Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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  
    • 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.<<**IMPORTANT**  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 CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

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 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...