Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm trying to unravel this – but I get the impression that there was no contract between you and EVRi and that you didn't even choose them but instead you decided use some third party parcel broker in the USA which organised the delivery. Is this correct? EVRi came into the picture because they would then eventually selected for part of the journey although you had no knowledge that it might be them and I suppose it didn't really matter as long as the item got to you. Secondly, I really don't understand the journey which this item made. You bought the item from somebody in the USA. They then were meant to dispatch it to you to another address in the USA but for some reason or other it came to the UK and then into the hands of EVRi at which point it was lost or stolen. More confusion here because you now tell us that EVRi marked it as being out for delivery but it was never delivered. This suggests that it was going to be delivered to a UK address but earlier on you said that it was going to be delivered to USA address. I think you need to look at the story. Maybe show it to a friend of yours who is not particularly where the details and ask them if they can make head or tail of it and then come back to us with clarification so that we fully understand. Also, I think we'd like to know what the item is, how was it declared, what was the value which was declared. You said it was a valuable item because it was rare and collectable. I gather from this that it is non-fungible. We need to understand more about this. Was an insurance policy purchased to cover it during the delivery process. I understand that this rare and collectable item be valued at £200. Have evidence this value. This could become very important. Also you have given is no idea when this happened. We need to understand the full timescale. There are a number of possibilities here including the possibility of the contract action against EVRi on the basis of your third party rights or an action for negligence but we need to know far more and we need to get a story that makes sense.   Finally, I understand that you have sent the letter of claim. What did it say? How much time did you give them? What did you expect to happen as a result of the letter of claim? Whatever the answers to those questions might be, clearly you had no idea how to proceed after having sent such a letter. A letter of claim is meant to be a serious threat of some legal action if some condition which you have stipulated is not complied with. You set a deadline for compliance and at the end of that deadline you issue the court action. Clearly you are not in a position to do that so your letter of claim is a bluff and undermines your credibility and it will find its way into the EVRi wastepaper basket – if it's not there already.  
    • Good morning. I just wanted to check something please. The other side have moved slightly and negotiated a full and final offer price to end this matter. I am happy with this. However, I want to make sure this is the end of the matter and am emailing the following over to them prior to payment. Is this enough to ensure they can come back for nothing else? Thanks -------------------------------------------------- Dear Sir.   With regards your last email below.   I am pleased to agree to the full and final settlement figure given below.   Can you confirm this payment will be in full and final payment with no further claim to be brought against me in this matter?   Best regards
    • 100% sure I didn't receive it, that why my first post is with the £100 letter.
    • Engine, the technology business Starling Bank was built on, has been busy launching banks around the world, from Romania to Australia.View the full article
    • use this your WS and inc this as an exhibit off to bed now 3 nights been up till 4am aurora watching wont be on too early as it's lambing season out herding with the dog. your WS main thrust is the debt would now be SB'd , the DN was filed xxxyrs+months after it should have been thus unlawfully extending  SB date to infinity. highlight their admittance regarding errors at that time period in your 'redetermination'  paragraph. agreements unreadable. would have already been written off due to SLC age write off criteria has they not issued the claim to stop the SB clock when they had no paperwork to prove their case in the 1st place. never earned over threshold. dx       Erudio - stopped sending email deferments won at FOS DRN-4141462.pdf
  • 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 4946 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

I sent a LOD off to GM nearly 2 1/2 months ago and they have stopped chasing me, no more letters at all..... Anyone else had this outcome?

 

It took GM nearly 3 months before they rejected my LOD as a template, so I sent a second LOD and have so far not heard anything more. However, I still expect another demand to drop through my letterbox anytime.

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

It took GM nearly 3 months before they rejected my LOD as a template, so I sent a second LOD and have so far not heard anything more. However, I still expect another demand to drop through my letterbox anytime.

 

Really a good firm to get back to you after 3 months when they give you 21 days.. The 2nd letter will be exactly the same if they ever do get back. What a crock of shizzer...

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case you're not really in a position to offer an informed opinion.

 

 

 

This is why you should have read the thread before offering an ill informed opinion.

 

ACS Law are not pretending to act for anyone. They are actually acting for clients.

 

True..Many of the contract between clients and ACS can now be viewd thanks to the leak.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said my WIFI was hacked and I got a letter back saying thanks for updating your Security but to check to see if others have downloaded the file and they will take no more action.

 

Who did you get your letter from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How the blazes are you supposed to know who's hacked into your wifi?

 

Well..your router may keep logs, this will identify the IP address that it has given out (assuming you are using it for DHCP, most do), although this will only identify a computer name but this may give you a clue, also if you look at the 'Attached Devices' (or similar tab) it will again list the computers currently attached (either hard wired or via wifi).

 

If you read through the leaked ACS mails you will see that ACS used to drop cases where anyone used the 'wireless defence', whether specifically or by alluding to it.

 

HOWEVER ACS did later go on to reject any form of 'wireless defence' although it is not clear why they did.

 

The thinking behind the wirelss defence is that it has been established in law that a person cant be held responsible for the (unathorised) actions of a third party.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well..your router may keep logs, this will identify the IP address that it has given out (assuming you are using it for DHCP, most do), although this will only identify a computer name but this may give you a clue, also if you look at the 'Attached Devices' (or similar tab) it will again list the computers currently attached (either hard wired or via wifi).
If the average computer user knew that + how to access it they wouldn't have had an unsecured wifi anyway.

 

As said previously there is case law which states a person is not responsible for someone hacking into their connection, nor are they liable if they have an insecure wifi unless they knowingly allow them to commit an offence or copyright infringement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a long thread and a few answers needed me thinks

 

1/ where is this data about p2p etc is being gathered

2/ who has access too this data

3/ who is passing on this data

3/ who is this data being pased to

4/ who is demanding payment and where are they based

 

are we talking eu member states

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a long thread and a few answers needed me thinks

 

1/ where is this data about p2p etc is being gathered

2/ who has access too this data

3/ who is passing on this data

3/ who is this data being pased to

4/ who is demanding payment and where are they based

 

are we talking eu member states

 

1. It is gathered by 3rd party 'date harvesting' companies, Logistep, etc. mostly in Germany I believe

2. The date harvesters, the law companies and perhaps the ISP's

3. The data harvesters and ISP's

4. The law compaies and ISP's

5. ACS Law and GM and possibly some others, all based in london, UK..so yes..EU

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a LOD off to GM nearly 2 1/2 months ago and they have stopped chasing me, no more letters at all..... Anyone else had this outcome?
Didn’t bother with a LOD, went straight for the FO letter instead. Not heard anything which is quite disappointing as I like a challenge. Harassment claim lodged through ralli solicitors. Don’t think much will come of it though, but as Dale says – you’ve got to be in it to win it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a reply from the information commissioner this morning confirming that on the evidence provided, that ACS LAW breached "the 7th principle"(keeping data safe) and that they have contacted ACS LAW to establish the facts and decide what action should be taken.

We'll see what happens !

Link to post
Share on other sites

A MUST READ

 

Open Rights Group account of NPO hearing 4th October

 

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing-part-one

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing-part-two

 

ALSO.

 

This is an excellent document from "Being Threatened" explaining much of what is going on and the errors that can occur..

 

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-FtXNu_158fOTIxOGMxNzMtNGJmNi00YTcwLWJlMmUtMTJhZDg2NGIwNjlk&hl=en_GB&authkey=CL3JpeIE

 

Sorry if they've been posted before - been busy with leaked Emails

HI YA TERRY :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

A MUST READ

 

Open Rights Group account of NPO hearing 4th October

 

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing-part-one

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/comment-on-ministry-of-sound-hearing-part-two

 

ALSO.

 

This is an excellent document from "Being Threatened" explaining much of what is going on and the errors that can occur..

 

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-FtXNu_158fOTIxOGMxNzMtNGJmNi00YTcwLWJlMmUtMTJhZDg2NGIwNjlk&hl=en_GB&authkey=CL3JpeIE

 

Sorry if they've been posted before - been busy with leaked Emails

HI YA TERRY :wink:

 

Good ORG stuff, interesting reading, i am really surprised that MOS are still involved, cleraly this isnt going to be the quick n easy cash cow they thought it was and they now lay themsleves open to being charged costs (I see that CMW rejected BT's calim for £52,000 for just a weekends work, but it may well be that in the future MOS are stung with a huge legal bill), I would of thought they'd ditch it all know, it cant be bringing in that much money and they should go back to trying to entice people to buy their shoddy CD's not making money in this dubious way, it can only hurt sales after all.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else that has occured to me is that computers do make mistakes, basically you can type in a 1 and it comes out 2, this is why on high end servers, standard RAM memory isnt used, but intstead EEC or registered RAM that performs extra checks, these 'mistakes' (where binary 0 may become 1 or visa versa) can be caused by fluctuations in electricty and suns radiation, etc

 

This could be used in an argument why you have been wrongly identified by your ISP, although more likely causes are probably human error, IP spoofing, etc

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody reading this had a recent letter from ACS or GM? Either a 1st letter or 2nd? If you're reading this but not yet joined the forum, it would be good to hear from you.

 

I've sent off my 2nd LOD to GM in the last two weeks. They sent me the 1st letter in July which i responded to using the template letter. Their response in September rejected my response as a template and asked me to provide evidence of any foul play as alluded to in the LOD template. They also asked me to name others who use the connection so that they can pursue them instead of me.

My 2nd LOD was short and re-stated my denial.

 

I fully expect a third letter but have told them I will consider it to be harrassment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4946 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...