Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • First of all it sounds as if your retailer is very decent and very responsible. This itself is unusual in these kinds of circumstances and I think we need to bear this in mind. The guarantee is not particularly relevant and in fact the dealer had a statutory duty to exercise a certain responsibility for your computer – probably for several years as their obligation under the consumer rights act. The dealer may not have known this and it simply acting out of a sense of moral responsibility and that is even more noteworthy. You've already suggested earlier that you didn't really want to cause problems for your retailer. I think that you will need the help of your retailer as well in order to get information and evidence. I suggest that you proceed against DPD – but before you do that – I suggest that you have a discussion with the retailer. Tell them that this is what you are going to be doing and you would like to have a copy of anything they have which relates to the special instructions which apparently your dealer has already informed you about in relation to where item should be left. Secondly, maybe you should tell your dealer about this site and also about this thread. I can imagine like many dealers who are frequently sending items by means of couriers, they have had things go missing. Tell them that we will be very happy to help them recover money for lost or damaged or stolen items – and that is regardless of whether or not they have purchased insurance. Apart from being very pleased to help your dealer recover items which have been lost by irresponsible parcel delivery companies, I think we need to encourage the complicity between you and them so they will be pleased to support you in your claim against DPD. It will be helpful if you can get a copy of the instructions that you have referred to above, and also if you can get some written evidence of your own instruction that your laptop should be left in a safe place. Have you done the reading on this sub- forum? You will need to do lots of reading of many of the similar stories on this sub- forum. They won't necessarily be against DPD but the principles will broadly be the same. Also read the pinned topics at the top of the sub- forum in order to understand many of the principles involved. Getting your money back but be quick – but your chances of success are better than 90% that you can bank on it taking anything up to a year. Have you got anything in writing from DPD either refusing you or telling you that they won't discuss with you?  
    • Thank you for telling us the text of the letter you had from the police. As we don't seem to have come across this before, it would be really useful for us to see the original please. HB
    • Pasco has recalled 104,000 packs of sliced bread after rat remains were found in at least two packs.View the full article
    • UPDATE I went rooting through an old box of paperwork I have and I've found the original Default Notice. It is dated **/**/201*, however.. The copy of the Default Notice that they sent with the LBC has a completely different date on it 😮 Can they issue 2 default notices for the same debt? Where they have changed the date on the copy, they have also changed the amount owed through failed payments and how much is required to be paid by a certain date. In addition, they sent (with the 1st LBC) a copy of the termination of the agreement, which I cannot find the original. However, the termination date is 3 days after the date given on the (doctored) Default Notice, by which monies are to be paid by. So, they gave until the 'x' date to pay the arrears, then terminated the agreement 3 days later. I bet a dollar to a dime they've doctored the termination date also.
    • Having looked through the paperwork, I note they have sent 3 seperate LBCs. Two are in the name of FCA Automotive (1st one issued 21 Jan 2020, 2nd one 21 Sept 2022) and the last one (issued 12 Sept 2023) is under CA Auto Finance UK Limited. In the first one, they did send a copy of the default notice, but this was not sent with the 2nd LBC and neither was it sent with the last one either. .  A quick look at the default notice and I see it states the agreement start date was not the same day as the original agreement was signed. It's a day different but do not know if that makes any difference. Also, I note we received a letter on the 16 Nov 2023 which states of a 14 day notice of intention to issue claim form. Heard nothing since that, until this court claim arrived. 
  • 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 4943 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

What is MCOL and who is Bryan Carter?:???:

 

Thanks to Cerberusalert for responding sooner.

 

Although ACS and GM etc are getting the headlines there are thousands of unsubstantiated cases causing misery for people pushed through the County Court system every day in this country, many using the MCOL service which has the rather handy feature of not requiring the claimant to serve supporting documentation (ie proof of debt).

Northampton Bulk centre runs at a rate of approx 90% default judgments ie undefended judgments.

the unscrupulous litigant can use these services as a far more effective speculative invoicing operation than anything Crossley and Co could come up with.

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

this is an interesting read from the USA do we have somthing similar.

Downloading music track is not a performance but a stream is US Court rules

 

3 October 2010

 

Yahoo and Real conceded that they owed monies in respect of licensing revenues when users made copies when they downloaded music tracks. However Real and Yahoo sought to dispute ASCAP's claim that downloading fell within the definition of a performance under US copyright law.

The court found that "...we turn to section 101 of the Copyright Act, which states that to perform a work means to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, either directly or by means of any device or process...a download plainly is neither a dance nor an act. Thus, we must determine whether a download of a musical work falls within the meaning of the terms recite, render, or play."

The court concluded that: "the downloads at issue in this appeal are not musical performances that are contemporaneously perceived by the listener...they are simply transfers of electronic files containing digital copies from an on-line server to a local hard drive. The downloaded songs are not performed in any perceptible manner during the transfers; the user must take some further action to play the songs after they are downloaded."

The court went to on to draw a distinction between a download and a stream finding that: "...stream transmissions, which all parties agree constitute public performances, illustrate why a download is not a public performance. A stream is an electronic transmission that renders the musical work audible as it is received by the client-computer's temporary memory. This transmission, like a television or radio broadcast, is a performance because there is a playing of the song that is perceived simultaneously with the transmission".

This clarification draws an importance distinction between what constitutes a performance under section 101 of the Copyright Act in the context of online peer to peer file sharing, with an increasing volume of handheld mediums being available to consumers at a relatively cheap price on to which users can download or stream as the case maybe users should be aware that streaming will constitute a performance within section 101.

PHOTOBUCKET TUTORIAL IS NOW DONE HERE IT IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proceedings Before the Masters – Chancery Division

 

 

ROOM TM7.08

Before CHIEF MASTER WINEGARTEN

Monday 4th October 2010

 

At 3 o’clock

Ministry of Sound Recordings ltd v Plusnet Plc & others

 

3 hours to go !

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is before things started to even go really wrong:

 

"there are presently over 500 complaints against me thanks to the internet campaign and Which. Each complaint is essentially the same and they are borne out of a determination by some to stop legitimate steps bing taken to curtail illegal file sharing. However, I do not know how I can avoid being found guilty of something, with 500 complaints to choose from.

 

If I stop this work my business will fold and my clients will be big losers, but if I carry on I fear that it will be worse for me in the long run. Have you any view either way, as I have run out of ideas. Presently I feel defeated by it and feel I should shut up shop, which will cause me to go bankrupt for certain"

 

Big loser hmmmm.

My heart bleeds for the cretinis little oik. Should have realised this was going to be his downfall before trying to rip-off the masses with his doomed plan to rake in millions.

 

“...How heart warming it is to see that a man who as a result of being clinically depressed in 1999 suffered a stroke which in turn caused temporary complete blindness which in turn caused him to be unable to file his solicitors accounts on time or even at all for FIVE separate periods totalling FORTY-EIGHT months between periods ending 31st Dec 1999 and 31st December 2003, a period during which coincidentally this poor man was forced to enter into an IVA (Individual Voluntary Arrangement), was fined and ordered to be suspended indefinitely by an SRA tribunal in 2002, a man who had to face the further ignominy and trauma of a second disciplinary hearing in 2006 has recovered from this clinical depression and blindness enough to not only rebuild a career but a career as a successful* solicitor no less...”

 

With any luck his recent shenanigans will tip this useless bloated sweat gland of a human over the edge altogether!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend's girlfriend was one of AC's 'victims'. She was accused of downloading hard porn and could not stop crying. She had three 'threatening' letters and in the end paid to stop the harrassment. She is a junior doctor and was worried silly that the NHS would find out that she had been accused of watching such films.

 

By paying up she's admitted guilt. That looks far far worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i got a letter back from gm declining my offer of £100 and still want £370 i dont know what to do as i stupidly admitted it before i found this site :( they even have the cheek to give me the option of paying in instalements

should i pay i am at my wits end :(

 

You've done it therefore you should pay. If you havent done it and admitted to doing it then you have learnt an expensive lesson.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I keep expecting to read newflash.."Lawyer found hanging in Hanover square park" :)

 

yes and his death it not suspicious even thou they alledgedly found 8,040 ropes near by :lol:

Edited by huggy41

PHOTOBUCKET TUTORIAL IS NOW DONE HERE IT IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

ACS:Law chase church elder accused of sharing Cascada pop song

ACS:Law have targeted a church elder after accusing him of sharing a pop song by dance act Cascada, as well as others who have claimed they are innocent. http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/842891-acs-law-chase-church-elder-accused-of-sharing-cascada-pop-song

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4943 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...