy and had not downloaded any other album except that one and had got rid of u torrent as i was plagued by viruses

 

im angry at my stupidity and the fact i spent tens of thousands of pounds over the years on vinyl and cds i get done for wanting to just listen not copy but they said 7 other people downloaded it from me while i was downloading it sad.gif

 

also by admitting it over the phone i have no choice but to pay sad.gif within 21 days or go to court

 

can i still go to a solicitor to get a smaller amount paid to them or have i messed myself up by saying i would pay the 350

Link to post
Share on other sites
lostinspace333

lostinspace333

Posted
Posted
they should /would insist on a drugs test on this as well but also test themselves just to be on the safe side as we know the E used to symbolise the internet but it also is a symbol for the /?////////////// sound say no more coke fueled idioits imo...lol

please note this is just an opinion perhaps the sales of MOS has dropped through the floor seeing as the rap crap has taken over ...getting old ,

 

I'll sum up this whole thing.

 

It's a really bad joke that we have to laugh at.

Link to post
Share on other sites
count orlok

count orlok

Posted
Posted
it also says i used bit torrent which is crap as i use u torrent lol

 

Just send them a LOD. Do not try to be clever by being pedantic, all you're doing is giving them more ammo.

 

Imagine saying to a judge, "It wasn't me speeding, I don't drive a car your honour, I drive a Jaguar."

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.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...