ACS:Law copyright file sharing claims, Gallant Macmillan - and probably some others along the way...

[ccsnet]

Good luck, just remember to not give away anything personal on the net.

Exactly why I have kept stum about certain bits.... why spoil the surprise

 

Terran

[ccsnet]

Just rang the SRA.... the offical line is that its still be investigated so there is no news how ever the officer leading it is Ian Roberts who can either be written to at their offices or emailed via [email protected]

 

Terran

[scooby555]

would any1 like to help me write a letter am sorta crap at theses things ive never had to do this before grr the stress is gettin to me now

[Flyyyte]

Penumbra and Scooby: we'll have to agree to disagree, unfortunately (though amicably!)

 

The letter being sent by Crossley enjoys no special status merely because it emanates from a law firm.

 

Individuals who enter into correspondence with Crossley merely upgrade themselves as confirmed target identities, in much the same way as someone responding to email spam confirms a cyber address / identity.

 

Individuals who have entered into correspondence with Crossley have merely invited further correspondence where, it seems, the 'threat level' has been jacked up so as to increase the pressure on the recipient to pay.

 

 

The Achilles' Heel of Crossley's mail-out campaign has always been its inability to fund proof of delivery.

 

Had thousands of individuals in receipt of those thousands of letters merely filed them for safe keeping and not responded, Crossley would have had to re-mail.

 

As a 100% increase in the postal cost seems unlikely to have been afforded, then this second mail-out would of necessity had to be smaller.

 

Reducing the number of outgoing mailings would have reduced the number of convertible targets.

 

As to a Court's perspective on this. I entirely accept the fair points you have made but such points cannot be made absent of context.

 

The context here -- well, apart from the obvious fact that no Court case has yet taken place -- is not what one might call a conventional civil dispute, but an action by a solicitor to whom credibility is essential: credibility of claim; credibility of conduct; credibility of reputation.

 

And any determination in a Court of Law as to the probability or otherwise of a defendant receiving / not receiving correspondence will always be tempered by consideration of the credibility of the one alleging that the posting was received, and the credibility of the one alleging that it never was.

 

In view of the public record of Crossley's claims and his various representations in regard to this matter -- up to and including the claim that 80% of those contacted not only pay up, but pay more than was originally expected -- it's not difficult to see how veracity can be tested and, indeed, would most certainly be tested. . .

 

That is, assuming the issue of receipt was even given a moment's attention by any Court in the first place.

 

Because in this instance, it wouldn't.

 

(As for ACS:Law proceeding to Court against a wrong-doer who has never spoken to it at all, and thus provided not the slightest insight into his / her vulnerability to successful prosecution, that's as unlikely as Glenn Miller landing. ACS:Law would have nothing at all to resort to other than a technology it has taken great care never to present to any Court for objective assessment. It's not necessary to ask "why?" )

 

In choosing to ignore the intrusive spam -- which is all it is -- that arrives in the letter box first time around, a recipient may well save himself / herself from any further contact.

 

If he/she fails in that attempt, nothing is lost: as noted above, the matter of a "missing" letter is of no consequence to any Court proceeding that may follow -- i.e., to a proceeding that looks like being the first which ACS:Law has ever risked initiating.

 

I agree entirely with your strategy (Scooby) for answering a letter from Crossley with a reply of firm denial coupled with an assertion that this correspondence is closed.

 

The only difference is that I would issue that letter in response to the second from ACS:Law, should such there ever be.

 

Not the first.

[scooby555]

right thanks i will follow your advice flyyyte

[andydd]

Just rang the SRA.... the offical line is that its still be investigated so there is no news how ever the officer leading it is Ian Roberts who can either be written to at their offices or emailed via [email protected]

 

Terran

 

Something seems fishy here, the SRA are STILL investigating davenport lyons and that was from a few years back, how long does it take !?

 

Andy

[cashins]

Something seems fishy here, the SRA are STILL investigating davenport lyons and that was from a few years back, how long does it take !?

 

 

Forever, if you are firmly resolved to do nothing.

 

David

[ccsnet]

Forever, if you are firmly resolved to do nothing.

 

David

Which is why I will be mailing in later for an update on my own case having got a third letter after contacting them..... and I suggest any one else who contacted the SRA do the same.... this bloke is running the whole investigation.

 

Also correct me if I am wrong but the issue cant not be pursued while in disagreement like this and having notified ACS. ( Winds me up every time I type that ).

 

Fact is you shouldnt be able to P off the whole country and get away with it but that seems to be happening. I was told due process needs to take place so I am going to ask some questions around that and SLAs how ever..... re SLA as my case was responded to and told its part of the larger one I'm not sure if the 3 months rule applies or not ( which it is ) which then leads to the question whats the SLA on the larger investigation.

 

I also suspect its not been efficant as the responses needed from ACS may not be forth coming and as part of the process is to give them and opportunity to respond we can only hazard a guess as to when this may end.

 

Terran

[Scooby Doo69]

Flyyyte,

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not for ACS Laws approach, just offering another opinion.

 

My opinion is that ACS Law are stating that their evidence is correct and are claiming monies. An individual has the right to deny said claim and then it's down to ACS to test said evidence under English Civil Law when the balance of probability decision comes in.

 

Where they are being clever is playing upon people's ignorance or fear into paying up. Unless an individual stops the process dead and calls their bluff, they open themselves up to further correspondance, hence why I would make the statement denying the claim, having no knowledge of anyone in my household being liable and therefore consider the issue closed and will not enter into any further correspondance.

 

Which leads me to believe that until ACS go to Court or an independent authority looks into the evidence technique, the British Public can expect many more of these letters and ACS coffers will continue to swell.

[Shaggy123]

Since receiving my letter i've read this thread and others with interest while deliberating my course of action. To be honest I'm not sure what's worse, to be accused of downloading and sharing off some chav song by Scooter or Guru Josh or accused of downloading and sharing off some hardcore gay porn.

 

Either way, it could be very distressing if I let it. Initially I was fearful but this turned to anger at this invasion of privacy and downright cheek. I understand that if an ISP gets a court order they have to comply but surely they should be sure they are giving out the right information before getting innocents embroiled in this farce.

 

Anyhow, I am aware of bittorrent but do not use it and the works mentioned is not on my PC.

 

By sunday night I had decided I was going to reply with the template letter but the message by flyyte has now confused me. I'm not sure which way to go now to be honest.

 

Reply or not reply, that is the question

[Flyyyte]

Mornin' ScoobyDoo: understood and appreciated -- and of course, I never for one moment thought you were endorsing ACS:Law's conduct. If so wayward an impression ever arose, then sincere apologies.

 

My contention re the response issue is based simply on the question of "self incrimination". All of us know what that means. And all of us know, too, the old cliche about "the strong silent type".

 

In this specific situation, strength definitely equals silence.

 

This is because not everyone in receipt of an ACS:Law letter is going to be able to deal with it in such a way as to defeat whatever kind of response fltering is being employed.

 

At its most sophisticated, such filtering can utilise specialist software of the type developed for Intelligence and law enforcement organisations like the National Security Agency and the FBI for behavioural modelling and profiling.

 

It helps analyse everything from voice timbre and speech rhythms in audio recordings to semantics and literacy in written communication.

 

Obviously, no one-man led UK law firm operating out of an accommodation address and helping to keep Royal Mail's 2nd Class stamp service in business is going to be in that league.

 

But it -- and anyone else -- can certainly afford to undertake, at no cost, their own primitive assessment of the written response of a "defendant". And do so with a degree of accuracy that can often be surprisingly uncanny:

 

Response Filter:

 

1) Confidence; 2) Vulnerability to pressure; 3) Level of education; 4) Likely employment status as a reflection of education level; 5) Likely access to, and ability to fund, defensive action as a reflection of education/employment status.

 

Thus:

 

A "defendant "who in response to a simple accusation resorts to lengthy blustering is a pretty fair bet to be "guilty" as charged.

 

A "defendant" who in response to a simple accusation blathers on in barrack room legalese is a pretty fair bet to be vulnerable: his / her ego-trip actually puts him / her more, not less, at risk of being a suitable candidate for further pressure.

 

A "defendant " whose response is ungrammatical, littered with spelling errors, etc etc can feasibly be identified as one of average / less than average educational attainment, in an average job, and with average resources that ergo do not allow access to professional back-up or the wherewithal to fund that.

 

A "defendant " who is not a native English speaker and whose response clearly demonstrates such is definitely ripe for further targeting.

 

Etc, etc, etc. Point being:

 

You give me 100 written denials from people you and I have wilfully, and wrongfully accused, and out of those 100 letters it's statistically certain we will be able to identify with surprising ease the 50% most likely to be vulnerable to being further squeezed. However. . .

 

You give me 100 written responses which contain this and only this narrative content:

 

F*CK OFF.

 

and I've no idea if the respondent is thick, or dangerously belligerent, or on income support, or whose native language isn't English, or, or. . .

 

Or is so well educated, so well resourced, and so well, superior, that he / she has far more important things to do with his / her time than dignifiy a stupid letter containing a stupid allegation with any kind of considered reply.

 

Finally:

 

You give me 100 responses that are blank sheets of paper. And ask yourself: how can you and I profile in / filter out anything, anything at all, from. . . nothing at all?

 

Answer: we can't.

 

It's obvious from Crossley's own statements that many of his 100% "fool-proof" claims are dropped after the first mail-out. Why? Because he happened to be in a good mood? Hardly.

 

The reason why they were dropped was because they were filtered out.

 

And they were filtered out, either because the "defendant" never replied to ACS:Law's opening letter. Or responded in so curt, so concise, yet so intimidating a fashion that even a cursory glance at that response caused alarm bells to ring.

 

I hope the above explains why I take the position I do on here.

 

Yes: I'm well aware of all the other advice given by so many, many other people people on the 'Net.

 

Unfortunately, it does seem to me that though well-intentioned, those handing out that advice have failed to grasp that the first ACS:Law letter is not a process complete in and of itself but is, in fact, the start-point of a process ACS: Law is hoping -- and I emphasise the word: "hoping" -- to initiate.

 

Thus: mail-out letter 1; respondent's letter 1; filter / analyse response; mail-out letter 2 or: abandon further mail-outs to this respondent.

 

That's the sequence which is far more likely to kick in when someone responds to ACS: Law's opening letter. . . than when someone doesn't.

 

The strong silent type is that type because they understand how strength comes from silence. Every lawyer worth his / her salt also knows that, too, including one Andrew Crossley. So my advice still stands:

 

You get a 2nd Class Mail non-Signed For letter out of the blue from ACS:Law, it's the equivalent of email spam.

 

It has no legal force. You are under no obligation to respond.

 

If you do not respond, you may never hear from ACS:Law again.

 

If you do not respond, ACS:Law has no clue to your identity, provenance, resources or vulnerability.

 

If you do respond, you are obligingly opening a channel of communication that need never have been opened at all.

 

If you do respond, what you say, and how you say it, will be very much an indicator of how ACS:Law will deal with you.

 

If you do respond, do not think that using a pro forma response culled from the Internet is going to be necessarily effective.

 

The fact that you've gone to the time and trouble of finding that pro forma, and reproducing it -- merely in response to a single letter, from an unknown person, mailed out in a cheap 2nd Class envelope -- suggests that you're actually quite vulnerable.

 

Let's put it like this.

 

If I bark once -- just once -- and you jump, I'm pretty damn sure there's an excellent chance you'll jump even higher when I come barking again.

 

Woof! Woof!

 

 

Flyyyte

[Scooby Doo69]

No offence taken and you have never implied it. In the euthoria though, anyone who have an opinion that states what ACS are doing within law is jumped up.

 

Let's face it, ACS Law is a business. To survive, the business needs to bring in revenue.

 

The facts remain that from the odd case here and there about OAPs and disabled people receiving these letters, no one under UK law has discredited the evidence in an official capacity.

 

We all know, going to Court is a lottery in most cases, especially in a Civil Court. It will cost both sides money until a winner is announced. Even if it is ACS, doesn't mean to say that every case will provided them payment, especially if loser can't pay.

 

If I was the SRA I'd look at the posts on the ACS web site. Claims of Court proceedings being issued, etc, but no updates on the outcomes.

[Flyyyte]

Scoobydoo: absolutely. But perhaps the SRA really is having to look at so much, that's what's taking the time?

 

Oh, and speaking of untested claims on the basis of undisclosed evidence, is there anything like this letter kicking around on the 'Net? Because I can't find it:

 

Dear Mr Crossley,

I write to enquire if you could explain what you think you’re doing in sending out an unsecured letter that wrongfully accuses me of being a downloader of pornographic material?

The nature of my work is such that this unfounded allegation could not be more damaging. The harm inflicted on my personal reputation and social standing could not be greater.

You, as a solicitor whose practice is regulated by The Law Society, should of all people have been alert to the possible consequences of such reckless conduct before you embarked on it.

And yet despite this, you made your allegation in a letter sent out by 2nd Class post to an address from which I moved a short time ago, this letter being then inadvertently opened by the property’s new occupants.

As you took no care to ensure your communication could not be read by anyone else, the situation has arisen where you have caused third parties to entertain wholly unwarranted suspicions about my character.

I have attempted to set matters straight by telling everyone that I do not now nor ever have made it a practice to download and view gay sex pornographic videos.

Unfortunately for me though, you have publicly asserted that the evidence on which you base your claim is – and I quote – “fool-proof”, and that you and your law firm has never at any time mis-identified a wrong-doer.

So strenuous are your claims to infallibility, and so widely published, that you have placed me in the distressing position of being seen not as the luckless recipient of a vicious ‘poison pen’ letter from an anonymous source, but as an individual against whom an allegation has been made by a solicitor in possession of infallible proof of my guilt.

Your decision to communicate so baseless an allegation in such a way that it is quite easily publishable abroad, and become known to third parties to the detriment of my professional and social standing, as has happened here, leaves me with no option but to seek from you by return a payment of £500,000.

Be advised that my evidence of claim is 100% fool-proof, based as it is on the following indisputable facts:

i) That you / your law firm made an unfounded allegation which you / your law firm knew to be potentially injurious to my good name;

ii) That though aware of this potential, you nevertheless took no care to ensure that such allegation was conveyed in such a way that no other party or parties could gain knowledge of it;

iii) That knowing that secure communication exists in the form of Signed For, or Special Delivery, you nevertheless chose to use the cheapest form of mailing available, to whit: 2nd Class non-Signed For post;

iv) That you / your law firm, though fully appreciating the potential for such a letter to be mis-delivered, or damaged in transit and its contents disclosed, nevertheless chose this medium of transmission regardless of consequence;

v) That as a result of your many and various public statements to the effect that every accusation made by you / your law firm is based on 100% fool-proof evidence, the passing into the public domain of your accusation constitutes the publication of a most serious libel.

 

 

Please be further advised that in the event it is decided to pursue this claim further, the final outcome may well involve your liability for a sum substantially in excess of that which you’re being asked to pay now. This is especially true because I am able to draw on expert technology re stamps, envelopes, and posting rates, and of course have many independent witnesses who are now campaigning for my removal as a Senior Master at Eton.

Your £500,000 remittance should be sent forthwith to the accommodation address on this letterhead and marked for the attention of Ivor Barrister.

 

 

I'm really surprised that circumstances seem not to have arisen yet where such a letter, or similar, would be authored.

 

 

[jakehtesnakeuk]

I myself have not received such letter.But what I would do if I received one?First would end up in the bin. Second? A bit annoying, bin again.

Third? annoyed again, but would write to them,how easily is to hack wireless network? just google it. how easily is to set up proxy server and use someone else's IP, just google it. Am I in possession of a file you claim I downloaded? no. Send someone to investigate my PC or Mac, we'll be more than happy to assist, I'll put the kettle on, If you are not happy, take me to court,acusing me (in most cases ) of downloading porn from internet (which I have not done) costs me slepless nights,my family,and my cat I will seek damages in court,so , choice is yours, now f... off!

[Chrisash]

I myself have not received such letter.But what I would do if I received one?First would end up in the bin. Second? A bit annoying, bin again.

Third? annoyed again, but would write to them,how easily is to hack wireless network? just google it. how easily is to set up proxy server and use someone else's IP, just google it. Am I in possession of a file you claim I downloaded? no. Send someone to investigate my PC or Mac, we'll be more than happy to assist, I'll put the kettle on, If you are not happy, take me to court,acusing me (in most cases ) of downloading porn from internet (which I have not done) costs me slepless nights,my family,and my cat I will seek damages in court,so , choice is yours, now f... off!

 

 

[jakehtesnakeuk]

just forgot to add, acs: [problem] is taking ppl nearly a year now, has anyone been taken to court? been googling all day could not find a single case in court,(maybe you could help me) why? because they'll LOOSE. All what acs [problem] can do is to send 50 or so pages and one proof, your IP,so they think you will be scared and pay, IF YOU ARE A CHICKEN THEN PAY.

Edited February 4, 2010 by jakehtesnakeuk

[Scooby Doo69]

Jakethesnakeuk,

 

As I posted above, it costs time and money to take people to Court, even through the Small Claims Court. The outcome for ACS is uncertain in Court, even if they win.

 

Why spend hundreds or thousands of pounds going through Court, when threatening via letter probably costs them less than a tenner each time using a templated approach?

 

As long as there is a long line of gulliable punters to pay for the privilege then why go to Court?

 

Work out the numbers. 20,000 letters at £500 a pop with ACS taking the majority share for each payee from a mailshot.

 

Might start a law firm Myself

[n11186]

I would like to make a promise to all cagers if i have a big win on the lottery i will get the best legal team money could buy and i will take Crossley and ACS to court and seek damages from them and donate all court claim money to charity(after my winning claim)

 

1) Putting a stigma on my good name saying i listen to Scooter

 

2) Causing family breakdown @ loss of work

 

3) Causing depression suicidal-thoughts and harassment alarm and distress

 

And unlike his evidence i can prove my evidence, i can prove i was on my hollidays at the time of his allegation, i have holliday receipts credit card receipts etc , so if you have sufferd any of the above go to your local GP with this letter from ACS and tell him how you feel and whats brought your symptoms on, all the info you give will go down on record and who no,s if any cager wins the big one you to can have your day. I AWAIT MY COURT DATE

[Flyyyte]

Re all or most of the above posts:

 

1) excellent advice from n11186. Every individual in receipt of a letter from ACS:Law must see their GP so that any needless stress they may be experiencing is documented.

Anyone seeking to claim that they were distressed hasn't a hope in hell of proving that without the medical record. Anyone seeking to prove they were not distressed hasn't a hope in hell of proving that when a GP's record says otherwise. Remember: distress isn't an abstract concept. Under Law, it's quantifiable. Especially if you're off work as a result of an unfounded accusation and the long-term effects of your distress / depression are likely to impair your ability to discharge your duties.

In fact, the many thousands of work hours lost to the UK economy that may possibly be attributable to the conduct of ACS:Law are maybe enough to justify a Select Committee enquiry.

 

2) jakehtesnakeuk. No Court has ever heard, tested, or validated the technology that ACS:Law claims to exist -- "fool-proof" technology which can in 100% of all cases bridge the gap between knowing what an IP address may have carried, and what an actual identifiable individual may have undertaken.

So far, the only way of bridging that gap has been via the services of a forensic computing expert, involving hard drive analysis costing up to £5,000 a time -- if the user consents to his / her computer being subjected to such analysis.

 

3) ccsnet: Gawd's sake, don't vanish from here forever. I get the feeling you know far more about Internet technology than you let on.

Re your latest info: wunnerful. Twitter, of course, is where that pillar of morality and respectability, Terence Tsang, employee of ASC:Law, and pirate of Morgan Grenfell's Internet presence, likes to speak of his happy memories of Davenport Lyons, his former employer and, as every fule know, a law firm with absolutely no connection to ACS:Law.

(PS: I do hope Terence's car finds a buyer. Just as I hope Andrew's Audi found a buyer, though in the latter case, prospective purchasers may have been put off because they weren't sure whether they'd need to visit West Sussex or Andrew's home town of Monte Carlo. Jeez. These big time international lawyers though!)

 

4) caimbeul: fabulous post at 1818, and further evidence of what is now almost certainly the non-existence of ACS:Law at 20, Hanover Square. The inevitable conclusion must be that this is an accommodation address, something for sticking on a letterhead in hope it'll impress and intimidate. The fact that you waited so long to actually see anyone at all from the firm speaks eloquently of Mr Crossley's, um, absence. (That and the fact there's no reason to think you saw anyone from ACS:Law anyway.)

So. . .

A major national campaign by a prestigious law firm intent on representing itself as an authoritative organisation. . . and it can't even afford a real office, or the price of a 1st Class stamp, or a calibre of employee greater than an absurdly obnoxious cyber pirate (by the way, has Terence Tsang actually qualified yet? And does the legal profession actually need someone of his, er, character within its ranks? I do think The Law Society should tell us.)

 

5) robstanley at 1821: Rob and his missus are obviously doing a tremendous amount of work, for which I for one am most grateful. I really hope, Rob, that many others will read your post and take note of the reference to Which? Computing. And I wish you and yours all very best in your selfless efforts.

 

Finally:

 

In response to the post by the SRA on behalf of The Law Society re the conduct of Andrew Crossley, ACS:Law, 20 Hanover Square or then again, possibly not of 20 Hanover Square at all but some attic somewhere. . .

 

Oh. There hasn't been such a post.

 

Silence, still. No word. No news.

 

And in the meantime, Crossley's 2nd Class Mail carpet bombing can continue. And in the meantime, Crossley, Tsang, and the Media Agent for A Beach Bonker can continue to appear at Chancery Division and get anything they want in the way of subscriber information from UK ISPs under the terms of NPOs. Shock and awe, Andrew, shock and awe!

 

Ah well.

 

The missus and I have just decided that in view of the way the snow has just fallen here again -- again, though: wasn't January bad enough? -- that oh, sod this, we're off to warmer climes.

 

If and when we get back, hopefully all this will be over, and Andrew Crossley will either be in line for a knighthood or something else. Good luck and God bless then to all on CAG and those caught up in this farrago, individuals throughout the country who are up against:

 

(a) one solicitor of distinctly unimpressive provenance;

 

(b) one solicitor's associate with a past so blackened it's well-nigh inconceivable that any practice regulated by The Law Society would allow him within a mile of its door. . . and:

 

© one envelope with a 2nd Class Stamp.

 

Wow. That's some operation.

 

Onwards & upwards --

 

 

Flyyyte

 

PS: It may be the case that some in a financially fragile position may feel themselves especially vulnerable to the accusations levelled against them by ACS:Law. They may even believe the financial burden being imposed on them, actual or potential, is such as to make informed advice appropriate.

 

They may therefore wish to get in touch with the proprietor of a business so commercially unsuccessful that it couldn't even afford to employ an accountant to do its books.

 

In light of that and concomitant ill-health, that proprietor entered into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (an IVA) in May, 2002.

 

Whether or not that individual's experience will be of benefit to anyone else, I have no idea. But it may be possible to find out more about IVAs and how to cope with serious financial difficulties by writing to 20 Hanover Square, Mayfair, London.

[robstanley1]

Heads up guys!

 

Just had a text from my wife - she has received a reply to our 1st Letter of Denial this morning.

 

As expected, this is another ACS Template letter, stating that they do not accept *our* Templete Letter , and giving us 7 days to explain how our personal circumstances allowed my wife to let her internet connect be used for sharing files (which it most certainly was NOT!).

 

Of possible interest, is that she is saying they have enclosed a 'Questionairre' for her to complete, which I believe is a new tactic?

 

Not at home til tonight, so haven't had sight of this as yet - will report back later...

 

Rob

 

NB - Which? Computing are coming to see us next week, to take photos and details for their upcoming feature

[penumbra]

Heads up guys!

 

Just had a text from my wife - she has received a reply to our 1st Letter of Denial this morning.

 

As expected, this is another ACS Template letter, stating that they do not accept *our* Templete Letter , and giving us 7 days to explain how our personal circumstances allowed my wife to let her internet connect be used for sharing files (which it most certainly was NOT!).

 

Of possible interest, is that she is saying they have enclosed a 'Questionairre' for her to complete, which I believe is a new tactic?

 

Not at home til tonight, so haven't had sight of this as yet - will report back later...

 

Rob

 

NB - Which? Computing are coming to see us next week, to take photos and details for their upcoming feature

 

Interesting. The questionnaire does sound new. I have PMed you.

[Scooby Doo69]

Just a thought, but I'd advise anyone going to their Doctors claiming stress unless they are 100% genuine. For some life insurances, etc, you may find the premium going up somewhat or being refused, etc, if your medical record states you have been treated under a Doctor for stress.

 

Am not going to disclose how I know this for obvious reasons (this is a public forum, if you can read it so can ACS!), but food for thought.

[penumbra]

Just a thought, but I'd advise anyone going to their Doctors claiming stress unless they are 100% genuine. For some life insurances, etc, you may find the premium going up somewhat or being refused, etc, if your medical record states you have been treated under a Doctor for stress.

 

Am not going to disclose how I know this for obvious reasons (this is a public forum, if you can read it so can ACS!), but food for thought.

 

Yes, I would advise against trolling for a doctors letter / similar unless you're 100% actually affected and completely genuine.

 

Being stressed out over something doesn't necessarily mean you have a clinical problem.

[andydd]

Yes, I would advise against trolling for a doctors letter / similar unless you're 100% actually affected and completely genuine.

 

Being stressed out over something doesn't necessarily mean you have a clinical problem.

 

Whenever I see the letters A C S I come out in spots

[andydd]

Interesting. The questionnaire does sound new. I have PMed you.

 

Certainly sounds 'iffy', the questionaire could be used to against you depending on your answers, personally I'd ignore it or maybe write back saying that you will fill in the questionaire IF ACS re-imburse you for the time spent on it.

 

As we all now, there is no need to reply/answer/fill in anything unless court action is actually impending, but that i mean it is actually happening in reality not in Mr Crossley strange imagination.

 

Andy