Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • J&P Credit Solutions are specialists on debt recovery. Either way they seem to be swapping between the JandP and IDR whatever their exact definitions are.
    • Primary and secondary teachers are supporting pupils with their own money, buying food and warm clothing. Eight in 10 primary teachers in England spending own money to help pupils | Education | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Increasing numbers of children hungry and lack adequate clothing, with two-thirds of secondary teachers also supporting pupils  
    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
  • 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 4969 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

hi. I have received a letter from Gallant McMillan today.

 

Does anyone know if these guys are a more serious / professional body than ACS law?

 

And as such are they more likely to pursue a claim against me?

 

I'll be sending my LOD in the next day or so

 

Ya we have got a letter from these guys to Gallant Macmillan | leader in media and litigation, London They look like back street.

 

I have been doing a little research and I was told today that they are under investigation. There has not a conclusion been made yet so they are still operating. I like there office hrs 10.30am to 3.30pm - I might apply for a job with them ha ha ha ha ha :rolleyes:

 

Because they are still operating it is best to reply to them I have been told.

 

A solicitor told me that to be honest they havent got much to go on after I PDF'd the letter over to him.

 

Letter Of Denial? Yes I think so.

 

What media are they accusing you of sharing?

 

Who clicked the download button? My next door neighbor? Who knows.

Edited by stupiditto
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

If the file is on your PC should you admit it to them and pay?

 

That's up to you and I don't think anyone would tell you not to do so on this occasion, as morally it would be wrong.

 

The question you need to ask yourself is :

 

Is the letter addressed to you (as the account holder), Did YOU do the downloading. if the answer is YOU did not do nor had any idea who did, then YOU DO NOT NEED TO TELL them who did.

 

The letter was written to you, you did not do it, therefore you have every right to send a letter of Denial. In this country you do not have to "Finger" someone else, it is up to ACS Law or GM to proove who did it!

 

(Note i have no legal background just my personal opinion) but paying them just perpetuates the agony for others

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, just recieved a letter from Gallant & M claiming that i downloaded Ministry of Sound Anthems Electronic 80's in January ???? , sending an LOD of as soon as ..it seems these are becoming more frequent now :mad:

 

Ya I got exactly the same matey - Have a look at there website and there office hours 10.30am - 3.30pm - A solicitor said to me the con must be working if they are working those sorts of hours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the letter yesterday from Gallant Macmillan. And I have to admit the letter was quite scary! It accused me of downloading "Ministry of Sound" in December 2009 and to pay them £380 (or £350 if done online, ironic or what?) I will be sending my LOD today. Scaremongers. I hope there arent people out there who are paying these people. I'm glad there is a thread for this problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some advice - Mistakes are sometimes made in correctly identifying the relevant IP address. The claimant then has the difficulty of proving to the court, on the balance of probabilities, who was responsible for any illegal downloading. Much will depend upon who has had access to the IP Address in question. If there are many users the Claimant will be in some difficulty. If your partner is adamant that she was not responsible for the alleged infringement she should simply reply to that effect. If your partner has ownership of the computer and can trace the offending item an offer can be made to delete it. If it cannot be traced then your partner should say that it has not been possible to trace the infringing item on the computer in question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should see edit option at lower right of the post (next to option for quote)

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A question for anyone or as many of possible of you that have sent of an LOD whether it was a template or written in your own words, how long till you got blackmail letter number 2 from ACS Law giving you 14 days to pay up as they reject your response?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A question for anyone or as many of possible of you that have sent of an LOD whether it was a template or written in your own words, how long till you got blackmail letter number 2 from ACS Law giving you 14 days to pay up as they reject your response?

 

I'm noy saying do it but when I spoke to a solicitors with a very good name yesterday.

 

They said say to them well take me to court then!!!

 

I think what they were trying to say is that it won't stand up in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm noy saying do it but when I spoke to a solicitors with a very good name yesterday.

 

They said say to them well take me to court then!!!

 

I think what they were trying to say is that it won't stand up in court.

 

Oh I wont be paying, I am just asking how long it may take to get a rejection letter from them.

 

I wouldn't pay for something I haven't done even if a judge told me to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Help. .....I have questioned both of my teenage kids, who both claim neither of them downloaded the album. ......

 

1. Am l liable?

2. Can the IP address identify with IT equipment the download terminated at (i.e downloaded to the PC or two a laptop)?

3. Would l be able to, in good faith, send a LOD?

 

 

 

Hi,

 

You need to get the interrogation chair out and a large spotlight. Lol just kidding J

 

 

  1. Not unless YOU done it or YOU authorized it.
  2. No. It can only identify an IP Address. To identify a PC/Laptop they would need to gain your through your router. Not possible unless they break the law? (Pls correct me if I am wrong Tech guys).
  3. Yes of course!

Just send a letter off stating that you have not shared the file nor authorized anyone in your house to do so. Simple as that. You may like to add a nice note wishing them luck tracking down the infringer!

 

You cannot determine who the infringer was nor is it your duty to do so – this is for THEM to determine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A question for anyone or as many of possible of you that have sent of an LOD whether it was a template or written in your own words, how long till you got blackmail letter number 2 from ACS Law giving you 14 days to pay up as they reject your response?

 

 

Approximately four weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this has already been posted, but in case it hasn't:

 

File sharers targeted with legal action over music downloads | Money | The Guardian

 

Michael Coyle, solicitor advocate and MD of the Southampton-based law firm Lawdit, who has represented hundreds of people who have received these letters, says none of his cases have gone to court.

"A significant number of cases were connected to porn, seeking to embarrass porn users into paying up, and it developed from there. Perhaps as many as 10% of those receiving letters have paid up, but the rest have just disappeared. These firms are trying to argue that just because you pay for the internet connection you are somehow responsible for everything that is downloaded on it – whether you were responsible or not. It just doesn't stand up in law," he says.

"It seems to me that the only way a claim can be upheld is if you admit it or if they inspect your hard drive."

He is so confident that a claim by the likes of ACS:Law would not succeed that he has offered to defend anyone in court for free – providing they didn't download the offending file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, been following this thread for sometime, just wondering, has anyone on this forum payed gallant macmillan yet?

 

What with the 2000 letters they sent out in one week ? That would equate to a massive £750,000.The people that have paid them were only scare mongered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gallant's response

 

Simon Gallant, senior partner with the law firm, said his firm was behaving in accordance with the SRA’s rules and regulations and the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct. 'I was in communication with the SRA before the firm began to act on behalf of the MoS as I was concerned to address any issues that might arise', he told Which?.

'The SRA have given us some general guidance on the applicable conduct rules which we have focused on in preparing to do this work, including the content of letters that we send out and how we deal with responses.

'I'm well aware that this work has attracted negative publicity for other law firms but the firm has come into this after carrying out a lot of due diligence and is adopting a very different approach to the other firms,' he explained.

'The purpose is not to penalise the innocent and we will scrutinize every response with care. If individuals send in letters of denial to us, with reasons why they are not responsible, the firm will consider each letter on its merits and advise the MoS accordingly.'

He said the MoS was willing to proceed to the civil courts if the alleged illegal file sharer does not settle or they do not provide suitable evidence to show why they dispute liability.

 

Just found this...Interesting, I think Ministry of Sound sales may suffer somewhat after all this??

Link to post
Share on other sites

What with all the money they are paying theses people.

 

+ the SRA are the people that I contacted the other day and they told me these people are under investigation.

 

So if the SRA have given the guidance why are the SRA investigating them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have received a threatening letter from gallant Macmillan claiming I have illegally downloaded the ministry of sounds Electronica 80's album, I maybe the bill payer but I certainly did not download this alleged file. I do not want to pay £350 for something I have no knowledge of or involvement in, I also do not want the stress of a potential court case. What should I do? any advice would be most appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4969 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...