Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The case against the US-based ride-hailing giant is being brought on behalf of over 10,800 drivers.View the full article
    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
  • 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 4935 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

 

Try to calm down and relax, they want you to worry and be scared as they want you to pay. Therefore you need to do exactly the opposite. Send the LOD. Carry on with life like normal. Don't let ACS win!

 

Well said!

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

I think the only way that we as a group can bring this to an end is to continually contact the people in power, MPs the lords etc. In other countries it is the authorities who have stopped this. In France a solicitor was struck off, Spain aren’t interested either and other countries have put a block on this in other ways. The current US Hurt Locker cases appear to be running into difficulties at both the ISP and court level.

 

Everyone affected by this needs to contact their MPs and write to the lords.

 

It is easy to do this go to the website http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ for contact information. Remember to mention the stress this has caused, the fact that the lords promised to put a stop to ACS activities. It is as simple as writing an email and clicking send. The more people who continue to do this and repeatedly ask the question over and over aging if necessary the better. Let's be honest maybe we can learn something from Andy's operation, let’s continue to send out correspondence to MPs and the lords and see if we can make a difference.

 

If we do not do this this situation is going to get a whole lot worse very quickly. The company involved in the hurt locker IP harvesting has stated on its website that it has run an operation in the UK!

Also speak to other family members about writting an email it could just as easily been another member of the family who was falsley accussed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looked on Companies House to check this, and it says the company is "Dissolved"

 

I think the Manchester oufit is unrelated, probably a paralegal.

 

You won't find ACS Law solicitors for the simple reason that a firm of solicitors would be a sole prop or an partnership - solicitors cannot legally be a Ltd Co.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrence Tsang left ACS Law about a month ago...:D

 

Looking at His bio for His current employer, He never worked at ACS Law.

To embarrassed to admit it now and the "Tel leaving" article in the news section on ACS's web site has now disappeared.

 

I reckon we could make a soap opera out of all this! LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been musing: I wonder if ACS would actually bring an individual who had prepared a defence to court: it would be a huge gamble for them, as a successful defence would set a precedent and the golden-goose would truly be slaughtered (i.e. they would not be able to harvest cash via threatening individuals).

I wonder if we could counter sue, i.e someone put themselves forward and our community contribute to a warchest to cover legal fees, to get the Crossley into a court room and get this evience tested once and for all.

Just musing, but Crossley is one brief, there are thousands of people in our boat. The law works both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke to someone from Lawdit Solicitors the other day (as I have still been freakin out over the whole situation) and I asked how many times do they need to write to ACS (the LoD) before ACS back off...and the solicitor said that they'll send off the LoD on behalf of client and then ACS may respond saying that they're sending a template and cannot be accepted (!) and then if neccessary, a 2nd letter is sent and ACS stop chasing after that.

 

Did you get any idea (no matter how rough) of how much they charge to make ACS go away?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you get any idea (no matter how rough) of how much they charge to make ACS go away?

 

They wont make them go away or drop the case. ACS have a tick sheet for defendants and a reply via a lawyer like Lawdit will make them more likely to let you drop off the radar (but this is balanced against anything else you disclose about yourself).

 

The reason for the £300 starting price is that this is similar to the cost of instructing a solicitor to write a defence, so the defendant is likely just to pay off ACS law to get rid of them.

 

A general concensus is that you might as well follow the Speculative Invoicing handbook and fire off your own letters for the cost of stamps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys

 

Another "victim" here well my parents are im dealing with it on their behalf.

 

Its the Evacuate the dancefloor again! :rolleyes:

 

My parents wouldnt have a clue how to upload or download music. Is it just me or are all the offences on weekends - designed so you cannot refute the claims on the basis of being at work!

 

Luckily i work for a solicitors so my colleagues have been very helpful in the construction of the LOD.

 

I will also be complaining to the SRA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To all the new-comers - Welcome! Just want to say that I first received my letter for Scooter last June. After a little bit of letter ping pong (I think four or 5 in total) I have been left alone. One thing to bear in mind is that the ACS Law website "news" is worded in such a way to panic those who have been accused. Please, please, please do not feel pressured by what they write. It's nearly always a load of b*llocks. So calm down, get professional advice and advice from this forum :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest everyone to read this.

 

particularly the sections relating to "infringement notifications"

 

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/copyright-infringement/condoc.pdf

 

 

This is proposed Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010

Draft Initial Obligations Code

 

It could be argued that ACS:Law are taking advantage of the fact that these obligations are not in place as of yet and are trying to "harvest" as much as they can before they come into force.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To all the new-comers - Welcome! Just want to say that I first received my letter for Scooter last June. After a little bit of letter ping pong (I think four or 5 in total) I have been left alone. One thing to bear in mind is that the ACS Law website "news" is worded in such a way to panic those who have been accused. Please, please, please do not feel pressured by what they write. It's nearly always a load of b*llocks. So calm down, get professional advice and advice from this forum :)

 

Hi there did you employ a solictor? If not where did you get all your templates from (past 1st and 2nd that are on this forum)?

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be argued that ACS:Law are taking advantage of the fact that these obligations are not in place as of yet and are trying to "harvest" as much as they can before they come into force.

 

I agree -

 

My interpretation of the proposed code, and in particular the following parts;

 

3.2, 4.4, 5.6 and 7.5

 

is that it will effectively end the ACS:Law business model as it currently stands. It seems that the whole copyright infringement "business" will be cleaned up -

 

  • Copyright owners will be able deal directly with ISPs.
  • Allegations of copyright infringement will have to be evidentially robust and accurate, and proven to be so.
  • The process of matching IP addresses to subscribers will have to be proved to be accurate.
  • Provisions for grounds of appeal on which a subscriber may rely.

The sooner this comes in. the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To all the new-comers - Welcome! Just want to say that I first received my letter for Scooter last June. After a little bit of letter ping pong (I think four or 5 in total) I have been left alone. One thing to bear in mind is that the ACS Law website "news" is worded in such a way to panic those who have been accused. Please, please, please do not feel pressured by what they write. It's nearly always a load of b*llocks. So calm down, get professional advice and advice from this forum :)

 

Hi thanks for this, i have still not replied to the letter and am still a little rabbit in the headlights over this, reading all the posts helps though. Can anyone else advise how long the letter writing and threat of legal action is likely to hang over us in total? for example...do you know that it is now over after four / five letters and a year later? or can they come back for more? Does anyone know if we keep the letter writing going until the change in the law takes place...will they have to drop the case then as the law will of changed?

 

I know i only seem to write posts asking questions of you all. Sorry for that. Truth be told I am still thinking of paying to make it go away. I cant live with this fear hanging over me for months / years to come.

 

Best of luck everyone and thanks for all the posts they have been a great help and resource.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke to someone from Lawdit Solicitors the other day (as I have still been freakin out over the whole situation) and I asked how many times do they need to write to ACS (the LoD) before ACS back off...and the solicitor said that they'll send off the LoD on behalf of client and then ACS may respond saying that they're sending a template and cannot be accepted (!) and then if neccessary, a 2nd letter is sent and ACS stop chasing after that.

 

 

I'm surprised a legal firm would feel the need to counter any accusation of a default letter being sent tbh. Still any business must be good business and the lawyers don't seem to be doing too badly on either side of this farce.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys.

One more here, same story, evacuate the dance floor. Not even sure whether that's an album or one song, but anyway, the problem is the same.

Could anyone please be so kind and send me LOD template. It's not that I'm lazy and can't follow the guide. But english is not my native language and I'm just a bit worried if acs law cought me on wrongly chosen word or used comma in the wrong place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And a little something to chew over....

 

Why Switzerland?

 

Of course had ACS Law conducted this IP harvesting in the UK they would have been subject to the conditions of the RIPA 2000.

 

This raises a few points which I'll cover briefly:

 

1) Is there a treaty or agreement in place between Switzerland and the UK relating to the interception of electronic communications.

1a) If yes then the terms of the RIPA 2000 should be extended to cover ACS's behaviour in a participating state ergo ACS must have a warrant issued in accordance with the law such:

 

Application for issue of an interception warrant

 

(1) An interception warrant shall not be issued except on an application made by or on behalf of a person specified in subsection (2).

(2) Those persons are—

(a) the Director-General of the Security Service;

(b) the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service;

© the Director of GCHQ;

(d) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service;

(e) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis;

(f) the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary;

(g) the chief constable of any police force maintained under or by virtue of section 1 of the [1967 c. 77.] Police (Scotland) Act 1967;

(h) the Commissioners of Customs and Excise;

(i) the Chief of Defence Intelligence;

(j) a person who, for the purposes of any international mutual assistance agreement, is the competent authority of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.

 

1b) If no then the data was gathered unlawfully and can be contested as such.

 

 

If the data was gathered lawfully under Swiss law but not UK law then the place to bring proceedings is surely Switzerland and the admissibility of evidence can be contested under UK law.

 

I don't have the time or resources to spell it out long hand but an electronic interception is an electronic interception and governed by statute.

 

And by request for the layman:

 

If the police and security services require permission to monitor electronic communications in the UK for national security, what gives Andrew Crossley the right to do the same for profit?

 

kopp Vs. switzerland 1998 and trawling outwards is a good starting place for budding lawyers with time on their hands.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone.

I received the evacuate the dancefloor letter on 5th June, sent the LOD a few days ago. Looks like two men and a drum machine music is getting desperate to make money any way they can.

 

I would like to thank everyone on this site for the excellent information you are all providing.

 

This is becoming something of a hobby reading this thread now, actually looking forward to their next letter. Really want to fight this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been musing: I wonder if ACS would actually bring an individual who had prepared a defence to court: it would be a huge gamble for them, as a successful defence would set a precedent and the golden-goose would truly be slaughtered (i.e. they would not be able to harvest cash via threatening individuals).

I wonder if we could counter sue, i.e someone put themselves forward and our community contribute to a warchest to cover legal fees, to get the Crossley into a court room and get this evience tested once and for all.

Just musing, but Crossley is one brief, there are thousands of people in our boat. The law works both ways.

 

If there's a mischevious devil out there who is confident enough to call Crossleys bluff and take it to a courtroom, then there is an offer from a solicitor at Lawdit to represent them for free. Check out the comments made by Michael Coyle in this article Will you get caught file-sharing? | Analysis | Features | PC Pro

 

 

So...

Is Michael Coyles offer still on the table?

Is there someone out there with the balls to take ACS to court and end this for good?

If there is , then there are potentially hundreds of people who would support them in any way they could.......isn't there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that the ISPA (Internet Service Providers Association) has just announced their finalists for Internet Hero/Villain of 2010.

 

UK ISPA Awards Reveal Internet Hero and Villain Finalists for 2010 − ISPreview UK

 

If they recognise ACS law as Villains, why aren't they doing something about it rather than wasting their time on meaningless "awards"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that the ISPA (Internet Service Providers Association) has just announced their finalists for Internet Hero/Villain of 2010.

 

UK ISPA Awards Reveal Internet Hero and Villain Finalists for 2010 − ISPreview UK

 

If they recognise ACS law as Villains, why aren't they doing something about it rather than wasting their time on meaningless "awards"

 

Yes..instead, the majority of their members just roll over and hand over the info (our info !) to the court, even more worrying (especially if you read early posts), is the utter confusion/wrong information which was supplied when customers phoned their ISP to ask about ACS.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4935 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...