Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • thread tidied. new thread for the court claim is here  
    • new thread created for this claimform please post here now for anything to do with it now . pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’. Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time. You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID. You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .. get a CCA Request running to the claimant . https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332502-cca-request-consumer-credit-act-1974-updated-january-2015/ .. Leave the £1 PO unsigned and uncrossed . get a CPR  31:14  request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant] ... https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ . .use our other CPR letter if the claim is for an OD or Telecom Debt or Util debt]  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ on BOTH type your name ONLY Do Not sign anything .do not ever use or give an email . you DO NOT await the return of ANY paperwork  you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count] ..............  
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Northampton  Name of the Claimant ? lowell Solicitors : Overdales solicitors  How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to.  13 may 2024 What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? 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. Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?   Not to my knowledge. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online but it was for a smaller amount they kept on increasing this with me asking Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. It was assigned to a debt collection agency  Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? yes  Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes I also made offers to pay original creditor a smaller amount but was not replied to Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? No Why did you cease payments? I was made redundant and got a less paid job I also spent some time on furlough during covid and spent some 3 months on ssp off work. What was the date of your last payment? May 2021 Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes at the time I communicated with all my creditor's that I was running out of funds to pay the original agreements once my redundancy money ran out that was when my accounts defaulted. I then wrote to all my creditor's with pro rata offers of payments but debt collectors took over the accounts.
    • Just an update for all. I received about a letter every other week, increasing in threat levels. Then I hadn't had one for a about two weeks, then Saturday received a carbon copy of the very first letter they sent me in February. Made me laugh, rinse and repeat. 
    • So, your response was not received by the SCP as you did not send it with a valid stamp. Therefore, from my two option in post #14, the first option is the only one available to you, but you do not have the option of asking to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level as the reason the SCP did not receive your response was down to you. Here's a reminder of what to do: Respond to the SJPN by pleading “Not Guilty” to both charges. In the “Reasons for pleading Not Guilty” box state that you are willing to plead guilty to the speeding charge providing, and only providing, the “Fail to Provide Driver's Details" (FtP) charge is dropped. This is a tried and tested method to deal with your problem and is almost always successful. Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to do this "deal" because it needs the agreement of the police prosecutor.. During the pandemic courts made every effort to have as few  people as possible attend and they began doing this deal under the "Single Justice" procedure without the defendant's attendance. Some courts have carried this procedure on whilst others have reverted to a personal attendance being necessary. If you are required to attend, your case will be taken out of the SJ procedure and you will be given a date for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court. If that is the way they do it in the area involved you will have to attend, see the prosecutor and offer your "deal" in person. 
  • 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 4955 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

Agree with that.

 

However, the SRA has worked extremely hard over the years to establish a spotless reputation as the 'regulator least likely to take action'

 

Short of a solicitor being caught red handed making off with a clients money, (complete with mask, stripy jumper and a bag marked swag over his shoulder), the SRA manage to excuse just about any action taken by members of their 'profession'.

 

We shall see.

 

David

hi cash

yes it is very very hard sitting on your bum and doing nothing so's you dont upset the applecart like the SRA WHO HAVE AN UNBLEMISHED RECORD OF DO NOTHING

AND SAY NOTHING they all P**s in same POT

patrickq1

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

'Afternoon all,

 

The following has just been posted on another forum, and is reposted here with the absolute, written permission of the author:

 

Guys,

 

Before I say anything else, I just want to say that I have affiliations with ACS Law and do know fully what I am talking about.

 

I've followed your discussion board for a number of months and have deliberated on whether or not to actually post anything. But I need to make clear that I have no company loyalty to ACS Law, and have always believed that their actions were totally immoral.

 

So, here it is.

 

1) Yes, ACS Law do read this forum, and others in relation to this.

 

2) They have NEVER taken anybody to court in relation to this.

 

3) Unless they have categorical evidence that you infringed copyright, they will never take anybody to court in relation to this. Such 'evidence' is collected by different methods, including trawling the internet and forums such as this, perhaps by finding usernames posting questions about something they have illegally downloaded, and attributing that username to an alleged infringer on their system, or if there have been numerous instances of uploading.

 

4) Just to make it absolutely clear, ACS Law are NOT accusing you of downloading anything. They are accusing you of making something available for UPLOAD, for example on a sharing site like Emule.

 

5) In most cases, I have found it to be the case that this is a case of a THIRD PARTY using your internet connection to DOWNLOAD a file using YOUR wireless connection, which can then be UPLOADED by somebody at any time, if the internet is connected. You do not have to be in the house, awake, on the computer.

 

6) And now for the defence. When you receive a letter from ACS Law, if it's the first letter of claim, and you are innocent, ALL you need to do is write a letter back to them, saying categorically that you did NOT commit the infringement, you did NOT personally make the file available for upload, and as far as you are aware, it is a case of somebody using your internet connection illegally.

 

7) They will write back to you, asking you questions about your internet connection. You can, if you like, reply to this, give them more information than they really need, and be done with it - OR, you can just ignore it. Because once you've replied to the first letter, saying it wasn't you, that's all you need to say. If it's one or two instances of uploading, it won't go to court. They have no grounds.

 

8 ) They are only concentrating on taking people to court in the eventuality that their evidence is stacked against you. In the majority (99%) of cases, that is not the case.

 

9) ACS Law get their money by sending out huge numbers of letters to people like you, who are normally totally innocent, but pay out of fear or guilt. DON'T. You have NO need to pay this money if you didn't do it. Don't fund their ridiculous cause.

 

10) Andrew Crossley LOVES the media attention and doesn't care if it's positive or negative - he literally just enjoys the 'fame' that goes alongside it.

 

11) This case is only overlooked by Andrew; he signs the pieces of paper when he needs to and asks how much money's coming in, but beyond that, he's just sticking his name to this. The real work is done by the paralegals in the office, who, by the way, may believe you when you say you're innocent, but have to carry on pursuing you for money because that is where their income is generated. I've known of cases where extremely elderly individuals have no idea about all of this but pay up out of fear. THAT is disgusting.

 

12) The money is drying up in the company, which means the work of people in such a forum as this IS effective and you guys need to carry on, because you are having a huge negative impact on the company.

 

13) If any of you have the cash, take THEM to court. The minute this is taken to court, it will fall apart and there will be no such case in this country ever again (as happened in France).

 

14) Good luck, and I hope some of this information was helpful. They will not win in court, they won't even bother taking this to court, because it will FAIL. They will do anything they can to avoid going to court, and their threats NEED to be ignored. THEY WILL NOT TAKE YOU TO COURT. All they can do is continue to threaten you - if they are really p*ssing you off with all their letters, just send them all back RTS. They'll eventually get the picture. Besides, envelopes and paper get expensive. They'll end up spending more money on you than you'll ever spend on them.

 

Just to make it clear - THEY WILL NOT TAKE YOU TO COURT. It is the very LAST thing they want.

 

Whistleblower

PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING

WRITE TO A LORD ABOUT ACS LAW (It's easy) http://www.writetothem.com/lords

Contact the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) http://www.sra.org.uk

Contact the ICO(The Information Commissioner’s Office) http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Contact Which? Magazine [email protected]

Contact the BBC Panorama http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/contact_us/default.stm

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent my first letter of denial off last week so await their phishing survey. In short I havent done what they say I've done so unless they fabricate something they're wasting their time.

 

When they reply I wont be completing their survey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scooby - you may want to edit your post; it's REALLY important that any newbies coming onto this thread don't get the impression that ACS' letters are any kind of [problem].

 

Technically, they're ABSOLUTELY NOT a [problem], and could potentially have real, legal ramifications if Crossley ever did decide to go down the route of testing a case in a court of law.

 

In this instance (however unlikely), failing to reply to the initial letter could actually count against you in court, and so is not recommended.

 

By all means, send ONE letter of denial, stating that you are not guilty of either downloading or uploading the work, and that you have not given your permission for anyone else to do so either, and THEN Leave it at that, if you're so inclined.

 

(It should go without saying that this applies even moreso if a Part 36 offer lands on your doormat!)

PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING

WRITE TO A LORD ABOUT ACS LAW (It's easy) http://www.writetothem.com/lords

Contact the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) http://www.sra.org.uk

Contact the ICO(The Information Commissioner’s Office) http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Contact Which? Magazine [email protected]

Contact the BBC Panorama http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/contact_us/default.stm

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to have confirmation from the inside that what we'd worked out was by and large correct :)

 

I'm not sure that I agree about taking them to court though - I can't see any grounds for doing so. I fear that what they are doing, while utterly immoral, is perfectly legal :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scooby - you may want to edit your post; it's REALLY important that any newbies coming onto this thread don't get the impression that ACS' letters are any kind of [problem].

 

Technically, they're ABSOLUTELY NOT a [problem], and could potentially have real, legal ramifications if Crossley ever did decide to go down the route of testing a case in a court of law.

 

In this instance (however unlikely), failing to reply to the initial letter could actually count against you in court, and so is not recommended.

 

By all means, send ONE letter of denial, stating that you are not guilty of either downloading or uploading the work, and that you have not given your permission for anyone else to do so either, and THEN Leave it at that, if you're so inclined.

 

(It should go without saying that this applies even moreso if a Part 36 offer lands on your doormat!)

 

Wow..Deja Vu..You'll see from my very early posts on this thread that I asked people not to use the phrase '[problem]', and some even argued against that, not helped by dud information given out by ISP's anmd in some cases C.A.B.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC News - Law firm's piracy hunt condemned - most have probably seen this articel but i had not spotted it before.

 

Sent a letter back catagorically denying it and offering possible alternative scenario's as to how they are mistaken etc and am now the recipient of a second letter saying (essentially) that they are corerect and i am wrong and any excuses will not wash and giving me 14 days to pay. There is a lot of grey/vague wording in the letter too. I am in the process of preparing a furhter response and seeking council from several practicing solicitors who are friends or aquaintences.

Edited by Caimbeul
Spelling/Grammar mistakes
Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC News - Law firm's piracy hunt condemned

 

Sent a letter back catagorically denying it and offering possible alternative scenario's and how they be mistaken etc and am now the recipient of a second letter saying (essentially) that they are corerect and i am wrong and any excuses will not wash and givin me 14 days to pay. There is a lot of grey/vague wording in the letter too. I am in the process of preparing a furhter response and seeking council from several practicing solicitors who are friends or aquaintences.

 

You shouldn't have offered alternative scenarios.

 

Let them do the guesswork without playing into their hands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well by offeirng alternative scenarios you've given them the opportunity to pre-empt your defence IMO. That's half their job done.

 

If for example you said "I have an unsecured wireless network so it could have been anyone" they now know a bit more about your situation.

 

I've told them nothing as I owe them nothing.

 

I dont know what you told them in your first letter so cannot say what you should do now but I know when I get a 2nd letter they'll get short shrift as i've laready told them its nothing to do with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caimbeul -

 

If you are not guilty of what ACS are alleging, simply tell them so:

 

A second letter, simply stating that -

 

(a) You did not upload the work.

(b) Nobody else, to the best of your knowledge, uploaded the work.

© You have not given anybody else permission to carry out said upload.

 

This being the case, you are completely innocent of their claims, and will NOT be making any requested payment.

 

In addition, you feel (if this is the case, of course), that their letters and continuing accusations constitute a form of harrassment, with a view to pressuring you to pay 'damages', for which you are not responsible. This being the case, you will NOT be entering into any further correspondence with them on the matter, and will view any additional letters from them as grounds for a harrassment case.

 

As Shaggy has quite rightly said, they are NOT entitled to any additional information, or 'possible explaination' from you whatseoever; any suggestion on their part that they ARE is simply a fishing tactic, in the hope that you will say something which can be construed as potentially incriminating.

 

**Please note - the above does not consitute any kind of legal advice, and is a suggestion for consideration only!! Always use your common sense when replying to letters such as this **

PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING

WRITE TO A LORD ABOUT ACS LAW (It's easy) http://www.writetothem.com/lords

Contact the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) http://www.sra.org.uk

Contact the ICO(The Information Commissioner’s Office) http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Contact Which? Magazine [email protected]

Contact the BBC Panorama http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/contact_us/default.stm

Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is that you send one letter of denial, and then ignore everything after that, unless you get court papers. Playing letter ping-pong is a pointless waste of time.

 

If I ever got a letter from them, I would take a different approach, and ignore them altogether. Then if they tried to chance it in court in the hope of getting a default judgement, I would vigorously defend. That would leave them with a choice of discontinuing or actually taking it all the way, which would be fun. Either way it would cost them money :) I fully accept that such a matter is not for the faint hearted though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried to start this as a new thread but it is not showing up so here goes:

 

A new Sheriff in Town? Recorded letter from 'Tilly Bailey Irvine' on behalf of M&M GMBH with an 'offer of settlement' for p2p copyright fraud

 

*****

 

Hi everyone-

 

Any comments and advice from the community very much appreciated on this. I am in the position to pay their suggested 'fine' as a settlement but I did not d/l or share the file they state and I do not want the implied guilt of a 'quick settlement to get ot all sorted and off my mind' scenario.

 

I recently received a recorded letter from 'Tilly Bailey Irvine' a firm of UK lawyers representing 'Media & More GMBH & CO KG'. It does not appear to be a 'Part 36' letter as it is requiring a 14 day maximum response time (UK Justice Ministry guidelines state clearly clearly 'not less than 21 days' to respond to a formal part 36 and I cannot see the phrase "Part 36" anywhere on it which is also a requirement of a letter 'intended to have the consequences of a part 36'.

 

The letter included a copy of a spreadsheet with hundreds of other IP address on it- so I imagine other people will be receiving similar letters.

 

They allege I used p2p software to download porn: what they have identified I did not.

 

The company they used to trawl for IP was 'Media Protetcor GMBH' who have a website Stop-P2P-Piracy - Select Language

 

On their FAQ it states that it is impossible for their technology to identify an IP address incorrectly; or for your wireless connection to be hacked into so that an intruder can use your signal connection to download/ upload i.e. if this were the case then MP GMBH would pick up on that and not identify IP address in their trawl.

 

The TBI 'offer letter' appears markedly different from the ones being discussed such as the DL/ACS and Andrew Crossley situations.

 

For example it refers to a major case at the High Court in London (Justice Warren on 28th January 2010) and it says that there will be no more contact between them and myself unless I agree to their undertakings and make the three digit compensation- otherwise they will move straight to court proceedings. Here is the relevant text:

 

"Legal Consequences

The extensive file sharing activity is causing damage to our client's business. Our

client is therefore left with no alternative but to police its intellectual property rights

and enforce them against infringers.

 

In the event that it becomes necessary for our client to bring a claim against you for

copyright infringement, the legal costs of those proceedings will be substantial. We

must make you aware that if successful, our client will be entitled to recover from you

damages and a contribution towards its legal costs of bringing the claim to court. You

will also have to incur your own legal costs. We estimate that collectively such costs

would be several thousand pounds. In the event that you were not able to pay

whatever sums the court may direct, our client would have no option but to take steps

to enforce the debt against your property."

 

Next Steps —

payment and undertakings

You can provide the undertaking (referred to at 1 and 2 above) by signing the written

undertakings enclosed with this letter and returning them to this firm, together with

your payment, using the attached payment form. Payment must be made either by

cheque, bank transfer, credit card or SWITCH/DELTA. No other form of payment

will be accepted.

For the avoidance of doubt, these undertakings will represent an agreement between

you and our client and if you act in breach of that agreement, our client will have no

option but to take further action against you. The payment and undertakings must be

made and received by us within 14 days of receipt of this letter.

 

Next Steps —

commencing proceedings

In the event that either the payment or undertakings are not received within fourteen

days of the date of this letter, we are instructed to commence proceedings without

further notice. "

 

I am minded to send a brief LOD by recorded delivery but am worried about the phrase of " we are instructed to commence proceedings without

further notice" - this was not used by ACS.

 

Any advice on what steps to take much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is that you send one letter of denial, and then ignore everything after that, unless you get court papers. Playing letter ping-pong is a pointless waste of time.

 

 

Agree, in fact I think it's positively detrimental.

 

The more you engage with them, the more encouragement it gives them.

 

david

Link to post
Share on other sites

On their FAQ it states that it is impossible for their technology to identify an IP address incorrectly; or for your wireless connection to be hacked into so that an intruder can use your signal connection to download/ upload i.e. if this were the case then MP GMBH would pick up on that and not identify IP address in their trawl.

 

That's bull for a start

Link to post
Share on other sites

For example it refers to a major case at the High Court in London (Justice Warren on 28th January 2010)

 

Probably more bull. It probably refers to the ISPs having to respond to a court order and handing over details of the people on their IP list.

 

Hardly a groundbreaking major case. :lol:

 

If you havent done it send them a letter saying you didnt do it. Dont go into detail about your network or give them any more information than they need. Let them do the work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I'm new here and have been reading this thread all morning. Very interesting but I'm not entirely clear on the recommended first course of action.

 

Some suggest a LoD to the first thing they receive (perhaps after waiting a couple of weeks) while Flyyte and some others are saying you should ignore the first letter and wait to see if they follow up?

What are the risks in doing the latter and is it generally advised against?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably more bull. It probably refers to the ISPs having to respond to a court order and handing over details of the people on their IP list.

 

Hardly a groundbreaking major case. :lol:

 

If you havent done it send them a letter saying you didnt do it. Dont go into detail about your network or give them any more information than they need. Let them do the work.

 

On another forum they are saying what is different about this one (from the text I published from the papers I receivd) is that it only refers to emule and that this requires a 'user name' that can be used to identify someone.

 

But I have scoured web on this- as hoping the said username might identify whover hacked my wireless connection- and it seems that majority of user names are actually something default like 'project emule'.

 

Anyone shed any light on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I'm new here and have been reading this thread all morning. Very interesting but I'm not entirely clear on the recommended first course of action.

 

Some suggest a LoD to the first thing they receive (perhaps after waiting a couple of weeks) while Flyyte and some others are saying you should ignore the first letter and wait to see if they follow up?

What are the risks in doing the latter and is it generally advised against?

i'm in the same sisution as you i went to citezens advice and they said to ingore and come back with a LOD if i get anything else through so i dunno

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm in the same sisution as you i went to citezens advice and they said to ingore and come back with a LOD if i get anything else through so i dunno

 

Interesting that CAB advise to ignore it. I will contact my local one tomorrow and see if they advise the same

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm in the same sisution as you i went to citezens advice and they said to ingore and come back with a LOD if i get anything else through so i dunno

 

 

The more I have read about this phenomenon (being a 'virgin' till the recorded letter arrived) the more annoyed I have become.

 

I have not downloaded what I am being accused of and neither let anyone else do it.

 

All the various contributions on here illustrate that this is a fundamentally unsound (and in some cases illegitimate) technology and that it is 'unsafe and unsound' as a means to establish guilt (in the UK certainly- entrapment and/ or no evidence that ISP 'owner' was present when alleged offence took place). There have been TV programmes apparently on UK TV showing how easy (and frequent) is the hijacking/ piggy backing / hacking of wireless internet connections.

 

I have come to the conclusion that this is indeed simply a fishing exercise to smoke out those who indeed know they are guilty ('fair cop guv' scenarios) or the nervy/ non-cognate people who will pay up to 'make it all go away'.

 

The fact that it is- for the moment- a legitimate practice for erstwhile bona fide UK law firms to engage in only makes it more annoying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4955 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...