Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • T911, Nick, thanks, I got there in the end! Without boring you with the details, it is precisely the most ridiculous cases that end up being lost - because the Cagger knows the other party's case is rubbish so doesn't do the necessary work on their own case. G24 are well aware of double dipping.  They have either done it deliberately or else have cameras which can't handle multiple visits to the car park which G24 happily leave malfunctioning so the £££££ keep rolling in. Sadly most people aren't like you.  I've just read various reviews for the Retail Park on TripAdvisor and Parkopedia.  Virtually all of them are complaining about these unfair charges for daring to spend time & money shopping in a shopping centre.  Yet no-one is refusing to pay.  They moan but think they have been fined and cough up. G24 are unlikely to do court, but it's not impossible with two tickets. Try to get evidence that you were elsewhere at these times. Often retail parks will intervene, but I've Googled & Googled and cannot find an e-mail address for the place.  Could the manager of one of your favourite shops give you a contact e-mail address for the company that run the retail park? Right at the moment I'm supposed to be teaching someone who runs two shops at the local shopping centre, but I'm not as he has had to go to a meeting with the company that runs the shopping centre, so I know for a fact that these business relationships exist!!!
    • Afternoon DX, The files were in date order. How would I put them into an acceptable format? I'm not that pc literate.  
    • I think you need to tell us what actually happened. Your original post gives the impression that you were taken to court for a speeding offence. But you go on to say that you received no paperwork. So you could not have been summonsed for a speeding offence because the police had no evidence that you (or anybody else) was driving (and it seems you were not anyway). You were probably summonsed (or more likely received a Single Justice Procedure Notice) for "failing to provide the driver's details." You would not normally be banned for this offence if you were convicted - it carries six points. So did you have any earlier points which meant you were liable to a "totting up" ban?  If you were originally convicted (as it seems you might have been) how was that conviction set aside? Did you perform a Statutory Declaration? There is simply too much missing for any meaningful help to be given. It seems as if there may have been an error by the DVLA but before you consider suing those idiots until the cows come home, you need to explain exactly what has happened.  
    • Point 4 and 10 duplicate Point 5 and 8 duplicate  Try to keep to one para with regards the agreement...various paras duplicating the same. Statement of truth is out of date refer to the claimants statement    
  • 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 4936 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

Even then you are unlikely to get a full answer, this area of the law is pretty much untested.

 

An I.Property lawyer may be very smart of the details of I.Property, but he is unlikely to know about the complexities of IP addresses, wifi hacking, spoof addresses, torrent streams, P2P, deep packet inspection, etc

 

I think thats basically the main problem people are having, this is such a niche area and untested in court, no one knows for certain whats the best thing to do. it's certainly whats stressing me out

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

IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER PLEASE READ THIS.

 

The file sharing war rages on

 

18 July 2010

The file sharing war rages on

 

Despite the introduction of the draft Code from OFCOM and the Digital Economy Act 2010, more lawyers are apparently jumping on the 'cash cow' that is the file sharing campaigns first started by Davenport Lyons, and then ACS law.

 

It was reported in this weekend guardian that some 2000 letters have been sent out by a Soho law firm on behalf of their client the Ministry of Sound. They are demanding a sum of 350 GBP or they will issue a claim. If everyone paid it would make both the lawyers and the Ministry of Sound a nice sum and would far outweigh the monies 'lost' as a result of the infringements.

 

Lawdit's advice cannot be clearer. Do not ignore the letter, engage with the Law firm and politely inform them (if this is the case) that you have not heard of the tune in question and it is not on your hard drive. The evidence submitted by their client is not conclusive. It may identify the identity of the person from the IP address but it does not identify who actually committed the offence. The name on the bill does not necessarily mean the same as the person who committed the wrong doing, As you do not know the identity of the person involved then politely refuse to pay, point out that this is the last time they will hear from you on the subject and wish them well!

 

Michael Coyle is a Solicitor Advocate and can be contacted at [email protected]. Lawdit Solicitors is a commercial law firm with offices in London Southampton and associate offices in Malaga and Rome.

 

The file sharing war rages on - Copyright Law Articles and News - Lawdit Reading Room

 

 

This seems like sound advice to me, and from a solicitor. A simple letter outlining why you are denying the claim. No need to follow a template and be accused of doing so (even though it is not illegal to use one) as this gives them another reason to write to you. Send it recorded delivery if you like but if they send you another letter referring to your reply thats it. The advice is 1 LOD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although the standard advice has to remain to write a single letter of denial, and ignore them after that, I don't really see that ignoring them matters. If I were ever to get one of those letters I would ignore it myself. They can't take you to court secretly, you'll get plenty of notice, then you can defend if it ever came to that.

 

However, it won't come to that. Although they all say that they "are determined to take it to court" (even ACS have always said that), taking it to court and actually winning are two completely different things. For a start they would need to demonstrate the methods used to obtain an IP address, and I'm 99.98% certain that they will get blown out of he water if they ever do :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

haha, you havnt read a lot then. :p;)

 

Thats the worst thing you can do. With innocence you need to be focusing on a Letter Of Defence / Denial - not sure what the D is again.

 

They will be harassing her, they will send more, but with a LOD its more in her favour than theirs when it comes to the Ping pong letters. ( stop replying and start repeating and referring to the first defence letter if it gets over 3 letters ) and by all means there is no lawful way they can get you to reply to these 'questionairres' .

 

What do you mean, haha???

I know enough to know not to instigate anything as far as scams are concerned. You dont know much either do you if you dont know what the D stands for???

I will tell her to ignore it until real court papers come, if they ever do.

jed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont say anything more than you need to. Stating that your daughter owns a copy bought in Tesco is irrelevant. It might open the door for them to persue this from another angle. Basic information only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does he even need to know that you have two daughters? No more information than is needed to deny the claim. All that is known at the moment is your name and address why give more?

Edited by 8of9
Link to post
Share on other sites

TB

 

I liked the earlier version bit about your children owning a copy of the CD that the track appears on.

 

The question would then be, why would anyone at the house, download a track they already own.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

the letters arent accusing people of downloading the tracks, they're accusing people of uploading them. it would be perfectly feasable for someone who owned a cd, to rip it to their computer and share it with others. telling them you own the cd is just adding more fuel to the fire. tudorblue, you need to delete your posts, you've stated your ip address, when the solicitors read this tomorrow they'll be able to identify you immediately

Link to post
Share on other sites

DELETE YOUR POSTS!!!

you have previously admitted on this thread to have downloaded the work, now you have posted your ip address, you have clearly identified yourself as a guilty party. when they recieve your LOD they will know exactly what you have been saying in this thread!

Link to post
Share on other sites

YES REMOVE ANYTHING THAT CAN IDENTIFY YOU. GO BACK THROUGH YOUR POSTS AND REMOVE BY EDITING.

 

I think the confusion arises, as people are receiving different letters. Some letters accuse people of uploads/file sharing and other downloading.

 

For this reason, perhaps if you are responding, you should sound as vague as possible. If you sound as if you don't have a clue what they are on about, then they will have to try to explain a bit more the next time they write.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

TudorBlue

As the firms who are issuing these letters monitor these forums, you can now be identified by your IP which you have posted.

I would do as Ozzy suggests.

When in a hole dont keep digging!

Edited by 8of9
requested
Link to post
Share on other sites

DELETE YOUR POSTS!!!

you have previously admitted on this thread to have downloaded the work, now you have posted your ip address, you have clearly identified yourself as a guilty party. when they recieve your LOD they will know exactly what you have been saying in this thread!

 

DONE and thanks for the info. Never thought of it like that. Please, can anyone who has quoted my posts, please delete the quotes. Thanks

Edited by TudorBlue
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi again, been in touch with sky once again as they responded with my letter basically sayin they want NOTHING to do with it, gonna send gallant macmillan my sky details etc as i have just cancelled sky and moving house tomorrow. sod em, i give up xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been informed by a friend who is a lawyer for very respected City Bank that you are under no obligation to let these firms (such as ACS and the others) know that you are moving as there are no formal proceeding ets. Might be a nice way to let it all go away.

 

Please do not take me on my word, seek independent legal advice on your obligation should you move etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a dynamic IP, surely it would have changed by now?:confused:

 

 

That is a point. What they have done is 'supposedly' tracked the IP to a date/time - not sure how accurate this is - and then gone to the ISP regarding that date/time and seen who the IP matches up to.

 

I know nooooothing of IPs ! But i assume no one shares ips - its always a unique individual reference to specific Accounts ( not users ) ( can some one educate me a little more on that please? :D )

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a point. What they have done is 'supposedly' tracked the IP to a date/time - not sure how accurate this is - and then gone to the ISP regarding that date/time and seen who the IP matches up to.

 

I know nooooothing of IPs ! But i assume no one shares ips - its always a unique individual reference to specific Accounts ( not users ) ( can some one educate me a little more on that please? :D )

 

No one shares an IP, the internet wouldn't work if they did. However, ISP's can and do make mistakes with who had the address at a particular time. And of course there can be problems with time differences (I believe one of the firms that harvests IP addresses is Swiss). And there is the possibility of spoof addresses being injected into the system. And they refuse to divulge the method used to obtain the addresses in the first place.

 

These are the problems they would have to overcome if they ever try it on in court, along with a good many other difficulties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4936 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...