Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's better to keep advice on the open forum for everyone's benefit. Maybe you could post up the correspondence in a single pdf document and cover up your personal details, reference numbers and so on? HB
    • Hi on the notice of disqualification it lists the 2 speed offences and marks offence withdrawn? This is for both offences and then the other 2 is the MS90s which I’m fined for and the additional costs. R
    • Hi,    It has taken a while, but I have received an email from Auxillis -  hello, we are not dealing with this claim all we do is log accident for you isnurance - the claim has been passed to your underwriter markerstudy 0344 873 8183 as they are deal with fault cliams ion behalf of adrian flux. thankyou auxillis   I have made repeated attempts to phone Markerstudy in between working from home, struggling for energy and trying to find a cheap car so that I can keep my job (community support worker). Thankfully I have a supportive team and I am being given phone calls to make but it cant last too long. I had a severe migraine over the weekend and also have quite bad whiplash in my neck and back.    I found this in my insurance policy booklet -    Protection and Recovery If the insured vehicle cannot be driven following an incident leading to a valid claim under this section, we will pay: • the cost of its protection and removal to the nearest approved repairer, competent repairer or nearest place of safety; and • the cost of re-delivery after repairs to your home address; and • the cost of storage of the insured vehicle incurred with our written consent. If the insured vehicle is damaged beyond economical repair we will arrange for it to be stored safely at premises of our choosing. You should remove your personal belongings from the insured vehicle before it is collected from you. In the event of a claim being made under the policy we have the right to remove the insured vehicle to an alternative repairer, place of safety or make our own arrangments for re-delivery at any time in order to keep the cost of the claim to a minimum     I do about 20-25000 miles a year with the work I do, I have been getting quotes and putting that I have now have one accident and no no claims bonus and the cheap quotes from similar companies to markerstudy are more than double what i paid last year at 8-900 and aviva is offering 2600 which is simply out of my price range and more than the car i am looking at.  I am starting to wonder if it is even worth going ahead with the claim as i have no one to claim from. I have had no information from any of the enquiries I have made.  I have a full tank of vpower diesel in the car in the impound, i can strip it for parts and probably make what I will be offered by the insurance payout and get the money quicker.  As I have made contact and started the process can I back out, still keep my NCB and a claim free history? Also what happens with my injuries? I don't think there is any permanent damage but my dr refused to see me and just gave me a boat load of naproxen and codeine. What happens in the future if things don't get better and I cancelled this claim? Can you claim injuries off your own insurance because the other guy ran and you cant find him? I have tried to ask these questions off markerstudy but they keep me waiting for nearly an hour then end the call.    Thank you for your time and help.  It is really appreciated.  I am quite honestly on the floor, I have been really ill, in hospital, had nearly 6 months off work and only been back full time a few weeks and now this.  The fact the company you pay large sums of money to look after you in a time of need is also behaving criminally just makes you want to give up.    
    • Thanks for the response. Am I able to send you the documents I’ve received or can you message via instant message and I’ll send these? Reece
    • Regretfully it does. Have you actually seen any papers which show what you were charged with (rather than what you were convicted of)? It is unusual not to be “dual charged” but if you were not charged with both, you are where you are. If you had been charged with both offences and providing you were the driver at the time, you could, after performing your SD, have asked the prosecutor to drop the “Fail to Provide” (FtP) charges in exchange for a guilty plea to the speeding charges (you cannot be convicted of speeding unless you plead guilty as they have no evidence you were driving). You will have difficulty defending the FtP charges. In fact, it’s worse than that – you have no chance of successfully defending them at all because the reason you did not respond to the requests is because you did not receive them and that’s entirely your fault. No it’s not correct. Six months from 18/11/23 was 18/5/24 so, unless they were originally charged, the speeding offences are now “timed out.” There is one avenue left open to you. If you perform your SD you must serve it on the court which convicted you. You will then receive a date for a hearing to have the matters heard again. Your only chance of having the matters revert to speeding (and this is only providing you were the driver at the time of those offences) is to plead Not Guilty, attend court. When you get there you can ask the prosecutor (very nicely, explaining what a pillock you know you were for failing to update your  V5C) if (s)he is prepared to raise “out of time” speeding charges, to which you will offer to plead guilty if the FtP charges are dropped.   This is strictly speaking not lawful. Charges have to be raised within six months. Some prosecutors are willing to do it, others are not. But frankly it’s the only avenue open to you. There is a risk with this. I imagine you have been fined £660 (plus surcharge and costs) for each offence. The offence attracts a fine of 1.5 week’s net income and where the court has no information about the defendant’s means a default figure of £440pw is used.  If the prosecutor is not prepared to play ball you can revise your pleas to guilty. A sympathetic court should give you the full discount (one third) for your guilty pleas in these circumstances but they may reduce the discount somewhat. The prosecution may also ask for increased costs (£90 or thereabouts is the figure for a guilty plea). So it may cost you more if you have a decent income (I’ll let you do the sums). But MS90 is an endorsement code which gives insurers a fit of the vapours. One such endorsement will see your premiums double. Two of them will see many insurers refuse to quote you at all meaning you will have to approach "specialist" (aka extortionate) brokers. So you really want to exhaust every possibility of avoiding MS90s if you can. One warning: do not pay solicitors silly money to defend you. Making an SD before a solicitor should attract just a nominal sum (perhaps a tenner). That’s all you should pay for. You have no viable defence against the FtP charges and any solicitor suggesting you have is telling you porkies. The offer to do the deal is easily done by yourself and you can save the solicitor’s fees to put towards a few taxis and increased insurance premiums if you are unsuccessful. In the happy event you find out you were "dual charged", let me know and I'll tell you how to proceed. (Seems a bit odd hoping you were charged with four driving offences rather than two, but it's a funny old world!).    
  • 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 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

I received my first letter off GM four weeks ago,I promptly sent a LOD next day first class because I was going away the next day.While I was away on holiday(which was ruined from worring about this situation) I realised I should Have sent it recorded delivery so that what I did first day back in the UK.I have not recieved any other letters yet,does anyone know what the time scale is for GM sending a second letter.I'm hoping recent developments with ACS have them re-thinking their business plan.

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

Anyone received a first letter from ACS after the tribunal announcement? Is he carrying on? Anyone know whether he needs to inform any alleged filesharers that he is to face a tribunal? surely he would need to disclose this if he is threatening legal proceedings in the same matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone received a first letter from ACS after the tribunal announcement? Is he carrying on? Anyone know whether he needs to inform any alleged filesharers that he is to face a tribunal? surely he would need to disclose this if he is threatening legal proceedings in the same matter?

 

Is he still allowed to pursue the cases or will he have to wait for the outcome?

 

I am sending my 2nd LOD as my first was a template and they won't accept it. The 14 days have expired but I'm sure they can wait.

 

Has anyone received a 3rd letter from ACS law?

 

Any help appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations to those threatened by ACS for getting a good result,bit please dont forget the rest of us getting it from GM and probably the next one in line.Lets keep up the campaign and get this bull**** stopped once and for all.

 

Thanks People

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he still allowed to pursue the cases or will he have to wait for the outcome?

 

I am sending my 2nd LOD as my first was a template and they won't accept it. The 14 days have expired but I'm sure they can wait.

 

Has anyone received a 3rd letter from ACS law?

 

Any help appreciated

 

I suppose that until he goes before the tribunal he is free to carry on. Innocent until proved guilty. (Not a privilage afforded to the recipients of the letters though who are, of course, all guilty.)

Whether he carries on, or not, remains to be seen. (His predecessors, Davenport Lyons, stopped when they were in a similar situation)

If you've sent an LOD, thats enough. You have no need to enter into any further correspondence.

The balls now firmly in his court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i sent a letter 3 weeks ago to gm offering £100 but no word yet should i worry as originally i panicked and said on phone i would pay the £375 at end of september but decided to offer lower sum but they have not responded

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is my original posting

 

quote_icon.png Originally Posted by blashey viewpost-right.png

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 recieved a letter from gallant agreeing i can pay £350 on september 30th 2010

i was about to send below letter is it too late as i havent signed anything ?????

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

Last December a relative 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 called 80s remix ministry of sound 80s album listened to it and liked it and bought a copy.

 

 

I open a letter from you on behalf of ministry of sound saying I was an illegal file sharer and would be taken to court unless I paid £370

 

I tried to explain I 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

 

I am 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 you also said 7 other people downloaded it from me while I was downloading it I can only apologize as I didn’t realise

 

As I have been honest and upfront from the first call I made to your selves I would like to come to a compromise if possible as this has caused me and my family a lot of stress.

On advice I have been asked under the accordance of the practise for pre action conduct in IP disputes to make hopefully what I feel would be a fairer sum to pay your selves would be £100.

I hope you can agree to this and the matter hopefully can be resolved

Thank you for your understanding in this matter

Edited by blashey
spelling mistakes
Link to post
Share on other sites

@blashey

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

 

Who did you try to explain to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that yes he probably is still allowed to practice.

 

However, I would refer to the case against him and his shoddy practices in my LOD. It will let them know you are no pushover which seems to be one of the criteria for dropping a case against you.

 

Yorky

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is my original posting

 

quote_icon.png Originally Posted by blashey viewpost-right.png

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 recieved a letter from gallant agreeing i can pay £350 on september 30th 2010

i was about to send below letter is it too late as i havent signed anything ?????

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

Last December a relative 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 called 80s remix ministry of sound 80s album listened to it and liked it and bought a copy.

 

 

I open a letter from you on behalf of ministry of sound saying I was an illegal file sharer and would be taken to court unless I paid £370

 

I tried to explain I 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

 

I am 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 you also said 7 other people downloaded it from me while I was downloading it I can only apologize as I didn’t realise

 

As I have been honest and upfront from the first call I made to your selves I would like to come to a compromise if possible as this has caused me and my family a lot of stress.

On advice I have been asked under the accordance of the practise for pre action conduct in IP disputes to make hopefully what I feel would be a fairer sum to pay your selves would be £100.

I hope you can agree to this and the matter hopefully can be resolved

Thank you for your understanding in this matter

 

I think you've noosed your self.Your first letter says you downloaded didn't like deleted.second letter you downoaded and bought album.

 

 

 

as a lay person I would say you havent a leg to stand on because of your inconsistancy.Better to deny it and let them o the work.

But thanks for the imput,It helps other people with the same problem.Good luck with your fight,and if they do want the full amount make the f""ck""s work for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to gallant and mcmillan

 

blashey, please keep us updated though as it'd be good to know if they'll take a little less!!

 

I'm in a similar boat myself, I'll be honest and say (on here) yes I do download occassionaly but mainly TV shows from the states as I hate waiting, but to my knowledge I have not downloaded MOS back to the 90's like GM are accusing me of, so I'm in a kinda pickle, do I send a LOD and risk someone scrutenising my HD or just pay and as said before, if you do pay does that mean next time, next 'customer' they automatically send me a bill as an easy target, I hate these f###ers :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

to gallant and mcmillan

 

Unfortunately I tend to agree with the previous post by Witzend.. If you have said that you have downloaded it to GM then, what they have from you, is an admission of guilt. I dont think it would be wise to now write them a letter saying something different as I would presume that their calls would be recorded in some way.

There seems to be a lot of inconsistancies in what you have said and what you intend to write. I am not a legal person but damage limitation is probably your best course of action now. Therefore, in your situation, it might be wise to seek legal advise.

 

(BTW downloading to listen to isn't a very good excuse as there are plenty of sites on the net where you can listen for free.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silver wood - If you did not download / upload MOS, then tell them that in you Letter of Denial. (LOD). Your LOD should say you did not download it, and that you did not authorise anyone else to download / upload it. Remember you are being accused of UPLOADING the file - that way they can claim bigger damages against you. ( torrent files work by uploading tiny 'bits' at the same time as downloading.

 

They cant take your computer away to do a check without a court order - and my guess if they ever got an order, which they wont, you would probably have "changed" computers by that time so there will be no computer for them to check ,if you get my drift lol.

 

Remember, its there job to provide evidence that you have done this- it is not your job to provide evidence to them.

 

 

Send you LOD and await the second letter, and follow the advice on here. You didnt do what they claim, so send the LOD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bugger i didnt realise i wrote on first letter i deleted it then second letter i bought it :( im in trouble :(

 

Doesn't make any difference anyway, you've made a mess of it by admitting you downloaded the file, simple as that, as you have now realised, this was rather foolish.

 

The arguements you put in your letter(s) are not a defence they are a admission and a mitigation, (i.,e they might treat you less harshly), but the reality is, this is nothing to do with protecting MOS's copyright, its a '[problem]' (although legal) to try and earn some extra money due to poor record sales.

 

As I've learnt from experience when responding to legal/court documents (or even when questioned by police, etc), DO NOT spout out the first thing that comes into your head, think about what they are asking, why are they asking and give an appriopiate response (which may be nothing !) and/or seek legal advice.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silver wood - If you did not download / upload MOS, then tell them that in you Letter of Denial. (LOD). Your LOD should say you did not download it, and that you did not authorise anyone else to download / upload it. Remember you are being accused of UPLOADING the file - that way they can claim bigger damages against you. ( torrent files work by uploading tiny 'bits' at the same time as downloading.

 

They cant take your computer away to do a check without a court order - and my guess if they ever got an order, which they wont, you would probably have "changed" computers by that time so there will be no computer for them to check ,if you get my drift lol.

 

When I first received my letter of claim I stupidly rang them up to ask what it was all about, they said I shared it with x amount of people.

 

How can they prove this?

Can they get a court order to get your laptop with this being a civil claim and not criminal?(nothing to hide just asking)

 

please help I need to understand it all

Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't going to be taking anyone's computer for analysis,. it costs many thousands of pounds to forensically analyse a computer disk. The [problem] works because all they are paying at the moment is postage, they would soon stop if they had to spend real money to gather evidence :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

blashey, please keep us updated though as it'd be good to know if they'll take a little less!!

 

I'm in a similar boat myself, I'll be honest and say (on here) yes I do download occassionaly but mainly TV shows from the states as I hate waiting, but to my knowledge I have not downloaded MOS back to the 90's like GM are accusing me of, so I'm in a kinda pickle, do I send a LOD and risk someone scrutenising my HD or just pay and as said before, if you do pay does that mean next time, next 'customer' they automatically send me a bill as an easy target, I hate these f###ers :mad:

 

 

@Silverwood Can I ask would people be able to use your internet without your knowledge, unsecure wireless etc?

 

I can understand people getting letters if they have downloaded or if they have unsecure wireless but if people are getting letters just because they have used torrents then that would leave most of the open source comunity open to these letters which are legal uses for torrents. This would be a very scary situation as it would mean that there is no checking of data. I've read somewhere that they are supposed to get a list of the IP addresses and then connect to the IP addresses and then download at least some small amount of information.

 

If this is the case then at least it would rule out torrent site admins poluting the IP pool with fake IP addresses as even if someone was using torrent software they would have to connect not only to your machine but also be offered at least a small amount of the file they were monitoring and not just because they could connect to a torrent client program.

 

This would seem to leave the possibility of

 

a) you actually downloading the file

b) your connection being used without authorisation / wireless hacked

 

That is of course if they do check that they can connect not only to a torrent client but also to the file being monitored. If not then anyone using torrent software for legal purposes and unlucky enough to have their IP address placed in a pool of IP addresses by a site admin could get a letter despite only downloading Linux distros.

 

Just trying to understand the situation really

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read somewhere that they are supposed to get a list of the IP addresses and then connect to the IP addresses and then download at least some small amount of information.

 

If they actually did that, the trackers would give themselves away to the torrent sites, and would be blocked. This is why IP address spoofing works, because the trackers cannot actually download anything without giving themselves away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Silverwood Can I ask would people be able to use your internet without your knowledge, unsecure wireless etc?

 

Possibly, I did have to run the router on occassions last year with the security turned off as the kids wanted to connect their DS's through it and it did'nt like the WEP code or something like that, since then my brother inlaw has sorted it out with a different type if password thing that allows it but keeps the network secure (really dont get all this, you may be able to tell) is there a log or anything in the router that would show when it was/wasn't enabled?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This all boils down to the accuracy of the evidence.....

 

Tracking companies such as Media Protector and Logistep are always super-confident of the accuracy of their systems, even though they are never confident enough to open them up to scrutiny. Lawyers are always quick to point out that the evidence is good enough for the courts to grant orders for the disclosure of user’s personal information, but it’s a one sided process and the defendant never gets the opportunity to contest before their identity is revealed.

 

In the interests of fairness and transparency, the sooner these companies have their systems opened up for scrutiny, the better. If the systems are proved accurate, then this strengthens the position of anti-piracy tracking companies and enhances their credibility, so one has to question why they are so reluctant to reveal their techniques.

 

Perhaps of more concern is why courts are so willing to accept this data as foolproof when seemingly no-one knows how it is collected. And when defendants are denied this information too, fairness seems a distant concept.

And that is why no one will be taken to court. It would open up their evidence to scrutiny and cross examination.

 

Some really useful stuff here http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/info.php

Edited by 8of9
Added link
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...