Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So sorry it's took me a few weeks to respond back to you. Thank you so much for your response. My grandfather is clear about the pension deductions on his pay slips.  As I mention before all these went missing in the burgarly. We have tried Willis Tower Watson but they were not to helpful. I am stuck what we can try next. Thank you again.     
    • As a rough guess it would be your landlord who would be responsible. But you need to understand the extent of your losses before you can begin any claim. This means that you need to list out any expenses to which you have been put, any expenses which would be associated with repairing damage or cleaning et cetera. And then list out the inconvenience to which you have been put as a result of this. Any actual expenses – money loss which has been incurred already all that is likely to be incurred in result of repairs will need an inspection and to quotations which eventually you will present to the landlord. Even if I'm wrong and it is not the landlord – you will still need the evidence that I have listed above in order to begin any claim.  
    • Hi, I have been renting a three bedroom, top floor flat for six years now in England. Just so you know, there is a letting agent, landlord and a block management company involved. Eighteen months ago we had a considerable leak in one of the bedrooms, affecting the next door bedroom as well but not as badly. This led to a lot of damage to the ceiling and the formation of mould within the first bedroom and to a lesser extent in the second bedroom. As far as we are aware, the leak has only recently been sorted by the block management company(who owns the roof etc…) Just over three weeks ago, a large inspection hole was cut into the ceiling, the workmen (instructed to come by block management) who undertook the work did not put any dust sheets down over any of the furniture, causing an incredible amount of dirt and debris throughout the entire flat, rendering the room unusable. We were left on a Friday afternoon with a gaping hole and no instruction as to what was going to happen next. Only after contacting our letting agent to inform them about the state of the bedroom had been left in, with a gaping hole and bits of debris falling, did they come to do a temporary fix to cover the hole which was after a week. As the bedroom is still unusable. My daughter has for more than three weeks been sleeping in the lounge. The letting agent did offer to get the place cleaned, but we see no point until the job has been completed. My landlord has reduced my rent by £200 for the past couple of months and is now wanting full rent regardless of the work being incomplete. A plan has been put in place, however, we have not been given a timeline for when these will be completed and this could take some considerable time. In addition to this, there was a leak in the kitchen but this was very minor, and we have a major condensation issue in the bathroom as the extractor fan is apparently not strong enough so the ceiling is covered in mould which is now being revealed as the paint is flaking off. The problem we have is that the building (roof etc..) is managed by a block management company. My letting agent has basically said that the damage is the responsibility of the block management and this nothing to do with the landlord, and therefore, does not want to give us any compensation. What are my rights as a tenant in this situation? Am I entitled to a continued rent reduction or additional compensation given the ongoing uninhabitable condition of the bedroom and the disruption this has caused? I have attached photos as supporting evidence and would be very grateful for your advice. https://imgur.com/a/yfm4FP9 Should you require any further information, please let me know. Thanks in advance! 😁👍
    • I have just read it again and I see that you say that you are going to be claiming for time and stress. This is not recoverable loss so I think that you should leave it out.  
  • 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 4956 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

UK law firm Ralli Solicitors LLP claims letters sent from ACS: Law Solicitors (ACS Law) to people suspected of illegal file sharing may constitute unlawful harassment, and the recipients may be entitled to compensation.

 

The law firm is now urging people who have received these letters to contact it as it now seeks to pursue group action for harassment on their behalf against ACS Law. http://www.ralli.co.uk/news/recipients-of-acs-law-copyright-infringement-letters-urged-to-come-forward

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

People wishing to write a letter to CMW could take a look over at the Slyck forum their is an excellent post on page 388 by a user called Renegade with a link to a Google document written by the being threatened team.

 

 

This document will help everyone who would like to write a letter to CMW and is an excellent resource. Please take the time to contact CMW. Lets all take a stand remember united we stand divided we fall.

 

Chief Master Winegarten

Chancery Division

Room TM 708

The Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London

WC2A 2LL

 

It's now or never people, we have a shot here at giving CMW some amunition to fire back with as it seems we are the only people who are fighting as the ISPs don't seem to care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

purple lavender - Its a pain,but you need to send One LOD which stops the chance of them getting a default judgement.

 

Erm, ignoring court papers is what gets a person a default judgement, not whether a LoD is sent or not. If you don't bother to send an LoD, they have no idea whether court action would be defended or not, which potentially might mean that they would be more likely to chance court. But you would still get the court papers, and get a chance to defend. IMO they would the withdraw at the speed of greased lightning. If they lose in court, and it's hard to see how they could win, then it puts an end to the [problem].

 

The whole point of this is that it is an abuse of the Court process - they send you an accusing letter, you send a letter of denial, it's then up to them if they take you to Court or not. If they do, they will show that they've tried to resolve the issue informally, (a pre-action protocol requirement in all cases, not just specific to these types) but that will only be relevant on the issue of awarding of costs, should they go on and win. **Should** is an important point, there - they probably can't win, for the reasons stated in these threads.

 

The only ways to get a Judgment against you by default is to, either, ignore a Court claim form completely, or to enter a statement of defence that is struck out because it fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rules - in either case, you **will** need to have received a Court claim from them, so all this really is a moot point on here until that happens to someone.

 

What we all do need to do is make sure we get our facts right when posting - you can't say you will get a County Court Judgment against you by default by failing to send a LOD, as that just isn't correct, and there are many, many new members coming to CAG to look this issue up, plus some of them probably aren't even registering and posting to ask questions. So, folks, let's make sure that we get the right information, to the right people, at the right time. Or, at least, challenge what think may be incorrect. (Which is what I'm doing... :dance:)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The very same pre-action protocol that GM have already broken by not including it in their letter of claim. Confused? Me too!

 

Exactly, the code clearly states he has to send you a copy of the code, not that he has to make it available on his website. I think failing to comply with that code, by his own admission on his hilarious claim letters would be yet another reason for him loosing any court case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else sent a letter to to CMW as suggested ?

 

I have. I just voiced my concern that there is no independent validation of the method of harvesting IP addresses.Not mentioned P2P as I'm not to clued up on it.I hope someone with decent IT knowledge will write in

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a legal expert hugglepuff, but what you say makes good sense. You are right to point out that they have never taken anyone to court. But an LOD is part of the pre court action protocol, which we should follow. ACS issue a letter of claim, we issue a letter of denial. Its a pain but best to follow procedure and I think the general view from interested parties such as Which, is send the LOD and leave it up to ACS Law to make the next move.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The very same pre-action protocol that GM have already broken by not including it in their letter of claim. Confused? Me too!

 

Yes, I don't think the irony is lost on any of us. This should, by the way, be a point that people should raise in their letter to CMW...you are writing that letter aren't you?

 

There are two ways you can look at this.

 

1. You firmly believe that you will never be brought (for whatever reason) to court to defend the copyright infringement allegation. If this is you then why send a LOD at all? Just ignore all correspondence.

 

2. You believe it is highly unlikely that you will ever be brought to court but want to be as prepared as possible should the unlikely event occur. Then send a single LOD. You have now discharged your duty under the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol and should sleep easy.

Edited by JustInterested
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a legal expert hugglepuff, but what you say makes good sense. You are right to point out that they have never taken anyone to court. But an LOD is part of the pre court action protocol, which we should follow. ACS issue a letter of claim, we issue a letter of denial. Its a pain but best to follow procedure and I think the general view from interested parties such as Which, is send the LOD and leave it up to ACS Law to make the next move.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you dont write to CMW you MUST read this.

 

Link to the amicus brief which you are more than welcome to send to Chief Master Winegarten along side your letter to him. (It won't send itself).

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B- ... y=CL3JpeIE

 

Politely explain your position and why you believe the Chief Master has a responsibility to protect the interests of justice in the absence of an ISP with enough backbone to provide a counterview to that of the claimant. As ever ensure you keep the language polite.

 

Address as previously posted by Jambo is: CHIEF MASTER WINEGARTEN, CHANCERY DIVISION, ROOM TM 7.08, THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, STRAND, LONDON, WC2A 2LL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to let you know that anyone wishing to write to CMW (hopefully everyone here) there is an update to the document provided by the user Renegade on the Slyck forum which explains the whole P2P process and the flaws associated with the collection of data in a easy to understand manner. This is an excellent document to take pointers from and include with your letter.

 

Regardless of peoples circumstances there is an excellent section on why this process is flawed and how the system cannot prove if a single person shared a whole or significant part of the work involved which is something which is required under CDPA rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received my second letter today telling me that ACS will be seeking a substantial amount of damages but will be seeking an interim payment of over £999 towards ‘legal costs’, and they are disinclined to accept at face value my first LOD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

– Email from ACS:Law client which states the following:

 

Andrew,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Our client remains concerned over the accuracy of the data that you provide and the methods used to obtain such data. It has been closely monitoring the recent press that your Firm has attracted regarding complaints to Which, in relation to demand letters that have incorrectly been sent to innocent internet subscribers, accused of copyright infringement. Your letter of 30 October 2009 was not satisfactory, in that it did not fully deal with the concerns raised in our letter of 21 July 2009, save as to state that you and your client disagree. Clearly there are flaws in your data gathering process. These are important and valid concerns that need to be satisfactorily addressed, so as to protect the rights of our client and innocent customers.

 

Just about sums it up

 

More.....

http://torrentfreak.com/acslaw-anti-piracy-law-firm-torn-apart-by-leaked-emails-100925/

Link to post
Share on other sites

The leading case on the matter of authorisation is CBS -v- Amstrad [1988] RPC 567 in which Lord Templeman stated:

 

"My Lords, I accept that a defendant who procures a breach of copyright is liable jointly and severally with the infringer for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the infringement. The defendant is a joint infringer; he intends and procures and shares a common design that infringement shall take place. A defendant may procure an infringement by inducement, incitement or persuasion. But in the present case Amstrad do not procure infringement by offering for sale a machine which may be used for lawful or unlawful copying and they do not procure infringement by advertising the attractions of their machine to any purchaser who may decide to copy unlawfully. Amstrad are not concerned to procure and cannot procure unlawful copying. The purchaser will not make unlawful copies because he has been induced or incited or persuaded to do so by Amstrad. The purchaser will make unlawful copies for his own use because he chooses to do so. Amstrad's advertisements may persuade the purchaser to buy an Amstrad machine but will not influence the purchaser's later decision to infringe copyright. Buckley L.J. observed in Belegging-en Exploitatiemaatschappij Lavender B.V. v. Witten Industrial Diamonds Ltd., at p.65, that "facilitating the doing of an act is obviously different from procuring the doing of an act." Sales and advertisements to the public generally of a machine which may be used for lawful or unlawful purposes, including infringement of copyright, cannot be said to "procure" all breaches of copyright thereafter by members of the public who use the machine. Generally speaking, inducement, incitement or persuasion to infringe must be by a defendant to an individual infringer and must identifiably procure a particular infringement in order to make the defendant liable as a joint infringer."

 

In other words for a person to be found liable for authorising an infringement that person must intend and share a common design that infringement shall take place. If you have no knowledge that another was using your internet connection for infringement of copyright then you do not share a common design that such infringement will take place and therefore you are not liable for copyright infringement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received my second letter today telling me that ACS will be seeking a substantial amount of damages but will be seeking an interim payment of over £999 towards ‘legal costs’, and they are disinclined to accept at face value my first LOD.

 

How long ago did you get your first letter?

 

I sent my LOD to my first letter yesterday and woke up in the middle of the night and remember i didn't sign it. What will they do, will they just write back and tell me they won't accept it because i didn't sign it? I'm kinda worried about it all again now, even though I know I didn't download it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and Gentlemen- a commenter on Torrentfreak has stated the creditcard details are part of the big ACS Law leak- if you have paid off Mr Crossley, I suggest it might be good advice to get in touch with your credit card company/bank and inform them of this- if it's a creditcard company, they'll shut your account down and issue you with a new one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Developments on ACS Law's website

 

http://www.slyck.com/story2058_ACSLaw_Email_Database_Possibly_Leaked_onto_The_Pirate_Bay

 

(Click torrent link)

 

I wonder if AC will get a letter of claim from any of these credit card holders whose details may have been leaked after he made them available for upload on the web... OOPS Wasn't me your honour, I sent an LOD but it was a template and got refused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4956 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...