Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • 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 4975 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

Im not saying that I've owned up - but they've got 5 infringements against me - 1 download and 4 subsequent uploads through utorrent.

 

My situation is different to most on here it would seem. Don't get me wrong I'd love to avoid paying out but as advised on here, sending a LOD isnt an option, neither is ignoring...so what else can I do?

 

If you haven't done it then it doesn't matter if they say 30 thousand downloads and 90 thousand uploads.

 

To have comitted the offence under CDPA rules you have to have done the dead or authorised someone else to do it. If you haven't done either of these things then you are innocent. It is that simple.

 

If you think about it if everyone rings them they will all get similar information, they are hardly like to say nope you called our bluff when we've checked we have nothing on file.

 

I would sugest doing a search for being threatend website and speaking to people over in the chat room they will give you some support.

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

Im not saying that I've owned up - but they've got 5 infringements against me - 1 download and 4 subsequent uploads through utorrent.

 

My situation is different to most on here it would seem. Don't get me wrong I'd love to avoid paying out but as advised on here, sending a LOD isnt an option, neither is ignoring...so what else can I do?

 

 

But im sure you bought a new laptop yesterday and recycled your hard drive and told me you never saw that file in your life..... ?

 

;);) Can you see why this LOD is priceless to EVERYONE :)

 

'' any thing said above is a hypothetical scenario and its means are to provide an interesting debate rather than guidance to those who wish to incriminate themselves further by destroying such evidence towards the allegations of alleged pirate infringements. I shall and will not be held responsible for the misinterpretation of what I say on these forums''

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not saying that I've owned up - but they've got 5 infringements against me - 1 download and 4 subsequent uploads through utorrent.

 

My situation is different to most on here it would seem. Don't get me wrong I'd love to avoid paying out but as advised on here, sending a LOD isnt an option, neither is ignoring...so what else can I do?

 

what do they mean by 4 subsequent uploads ? the same file uploaded on 4 separate occasions ? 1 torrent with 4 connections :?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to you have downloaded 1 and uploaded as many as they want you to believe. They cannot prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you did it. They can argue that that IP address that was allocated to you was being used to make this alleged upload / download. If they were standing over your shoulder looking at you doing it, if they had the police banging on your door when you were doing it, then you could put up your hands and say yep " I'm guilty". What they cannot prove is that the IP address that was allocated was in fact yours (not being spoofed, hijacked or otherwise) and that you were downloading / uploading as they are stating. It is all a game of we say you say. It's almost like Cluedo, Cascada - Evacuate the dancefloor - utorrent. Oh, is that wrong can I have another guess !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another BIG MISCONCEPTION. Because you are downloading you must be uploading. Anyone who truley knows torrents will agree that if you are downloading (leeching) you can set up the software to allow as many uploaders as you wish or NONE !!!!. Most downloaders setup their software to acheive this. The lawyers all assume that because you are downloading, you must be uploading (distributing) the file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 

i have just noticed the ip address on the letter sent is different from the one my computer is telling me does that make any diffence even though i phoned them admitting i done it and couldnt pay until september which the sent out a letter agreeing to

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have just noticed the ip address on the letter sent is different from the one my computer is telling me does that make any diffence even though i phoned them admitting i done it and couldnt pay until september which the sent out a letter agreeing to

 

 

nope, your ip address is dynamic and will change over time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What ever way it doesnt matter I have had parties here with 30 people up, I know of a least 5 people that have accessed and haved logged my passcode. I had a friend who pulled up in the driveway to send a quote off via email lol. I cant see they can make anything stick. Gallant is clutching at straws and hoping people will be stupid enough to pay up. Its all scare tactics - They say thier letters aren't threatening - I would say otherwise.

 

As I said WEP is easily hackable whats saying that you didn't have that security enabled.

 

It sounds to me like you havent got security enabled on your router.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone responds to gallant Macmillan with a denial or a request for actual evidence of an individual infringing copyright and recieves a 2nd letter from them get in touch about it's content. I expect it to be more threatening in it's tone and demands. Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone responds to gallant Macmillan with a denial or a request for actual evidence of an individual infringing copyright and recieves a 2nd letter from them get in touch about it's content. I expect it to be more threatening in it's tone and demands. Cheers

 

It was threatening in the first one pay up or we will proceed further!!!

 

Are you saying that you have had a second letter or you are waiting a reply?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm or it could be wep enabled which is easily hacked - the flaws go on ....

 

WEP is easy to hack if you know what you are doing and have the right tools. It's doubtful non pc savvy people could hack it.

 

What sort of friends are yours if they are using their IT skills to hack your network?

Link to post
Share on other sites

WEP is easy to hack if you know what you are doing and have the right tools. It's doubtful non pc savvy people could hack it.

 

What sort of friends are yours if they are using their IT skills to hack your network?

 

Not sure what you are trying to get at but when a friend comes round and says is it ok to use your network and you say ok. What is the next question you get asked? Whats the network key. So you give it to them. All they have to do is tell windows osx to remember it and they can use the network anytime in the future as I have said before I have had a mate pull up in the driveway so he could send a quote via email!!!

 

Who said it was a mate cracking my security I live in a end terraced house with 3 neighbours attached.

 

If I do a available network search 10 networks pop up - In my 2114302589_3644e48b27.jpg

 

thats a floor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems the SRA are dragging out their investigation even further. from slyck today:

 

"spoke to the SRA today - couldn't give me any more information than the fact that its still ongoing. I asked how long these things normally took and she said because they are still getting quite a large volume of complaints it will remain ongoing as they have to take all these into consideration also, especially as the format on some of the letters have changed! Asked me to call back in about a months time."

 

pathetic. should be the SRA that are being investigated. the old boys club. i hope the "format of the letters" statement doesn't refer to GM as they are a seperate investigation altogether. can't remember anyone suggesting the format of Andy's letters have changed to a more conciliatory tone! when it eventually concludes i've no doubt it will be a damp squid, with a smack on the wrists for Andy, but recognition that the tone of his letters has changed!!!!!????

 

it was being reported by broadband genie two weeks ago that the investigation was winding up and would be concluded at the end of July! the SRA are to solicitors what the CRS is to DCAs!

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems the SRA are dragging out their investigation even further. from slyck today:

 

"spoke to the SRA today - couldn't give me any more information than the fact that its still ongoing. I asked how long these things normally took and she said because they are still getting quite a large volume of complaints it will remain ongoing as they have to take all these into consideration also, especially as the format on some of the letters have changed! Asked me to call back in about a months time."

 

pathetic. should be the SRA that are being investigated. the old boys club. i hope the "format of the letters" statement doesn't refer to GM as they are a seperate investigation altogether. can't remember anyone suggesting the format of Andy's letters have changed to a more conciliatory tone! when it eventually concludes i've no doubt it will be a damp squid, with a smack on the wrists for Andy, but recognition that the tone of his letters has changed!!!!!????

 

it was being reported by broadband genie two weeks ago that the investigation was winding up and would be concluded at the end of July! the SRA are to solicitors what the CRS is to DCAs!

 

I'm no expert but I don't think his letters are illegal, if any of us sent menacing letters though demanding money we would get a visit. I'm fully expecting nothing to come of their investigation and he will carry on with what he is doing regardless.

 

This new Bill might be the thing what stops him. I quite like the 3 strikes idea, but as I don't fileshare I'm not bothered. I am bothered about receiving letters from dodgy solicitors though trying to extort money out of me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with you regarding the outcome. not sure about the DEB, though. will ACS be obliged to use the three strikes route? or is that mainly for the ISPs? surely ACS can continue to pursue alleged copyright infringers with reference to copyright law as he doing at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've admitted yourself your mate pulled up outside and used it.

 

More fool you if you allow others access to your network. You're just asking for trouble.

 

Who said it was my mate who caused the infringement? You dont know, I dont know, they dont know - flawed!!! So you are sitting in a wi fi hotspot in starbucks or mcdonalds and you decide to use their internet access what happens then???? - flawed again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said it was my mate who caused the infringement? You dont know, I dont know, they dont know - flawed!!!

 

You've authorised him to use your connection, therefore it's unsecure.

 

Authorising others to use it is just asking for trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've authorised him to use your connection, therefore it's unsecure.

 

Authorising others to use it is just asking for trouble.

 

Would you deny a mate the use of your internet connection?

 

What im trying to get at is there are so many ifs and buts, this case just cant stand up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with you regarding the outcome. not sure about the DEB, though. will ACS be obliged to use the three strikes route? or is that mainly for the ISPs? surely ACS can continue to pursue alleged copyright infringers with reference to copyright law as he doing at the moment.

 

I don't think he will stop until he is either struck off, not likely in my opinion or convicted of a crime as a result of this, as I don't think what he is doing is basically illegal I don't think that is likely either.

 

He certainly wont stop as a result of bad publicity, the guy used to be a DJ, he is on an ego trip and probably loves all the attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4975 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...