Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good afternoon,    I am writing in reference to the retail dispute number ****, between myself and Newton Autos concerning the sale of a Toyota Avensis which has been found to have serious mechanical faults.    As explained previously the car was found to be faulty just six days after purchase. The car had numerous fault codes that appeared on the dash board and went into limp mode. This required assistance from the AA and this evidence has already been provided. The car continues to exhibit these faults and has been diagnosed as having faults with the fuel injectors which will require major mechanical investigation and repairs.    Newton Autos did not make me aware of any faults upon purchase of the vehicle and sold it as being in good condition.    Newton Autos have also refused to honour their responsibilities under The Consumer Rights Act 2015 which requires them to refund the customer if the goods are found to be faulty and not fit for purpose within 30 days of purchase.    Newton Autos also refused to accept my rejection of the vehicle and refused to refund the car and accept the return of the vehicle.    It is clear to me that the car is not fit for purpose as these mechanical faults occurred so soon after purchase and have been shown to be present by both the AA and an independent mechanic.   Kind regards
    • Commercial Landlords are legally allowed to sue for early cancellation of the lease. You can only surrender your lease if your landlord agrees to your doing so. They are under no obligation even to consider your request and are entitled to refuse. You cannot use this as an excuse not to pay your rent. Your landlord is most likely to agree to your surrendering the lease if they want the property back in order to redevelop it, or if they wants to rent it to what they regards as a better tenant or at a higher rent. There are two types of surrender: Express surrender in writing. This is a written document which sets out the terms of the surrender. Implied surrender by conduct. (applies to your position) You can move out of the property you leased, simply hand your keys back and the lease will come to an end, but only if the landlord agrees to accept your surrender. Many tenants have thought they can simply post the keys through the landlord's letter box and the lease is ended. This is not true and without a document from the landlord, not only do you not know if the landlord has accepted the surrender, you also do not know on what basis they have accepted and could find they sue you for rent arrears, service charge arrears, damage to the property and compensation for your attempt to leave the property without the landlord's agreement. Unless you are absolutely certain that the landlord is agreeable to your departure, you should not attempt to imply a surrender by relying on your and the landlord's conduct.  
    • I had to deal with these last year worst DCA I have ever dealt with. Just wait for the constant threats of CCJ and how you'll lose in court and how they won't do mediation and they want the judge to question you with a load of "BIG" words to boot with the letter. My case was struck out in the end, stupidity on their part as I admitted to owing the debt in the end going through the court process was just a formality as they wouldn't let it drop despite me admitting the debt regardless. They didn't send the last part of the court paper work in so it ended up being struck out     .
    • Well, that's it then. Clear proof of the rubbish cameras. Clear proof of double dipping. G24 won't be getting a penny. Belt & braces, I would write to the address LFI has found, include the evidence of double dipping, and ask Fraser Group to call their dogs off.
    • LOL. after sending Perch capital a CCA request with a stapled £1 PO attached (x2) Their lapdog Legal team TM Legal have sent me two letters today saying "due to a recent payment on the account, your account is open to legal/enforcement action" so i guess they have tried to apply that payment to the account to run the statue bar along. dirty tactics lol.
  • 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 4937 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

  • Replies 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I havent had a reply from acs law yet? I got a letter from GM yesterday and its freaking me out. THey say that LODs cannot be accepted and that My reasons were not enough. They say if I cant prove it wasnt me or give good enough reasons it wasnt me then their clients will still pursue the case. I cannot afford the fine let alone court costs if it ever came to that. I am paranoid that my pc was compromised in someway for sky to show me as downloading the said tracks. How can I prove other wise? I was under my gp last year for depression and this is the last thing i need right now. I have written a second lod but havent posted it yet. I have said that I cant possibly prove it wasnt me and that I know nothing of file sharing etc and my health is suffering -and to ask them again to drop their claim> should i send this. I am also dreading anotheer letter from ACS law as its been three months now and no reply to my original lod. Please can someone advise me and help put my mind at rest thanks

 

Have you asked for all the information they have on the case?

 

Without all the info how can you defend yourself?

 

Ask for all of it and see what they say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you asked for all the information they have on the case?

 

Without all the info how can you defend yourself?

 

Ask for all of it and see what they say.

 

 

You cant defend yourself! Thats how these scemes carry on! They ask forf an amount so small that it makes it unviable to seek legal advice.Send them a LETTER OF DENIAL, then forget about it. They're chancers looking for victims to rollover and pay the initial demand. The most important thing youcan do is complain to your MP. and the SRA.The more who complain the more action that will be taken.

 

COME ON PEOPLE! FIGHT BACK:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You cant defend yourself! Thats how these scemes carry on! They ask forf an amount so small that it makes it unviable to seek legal advice.Send them a LETTER OF DENIAL, then forget about it. They're chancers looking for victims to rollover and pay the initial demand. The most important thing youcan do is complain to your MP. and the SRA.The more who complain the more action that will be taken.

 

COME ON PEOPLE! FIGHT BACK:madgrin:

 

I am sending my second letter of denial to GM tomorrow - I am really depressed and anxious now. Has anyone had a reply to a second lod yet and what did it say and what did they do? my reply from them said they were still going to pursue me for payment - they seem to know all about lods etc and seem to think that they are not valid. what can I do if I get a third letter from them? has anyone had a third letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sending my second letter of denial to GM tomorrow - I am really depressed and anxious now. Has anyone had a reply to a second lod yet and what did it say and what did they do? my reply from them said they were still going to pursue me for payment - they seem to know all about lods etc and seem to think that they are not valid. what can I do if I get a third letter from them? has anyone had a third letter?

 

The letters are designed to frighten you into paying and a small percentage of people do just that. Also when your anxious and stressed this all seems worse than it actually is. Let's put things into perspective.

 

1. Thousands of people have been sent these letters. In ACS's case upto 50,000 (and these are still being sent out). You are not alone!

2. Are you likely to be singled out for court action when they can make easy money from the 10% of people who pay up straight away? Are they interested in court action when all experts who count agree this wouldn't stand up? Can they be bothered with the expense of taking you to court and then losing and paying your court fees? Will their evidence stand up? Will they be laughed out of court? If they did start taking people to court why not go for the easy picks, i.e. the people who don't respond to letters or admit guilt but don't pay? Are you likely to be singled out from all the thousands of people who have denied the allegations? Have one man band ACS law really got the resource and inclination to take 40,000 people to court especially as I'm sure there is plenty of other hassles coming their way involving an SDT to contest and a possible group claim for harrasement. Do these law firms really want all the potential negaive publicity with court cases?

 

You have to get this into perspective and see these models for what they really are.

 

Try not to worry, I know I did at first but the more you read and research about the companies involved, the practices, the law and the 'evidence' then you start feeling a whole lot better.

 

Read the following websites:

slyck

beingthreatened

acsbore

 

all dot coms

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letters are designed to frighten you into paying and a small percentage of people do just that. Also when your anxious and stressed this all seems worse than it actually is. Let's put things into perspective.

 

1. Thousands of people have been sent these letters. In ACS's case upto 50,000 (and these are still being sent out). You are not alone!

2. Are you likely to be singled out for court action when they can make easy money from the 10% of people who pay up straight away? Are they interested in court action when all experts who count agree this wouldn't stand up? Can they be bothered with the expense of taking you to court and then losing and paying your court fees? Will their evidence stand up? Will they be laughed out of court? If they did start taking people to court why not go for the easy picks, i.e. the people who don't respond to letters or admit guilt but don't pay? Are you likely to be singled out from all the thousands of people who have denied the allegations? Have one man band ACS law really got the resource and inclination to take 40,000 people to court especially as I'm sure there is plenty of other hassles coming their way involving an SDT to contest and a possible group claim for harrasement. Do these law firms really want all the potential negaive publicity with court cases?

 

You have to get this into perspective and see these models for what they really are.

 

Try not to worry, I know I did at first but the more you read and research about the companies involved, the practices, the law and the 'evidence' then you start feeling a whole lot better.

 

Read the following websites:

slyck

beingthreatened

acsbore

 

all dot coms

 

thanks for the reply but what about GM letters as they seem a little more menacing and detirmined than acs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sending my second letter of denial to GM tomorrow - I am really depressed and anxious now. Has anyone had a reply to a second lod yet and what did it say and what did they do? my reply from them said they were still going to pursue me for payment - they seem to know all about lods etc and seem to think that they are not valid. what can I do if I get a third letter from them? has anyone had a third letter?

 

Of course they know all about LOD's and they know very well that they are valid. How else would it work? Yes I did it - Pay up. No I didnt do it - LOD.

Send them the LOD, in your own words, stating why you are denying this claim. You dont need to have all the info to defend yourself at this stage and, if it ever goes to court (which is unlikely as no case has gone to a court as yet), their so called evidence would not stand up to scrutiny ( a risk none of the players have, as yet, been willing to take.)

Tell them that this is your final reply and you are not prepared to enter into further correspondence on the matter. You could also say that any further letters from them could be classed as harrassment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the reply but what about GM letters as they seem a little more menacing and detirmined than acs

 

I havn't been in receipt of a GM letter. However I believe they work with the same digital rights company digiprotect so the 'evidence' is highly likely to be the same as ACS law's evidence which has never stood up in UK court and has been thrown out of several european courts. So will that stand up in UK court? Many experts in Intellectual Property including one of the UK's top QC's Roger Wyand believe it won't stand up in court and this is echoed by the ISPA and other experts in this field. It looks like GM are testing the water at the moment, i.e. sending two thousand mailshot letters. If they get a good response (i.e. 10-15% pay up) they may send a load more out just like ACS did more than a year ago. If they get lots of negative publicity they might just change their direction on this speculative invoicing operation as they have other clients (unlike ACS who have nothing to loose!). Once you get many negative responses on the internet it tends too stick for around for a very long time. It also doesn't help future public relations and effects clients in other areas of their business.

Do you really think Ministry of Sound would really like the negative publicity of this type of scheme going to court and potentially loosing? If GM take this to court then they would have to disclose how their 'evidence' works. Once they do this and potentially loose, the whole scheme collapses and this whole ludicrous situtation comes to an end. I should imagine there would be many a top IP lawyer willing to take on GM/ACS in this case.

GM may seem slightly more professional and 'determined' but It's looks like the same payup or else model that ACS target people with.

 

Personally I wouldn't bother sending a 3rd letter, you've sent 2 letters already and denied. You've responded to the pre action protocol. Why bother wasting postage and time sending another one, for them to reply and bully you more?

Edited by mb10101
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they know all about LOD's and they know very well that they are valid. How else would it work? Yes I did it - Pay up. No I didnt do it - LOD.

Send them the LOD, in your own words, stating why you are denying this claim. You dont need to have all the info to defend yourself at this stage and, if it ever goes to court (which is unlikely as no case has gone to a court as yet), their so called evidence would not stand up to scrutiny ( a risk none of the players have, as yet, been willing to take.)

Tell them that this is your final reply and you are not prepared to enter into further correspondence on the matter. You could also say that any further letters from them could be classed as harrassment.

 

thanks but I still dont know if anyone has received a reply to a second lod or third lod yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the case law to refute the ACS allegations:

 

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/0024-gallant-macmillan-acs-law-letters-authorisation.htm

 

That's why he won't go to court. Someone else may have used your connection and you cannot be held responsible.:-):-):-):-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks but I still dont know if anyone has received a reply to a second lod or third lod yet?

 

I had a reply to my first LOD which said that it resembled a Template so they would not believe it. I sent a second LOD and they sent another letter containing the same demand and further threats. I sent a third LOD which was very short and concise !! and also saying that it would be my last.

I have, as yet, not received a reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got an e-mail form the SRA... The disclaimer says i am not allowed to disclose the e-mails contents but i am sure we are all aware of which particular individuals practices have been referred to the SRA.

 

Have a look here to get an idea: http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/enforcement/intervention-tribunal/solicitors-disciplinary-tribunal.page

 

Not sure what this means or how it will pan out for those of us who have been wrongly accused but at least it has not been dismissed out of hand. Hopefully this will be enought to scare of any of the other firms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some replies to OFCOM's questionaire on the DEA

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/08/07/summary-of-key-responses-to-ofcoms-uk-draft-illegal-internet-file-sharing-isp-code.html

If you only read 2, read the responses from BskyB and TalkTalk.

BskyB's response is absolutely PATHETIC.

TalkTalk's response...... naming both ACS Law and Davenport Lyons they say

TalkTalk will not provide CIL's if, as a result, TalkTalk is exposing its customers to bullying

TalkTalk...... I salute you anim_beer.gifanim_beer.gifanim_beer.gif
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky = (insert rude word of your choice)

 

Also, Sky, Virgin and BT should be excluded from this whole thing as there is clearly a conflict of interest Vs the other ISP's as they all own and provide content and would be supporters of the Digital Economy Farce because it protects their Cash Cows whilst buggering their customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my first post and I don't want to have to search through all the posts so apologies if I'm asking for info/advice that's already been given.

 

I have received a letter from a firm of solicitors called Gallant Macmillan accusing me of illegally downloading an album by Ministry of Sound . I did not download this album and the only evidence they produced was an IP address (which they say is my IP address) a date and time when I am alleged to have downloaded this music and the name of a p2p network (bittorrent). I have never used bittorent. On the date and time that they say these files were dowloaded I wouldn't have been home as I wouldn't have got back from work.

 

They demanded that I pay them £375.00 as a settlement within 21 days. I ignored the original letter as it looked like a [problem] and I was told if I ignored it they would just go away.

 

Unfortunately, they haven't gone away and have now sent me a second letter threatening to commence court proceedings if I do not respond in 7 days. The wording in this second letter is somewhat ambiguous and I don't really understand it.

 

I don't really know what to do and am concerned and worried about all of this and what don't know what action can be taken to get them off my back? I've now been advised to send a letter of denial and wonder if anyone has such a letter that they've sent that I could see a copy of as I'm not sure how to word it or how much/little information to include.

 

As I said earlier I did not download this album and in fact my wife has the CD so we legally own a copy of it.

 

Sorry if this post is long winded but any help would be much appreciated.

Edited by clark72
Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the amount of effort people have put in to keeping this thread going it would be courteus to at least have read a few pages (nobody would expect you to read all 200! :wink: ). You will also find the content VERY beneficial. But to help start you out, I would recomend (and this is in no way legal counsel/advice etc and you should always consider speaking to a professional etc) that you send a letter of denial in response via recorded or registered delivery but do not pay them a penny.

 

Now start reading! :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my first post and I don't want to have to search through all the posts so apologies if I'm asking for info/advice that's already been given.

I have received a letter from a firm of solicitors called Gallant Macmillan accusing me of illegally downloading an album entitled Ministry of Sound - Anthems Electronic 80s. I did not download this album and the only evidence they produced was an IP address (which they say is my IP address) a date and time when I am alleged to have downloaded this music and the name of a p2p network (bittorrent). I have never used bittorent. On the date and time that they say these files were dowloaded (Monday 14 December at 16.44 I wouldn't have been home as I wouldn't have got back from work.

They demanded that I pay them £375.00 as a settlement within 21 days. I ignored the original letter sent on 28 July as it looked like a [problem] and I was told if I ignored it they would just go away.

Unfortunately, they haven't gone away and have now sent me a second letter (4 September) threatening to commence court proceedings if I do not respond in 7 days. The wording in this second letter is somewhat ambiguous and I don't really understand it.

I don't really know what to do and am concerned and worried about all of this and what don't know what action can be taken to get them off my back? I've now been advised to send a letter of denial and wonder if anyone has such a letter that they've sent that I could see a copy of as I'm not sure how to word it or how much/little information to include.

As I said earlier I did not download this album and in fact my wife has the CD so we legally own a copy of it.

Sorry if this post is long winded but any help would be much appreciated.

 

 

Reply with a denial in your own words. There are example letters on www beingthreatened dot com

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right but I've only just found this site and I have a very slow and dodgy internet connection at work so was looking for a potential shortcut, but don't worry I will be looking through the posts. One other question, is it likely that the solicitors concerned are viewing this thread (I've become very paranoid aver the past few days).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my first post and I don't want to have to search through all the posts so apologies if I'm asking for info/advice that's already been given.

 

I have received a letter from a firm of solicitors called Gallant Macmillan accusing me of illegally downloading an album by Ministry of Sound . I did not download this album and the only evidence they produced was an IP address (which they say is my IP address) a date and time when I am alleged to have downloaded this music and the name of a p2p network (bittorrent). I have never used bittorent. On the date and time that they say these files were dowloaded I wouldn't have been home as I wouldn't have got back from work.

 

They demanded that I pay them £375.00 as a settlement within 21 days. I ignored the original letter as it looked like a [problem] and I was told if I ignored it they would just go away.

 

Unfortunately, they haven't gone away and have now sent me a second letter threatening to commence court proceedings if I do not respond in 7 days. The wording in this second letter is somewhat ambiguous and I don't really understand it.

 

I don't really know what to do and am concerned and worried about all of this and what don't know what action can be taken to get them off my back? I've now been advised to send a letter of denial and wonder if anyone has such a letter that they've sent that I could see a copy of as I'm not sure how to word it or how much/little information to include.

 

As I said earlier I did not download this album and in fact my wife has the CD so we legally own a copy of it.

 

Read the speculative invoicing handbook.Everything you need to know is there

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my first post and I don't want to have to search through all the posts so apologies if I'm asking for info/advice that's already been given.

 

I have received a letter from a firm of solicitors called Gallant Macmillan accusing me of illegally downloading an album by Ministry of Sound . I did not download this album and the only evidence they produced was an IP address (which they say is my IP address) a date and time when I am alleged to have downloaded this music and the name of a p2p network (bittorrent). I have never used bittorent. On the date and time that they say these files were dowloaded I wouldn't have been home as I wouldn't have got back from work.

 

They demanded that I pay them £375.00 as a settlement within 21 days. I ignored the original letter as it looked like a [problem] and I was told if I ignored it they would just go away.

 

Unfortunately, they haven't gone away and have now sent me a second letter threatening to commence court proceedings if I do not respond in 7 days. The wording in this second letter is somewhat ambiguous and I don't really understand it.

 

I don't really know what to do and am concerned and worried about all of this and what don't know what action can be taken to get them off my back? I've now been advised to send a letter of denial and wonder if anyone has such a letter that they've sent that I could see a copy of as I'm not sure how to word it or how much/little information to include.

 

As I said earlier I did not download this album and in fact my wife has the CD so we legally own a copy of it.

 

Sorry if this post is long winded but any help would be much appreciated.

 

I think you'll find if you read their [problem], I mean claim letter again they are accusing you of UPLOADING this file not downloading it. If you didn't upload it then in your reply do not mention you own a copy of it on CD, they don't need to know that and they will probably try and use that as evidence that you did indeed make it available for other people to download from you.

 

Just tell them you didn't do it and you won't be accepting their kind offer of settling out of court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my first post and I don't want to have to search through all the posts so apologies if I'm asking for info/advice that's already been given.

 

I have received a letter from a firm of solicitors called Gallant Macmillan accusing me of illegally downloading an album by Ministry of Sound . I did not download this album and the only evidence they produced was an IP address (which they say is my IP address) a date and time when I am alleged to have downloaded this music and the name of a p2p network (bittorrent). I have never used bittorent. On the date and time that they say these files were dowloaded I wouldn't have been home as I wouldn't have got back from work.

 

They demanded that I pay them £375.00 as a settlement within 21 days. I ignored the original letter as it looked like a [problem] and I was told if I ignored it they would just go away.

 

Unfortunately, they haven't gone away and have now sent me a second letter threatening to commence court proceedings if I do not respond in 7 days. The wording in this second letter is somewhat ambiguous and I don't really understand it.

 

I don't really know what to do and am concerned and worried about all of this and what don't know what action can be taken to get them off my back? I've now been advised to send a letter of denial and wonder if anyone has such a letter that they've sent that I could see a copy of as I'm not sure how to word it or how much/little information to include.

 

As I said earlier I did not download this album and in fact my wife has the CD so we legally own a copy of it.

 

Sorry if this post is long winded but any help would be much appreciated.

 

As the Being Threatened Handbook says:

The first step to managing the situation you’ve

been put in is to tackle it calmly. You have

been invited to play a game. This particular

game requires careful thought and rational,

planned actions. It is not best played while

emotions are running high; never do anything in

haste.

If , instead of assuming that it was a [problem], you had done a little bit of research you might might realise that you are not the only one in this situation and there is a lot of advice available. You will find that if you use a template to reply then they will not accept it because it "resembles a template found on the internet". A reply in your own words is better but do not give out any information that you dont need to, ie my wife owns the CD. You do not want to enter into a dialogue with these people, this is what they want. One LOD is all that is required.

One thing that you would have discovered if you had done some research is that no-one has as yet been taken to court. The only "alleged" court case was someone who did not reply to the Letter of Claim, which was your initial response!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't even told them that the ISP company which have supposedly identified me as a subscriber is not a company I have ever heard of, I'm with somebody else,

 

Same here, I've never heard of the company who they claim they got my IP address from and they're certainly not my provider. Is this relevant though?

Edited by clark72
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4937 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...