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


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • lookinforinfo
      MET CCTV PCN Starbucks closed - Southgate Park CM24 1PY

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      You will probably get a couple more reminders followed by further demands fro unregulated debt collectors with even increasing amounts to pay. They are all designed to scare you into paying.  Don't. It's a scam site and they do not know who was driving and they know the keeper is not liable to pay the PCN. Also the shop was closed so they have no legitimate interest in keeping the car park clear. So to charge £100 is a penalty as there is no legitimate interest which means that the case would be thrown out if it went to Court.  Keep your money in your wallet and be prepared to ignore all their letters and threats. Doubtful they would go to Court since a lot more people would not pay when they heard  MET lost in Court. However they may just send you a Letter of Claim to test your resolve.  If yoy get one of those, come back to us and we will advise a snotty letter to send them.  You probably already have, but take a look through some of our past Met PCNs to see how they are doing.
    • Jaksmyboy
      IVA failure-DCA chasing-advice please

      By Jaksmyboy · Posted

      Hello, been a while since I posted on here, really hoping for the same support an advice I received last time :-) Long, long story for us, but basically through bad choices, bad luck and bad advice ended up in an IVA in 2016. The accounts involved all defaulted, to be expected. In 2018, I got contacted by an 'independent advisor' advising me that I shouldn't be in an IVA, that it wasn't the solution for our circumstances and that they would guide us through the process of leaving the IVA and finding a better solution. I feel very stupid for taking this persons advice, and feel they prey on vulnerable people for their own financial gain (it ended with us paying our IVA monthly contribution to them)-long and short of it our IVA failed in 2018. At the same time the IVA failed we also had our shared ownership property voluntarily repossessed (to say this was an incredibly stressful time would be an understatement!) When we moved to our new (rented) property in August 2018, I was aware that creditors would start contacting us from the IVA failure. I got advice from another help website and started sending off SARs and CCAs request letters. I was advised not to bury my head and update our address etc and tackle each company as they came along. Initially there was quite a lot of correspondence, and I still get a daily missed call from PRA group (and the occasional letter from them), but not much else. However, yesterday i had a letter through from Lowell (and one from Capital One) advising that they had bought my debt and would like to speak with me regarding the account. There will be several.of these through our door i suspect, as we did have several accounts with Capital One. Capital One have written to us with regular statements over the last 5 years, and my last communication with them was to advise of of our new address (June 2019), I also note that all of these accounts received a small payment in Jan2019 (i'm assuming the funds from the failed IVA pot). Really sorry for the long long post, but just thought id give (some of) the background for context.... I guess my question at the moment is.....how do I respond to Lowell...do I wait for the inevitable other letters to arrive then deal with them all together or individually...? Do I send them a CCA?  Many thanks
    • Malocclusion
      MET CCTV PCN Starbucks closed - Southgate Park CM24 1PY

      By Malocclusion · Posted

      hi all just got the reminder letter, I have attached it and also the 2nd side of the original 1st pcn (i just saw the edit above) Look forward to your advice Thanks   PCN final reminder.pdf pcn original side 2.pdf
    • NewsBot
      Singapore air offers to pay turbulence victims

      By NewsBot · Posted

      The airline said it was offering to pay $10,000 to those who sustained minor injuries.View the full article
    • NewsBot
      BMW China parts probe expanded by US Senate panel

      By NewsBot · Posted

      The Senate Finance Committee wants answers from BMW over its use of banned Chinese components by 21 June.View the full article

  • 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 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

stupiditto

stupiditto

Posted
Posted
Depends what he wanted to use it for.

I certainly wouldnt hand it out to all and sundry. I'd change the WEP key periodically too.

 

Depends what he wanted to use it for. - ex. well he said to check his email, who knows if he d/l a file? Flaw

 

My next door neighbour (attached) moved out the other week, who says they didn't get access?

 

Please note the above are examples and are fictional.

 

So they can't hold the acc holder to Ransom.

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

BARFLY

BARFLY

Posted
Posted

i agree: he is not doing anything illegal. he's just being disingenuous about his intended and ongoing litigation. it's just a licence to print money. i believe the only people who are going to stop this are the ISPs. the House of Lords; the SRA; Which; the One Show... the list goes on and on. none have halted him in his tracks. the only ones who can are the ISPs. when he requests the NPO from the court the ISPs should stand up to him. they surely know that there have been no legal proceedings in the tens of thousands of names they have provided except for one or two i believe in the DL cases where there were default judgements. there should really be a campaign against the ISPs rather than crossley

Link to post
Share on other sites
kilotango22

kilotango22

Posted
Posted
i agree: he is not doing anything illegal. he's just being disingenuous about his intended and ongoing litigation. it's just a licence to print money. i believe the only people who are going to stop this are the ISPs. the House of Lords; the SRA; Which; the One Show... the list goes on and on. none have halted him in his tracks. the only ones who can are the ISPs. when he requests the NPO from the court the ISPs should stand up to him. they surely know that there have been no legal proceedings in the tens of thousands of names they have provided except for one or two i believe in the DL cases where there were default judgements. there should really be a campaign against the ISPs rather than crossley

 

I agree, I am campaiging agaisnt my isp, no details will be given incase he links them to the real me, basically, he states I am a subscriber to a particular ISP, I'm not and never have been. I'm trying to find out from my isp why they have supplied my details to this other ISP, I also asked them if they stated to ACS that they would not oppose a court order. They didn't answer either question. Their reply, we have to comply with court orders. Second letter going out, told them a simple yes or no answers the question about opposing a court order, copying all letters to Information commissioner. I'm like a mad dog with a bone now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
stupiditto

stupiditto

Posted
Posted
I agree, I am campaiging agaisnt my isp, no details will be given incase he links them to the real me, basically, he states I am a subscriber to a particular ISP, I'm not and never have been. I'm trying to find out from my isp why they have supplied my details to this other ISP, I also asked them if they stated to ACS that they would not oppose a court order. They didn't answer either question. Their reply, we have to comply with court orders. Second letter going out, told them a simple yes or no answers the question about opposing a court order, copying all letters to Information commissioner. I'm like a mad dog with a bone now.

 

I think we all are

Link to post
Share on other sites
BARFLY

BARFLY

Posted
Posted

they might have to comply with a court order. however, i believe it's been noted elsewhere that ACS contact the ISPs beforehand to see if they will object to his application for the order. i believe only talktalk have stated they will. i don't think talktalk have been on any orders though i'm sure i'll be corrected if i'm wrong.

 

they can object to his application and give their reasons for doing so. being granted an NPO is not a foregone conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaggy123

Shaggy123

Posted
Posted
Depends what he wanted to use it for. - ex. well he said to check his email, who knows if he d/l a file? Flaw

 

My next door neighbour (attached) moved out the other week, who says they didn't get access?

 

Please note the above are examples and are fictional.

 

So they can't hold the acc holder to Ransom.

 

You've admitted allowing 3rd parties access to your router and had no idea what they were doing with your connection (although he may have been checking email). You should have just denied all knowledge of any one using it as this just opens you up to further questioning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
stupiditto

stupiditto

Posted
Posted
You've admitted allowing 3rd parties access to your router and had no idea what they were doing with your connection (although he may have been checking email). You should have just denied all knowledge of any one using it as this just opens you up to further questioning.

 

It was all fiction I haven't admitted anything. The LOD hasn't even been sent yet lol. I was just creating scenarios.....

 

I did not download or share this album and I also do not know who caused this infringement.

 

Sorry I can not be of more assistance.

 

Joe Bloggs

Not word for word but something like that.

from what I can gather , all the GM/MOS ones are Sky.

 

My ISP is Sky.

 

Why would they just be Sky?

Link to post
Share on other sites
zero_flight

zero_flight

Posted
Posted
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

 

If Gallant Macmillian go the same way as ACS:LAW you will not see any evidence of the infringement , because YOU DO NOT HAVE THE PROPER CLEARANCE TO REQUEST THE EVIDENCE IN QUESTION . Has noone ever woundered why people have left both companies ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
zero_flight

zero_flight

Posted
Posted
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!

 

Well the more letters that are sent out the more complaints they will receive.

 

Why does the SRA tell these companies to stop producing these letters, the complaints will go down and they can conclude the investigation .

 

Does this sound correct or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
BARFLY

BARFLY

Posted
Posted

"Why does the SRA tell these companies to stop producing these letters, the complaints will go down and they can conclude the investigation ."

 

Because the companies are acting within the law. the SRA's findings will most likely concern the conduct of the solicitors concerned. where DL were concerned their letters were a touch too aggressive. i think it was noted earlier this week somewhere that GM contacted the SRA before commencing their mailshot. probably something along the lines of "could you just check the wording of these letters before we send them out"

"yeah, they're fine; go right ahead and send them"

 

so it goes

Link to post
Share on other sites
BARFLY

BARFLY

Posted
Posted

"So is ACS law still carrying on this or have they stopped?"

 

oh they're carrying on, shaggy. any day now BT have to provide them with the 12 000 or so names that they garnished from the November 2009 NPO. BT said it would take nine months to gather the data. that's right about now!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaggy123

Shaggy123

Posted
Posted
"So is ACS law still carrying on this or have they stopped?"

 

oh they're carrying on, shaggy. any day now BT have to provide them with the 12 000 or so names that they garnished from the November 2009 NPO. BT said it would take nine months to gather the data. that's right about now!

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BARFLY

BARFLY

Posted
Posted

np. they're operating within the law. nobody as yet has been able to halt their demands. it's a licence to print money for them so i can't see them stopping voluntarily. they're probably glad a bit of the heat has been taken off them with the emergence of GM. i believe i'm correct about the BT customers. i can't recall there were many on here after that order. i'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong. but id imagine they'll be a few demands to BT customers in the next few weeks for allegedly uploading material between a year and a year and a half ago!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8of9

8of9

Posted
Posted
I agree, I am campaiging agaisnt my isp, no details will be given incase he links them to the real me, basically, he states I am a subscriber to a particular ISP, I'm not and never have been. I'm trying to find out from my isp why they have supplied my details to this other ISP, I also asked them if they stated to ACS that they would not oppose a court order. They didn't answer either question. Their reply, we have to comply with court orders. Second letter going out, told them a simple yes or no answers the question about opposing a court order, copying all letters to Information commissioner. I'm like a mad dog with a bone now.

 

Some of the NPO court orders to the ISP's give them the right to ask (ACS Law) after 6 months from the date of the court order how many of the IP addresses supplied have resulted in court action. This is written into the order and is LEGAL obligation.

PLUSNET have requested this information from ACS Law and it is due tomorrow 4th August. (SKY for some reason do not have this option)

Check out the PLUSNET forum Plusnet will give your personal details to ACS Law with not informing you!! | Community Site

 

Also, the DEB, in its current form, will not stop ACSL, GM and any others that jump on the bandwagon as is does not address the issues and legalities of digital copyright infringement and how it can be proved or disproved (ie the validity of the evidence and how it is gathered). It focuses on the regulation of alleged infringers through the ISP's

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaggy123

Shaggy123

Posted
Posted
Thought I posted earlier but I can't seem to find it. I posted off my LOD to ACS regarding 'Evacuate the Dancefloor' around 4 days ago and got my 2nd letter from them yesterday saying I had 14 days to pay up. Just wondering what people have replied to this? Or did you just ignore it?

 

You stated your position in the first letter. You dont need to get into any sort of postal tennis with them.

 

Ignore it.

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.
 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...