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

[cashins]

So if a 2nd letter is received after replying with a template to the first one what happens then? Do people simply send the first response again or write their own letter?

 

If it was me I wouldn't bother.

 

If you feel the need to write again I would suggest:

 

I refer to my letter of the xx xx xx where my position is made clear.

 

Please note I will not correspond further on this matter.

 

Yours whatever

 

David

[andydd]

That questionaire is very dumb !.. No.15 indeed..ha..idiots.

 

It refers to 'The' internet connection, what the hell does that relate to ?

 

It asks was the connection unsecurred without giving any dates.

 

I truely hope no-one has replied to this !. I may post one off to ACS Law and have some fun with them though !

 

Andy

[robstanley1]

Have just sent second written complaint to the Legal Complaints Service, regarding this second letter of Crossley's, and I'd ask everyone who's received the same letter to do likewise - the email address you need for this is:

 

[email protected]

 

It may be useful for you to follow the same lines of complaint as me (but please don't copy, word-for-word!) -

 

Here's a brief rundown of the way I formatted mine:

 

I am writing to issue an official follow-on complaint regarding law firm ACS:Law (SRA No. 513065).

 

I originally complained to yourselves (via the SRA switchboard) on [DATE], having received a letter demanding a 'damages' payment to the sum of £[sUM], for allegedly 'uploading, via P2P software' an audio track (something I catagorically deny).

 

I was informed that my complaint had been logged, and had been added to 'over 1000 existing similar complaints involving this

firm'.

 

Following this, I have received a second letter from ACS:Law (dated [DATE]), stating that my original response, denying their allegations, was unacceptable, as it appeared to be based upon a 'Template which is available on the Internet'.

 

In addition, they have also now sent a 'Questionairre', to be returned "Within 7 Days" (Copy of letter and said questionairre

attached), failure to do so which will result in further pursual of the matter.

 

This request, and specifically the time period specified in which to provide a response, appears to be in direct contravention of

the express advice given in the Ministry of Justice's Practice Direction for Pre-Action Conduct (Section III, Items 7.1 & 7.2).

 

As such, I believe this firm is explicitly exerting seriously unprofessional pressure tactics, in an attempt to extort payment

through threats of further action (to an extent which could be viewed as potentially approaching a form of blackmail).

 

I require this specific issue to be logged as a seperate complaint to my first, and trust you will be able to advise me as to what

action(s) will be taken at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Remember, folks - it's only by bringing these issues up with the regulatory authorities, that something will actually be DONE about ACS and their seemingly-bullying tactics.

 

If you leave it for other's to do, you may continue to be hounded by this outfit for years to come!

[robstanley1]

As an additonal avenue, can all concerned copy their complaints, regarding the nature of this second letter and questionnaire, directly to the SRA themselves:

 

Solicitors Regulation Authority - Contact us

 

Keep up the good work, all

 

Rob

Edited February 7, 2010 by robstanley1

[inatiable-cj]

ACS Law issued me with the second and third letters only! I chose to ignore Cowboy Crossley and i haven't heard anything off him or his fellow outlaws since last summer!

I WONDER WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FIRST LETTER??

[ccsnet]

As an additonal avenue, can all concerned copy their complaints, regarding the nature of this second letter and questionairre, directly to the SRA themselves:

 

Solicitors Regulation Authority - Contact us

 

Keep up the good work, all

 

Rob

IIRC Ian Roberts is the lead investigator for the SRA.... nto had chance to follow up my self yet due to problems this week but its a few posts back.

 

PS That questionnaire is naff.... dam obvious why those are been asked - Ca-chiiiiing.

 

Terran

[robstanley1]

Interestingly, following my written complaint, using the SRA's own on-line form, the auto-reply I received came directly from their Fraud and Confidential Intelligence Bureau....

 

...Be really interesting to see what additional information their assigned agent requests, when they come back to me during the week!

[whereswally]

Hi Guys,

 

My father received a letter through the post and we are totally innocent. We spent the last 3 weeks reading up on here and all of the various websites about being harrassed by ACS:LAW and their "clients". I spent a good week of my time reading all 90 pages on here and we have just finished our LOD.

 

Quick question: Do we sign with just a word font, or do we physically have to take a pen to paper and undersign it? I am worried they will scan and use our signature?

 

We are posting it to the supplied address recorded 1st class, so we get proof of dispatch, proof of delivery and online tracking next day delivery.

 

We're all in this together and I will be writing to the SRA, Lord's, MP (David Cameron!), Which? and will continue to monitor the posts on here.

 

Thanks,

 

Where's Wally (anon.)

[JackSchidt]

Use a real Pen- the advice about using a handwriting word font was from the early days when it looked like a simple [problem].

[Scooby Doo69]

All,

 

Just some thoughts.

 

ALWAYS sign a letter in person via pen. It's more personal.

 

If you are innocent, write one short, but concise letter stating it wasn't you and you have no knowledge of anyone else in your household having done the deed. The most important factor here is to mention that you do not propose to enter into any further correspondance. That firmly puts the ball in ACS's court and they will have to take court action or be considered for unproffessional misconduct. It's like closing your front door to a Sales person who sticks a foot in the door way and still tries to talk to you.

[JackSchidt]

But do you even need to mention 'other members of your household' ?

 

Surely that's just giving them a chance to get in and ask more questions ?

[robstanley1]

No - you don't:

 

Simply assert that YOU haven't uploaded the work, nor have you given your permission for anybody else to do so.

 

That's the only bases that you need to cover.

[Scooby Doo69]

Doesn't mean to say they haven't done it though does it?

 

That's avoiding the question. In the unlikely event of having to go to Court you need to be seen to be as helpful as possible. You know whether anyone else int he property lives there. By saying that you have asked them and no one else has uploaded the artice, covers all bases.

 

Can't see how that will incriminate You or them, but in a sentence has nulified most of their questionnaire. Just leaves the question of wireless encryption, which we all know is a grey area and one which ACS will probably never go to Court over.

[JackSchidt]

@scooby -

 

The only negative point in mentioning other people is that you are admitting that there are other people in your household. I'm guessing that in the first wave of letters, they haven't even bothered to find out who's actually living at your address ? I know it's pretty easy to find out, but I can't see them going to the effort.

 

EDIT: I can see what you mean - If you supply all the info in the first LOD, all you need to do in subsequent letters is say 'please refer to my previous reply'

[whereswally]

I agree with Rob. After much research, our Letter of Denial (LOD) was over in 2 paragraphs.

 

One paragraph stating what they had accused us of and another denying it outright. That's all that is required. I wouldn't advise elborating or mentioning any further details that aren't already in their letters, as that gives them ammunition...

 

If they fancy their chances with a second letter, they will receive a second LOD saying:

A.) Please refer back to 1 LOD where all accusations are outright denied and B.) We are not prepared to waste our time/efforts communicating any further until substantial evidence is provided in court, demanding receipt and understanding of this within 28 days of receiving our letter.

 

Or, you can play the waiting game and use brief, short and sharp LOD's to hopefully postpone them long enough for somebody to take down this horrible organisation.

[robstanley1]

Right folks -

 

Have just had the following back from the Legal Complaints Service (see my post above):

 

 

"Dear Mr. Stanley

 

Thank you for your email.

 

We have passed your email to our Designations Team. Your matter will be made into file and a member of this Organisation will contact you in due course.

 

If you have any further queries, you may wish to contact the Legal Complaints Helpline on 0845 6086565 and speak with one of our helpline agents. Our lines are open between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday. Please note calls may be monitored/recorded for training purposes.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

[Name Removed]

LCS Email Enquiries Team

Customer Contact Centre "

 

This tack (ie the "Seven Days to Respond" issue) is evidently different enough from the existing 'mass complaint' to warrant a seperate investigation, so I'd again urge anybody else here who's recieved the questionnaire and the '7 days' letter to email the LCS accordingly - again, see my previous post(s) on the format I used etc.

 

Rob

[whereswally]

This is good news Rob....even though some of us haven't got to this stage yet, it appears that you have managed a breakthrough at an earlier stage for all of us to pick up on when Mr Crossley decides to harass us further.

[robstanley1]

I'm certain it may have already been mentioned in the preceeding pages, chaps, but felt I'd bring it back up here:

 

One, other avenue of complaint would be the direct source of the Norwich Pharmacal Orders themselves (the legal instrument, which has compelled the ISPs to release Personal Data to Crossley in the first place) - Chief Master Winegarten.

 

As I recall, Chief Master Winegarten had some quite seriously-seraching questions for Andrew Crossley, when he attended to request the second batch of NPO's back in November last year, and I'm fairly sure he'd be interested to hear from those of us who have been wrongly-accused as a direct result of this process.

 

If you'd like to contact him, with a POLITE, TO-THE POINT LETTER, explaining:

 

- How ACS:Law has been treating you

- What pressure tactics (if any) you feel have been used to cause you fear

- How ACS:Law hasn't taken a single non-paying case to court to date, and seems to have no intention of doing so...

 

The address you'll need is -

 

Chief Master Winegarten

Masters Appointments Section (Room TM 709)

Thomas More Building

The Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

 

Hope this is of use!!

 

Please, please, remember - don't leave this for 'somebody else' to do - if we ALL make our voices heard, we CAN make a difference - and those who allow this to happen will sit up, and begin to NOTICE what ACS:Law is actually doing to innocent people, all in the name of making a fast buck.

 

Rob

 

 

Edited to add: For those of you who haven't seen the original 'Torrentfreak' article, here's a few brief extracts, pertinent to Chief Master Winegarten's comments from November 2009:

 

 

Present at the hearing before Chief Master Winegarten (CMW) were Andrew Crossley and Terence Tsang from ACS:Law, representatives from UK ISP BT and three representatives from consumer outfit Which?

Before the hearing began, CMW noted that he had received letters of complaint from the public about the scheme. As reported to TorrentFreak by those present, during the hearing Andrew Crossley made some interesting comments.

After CMW expressed interest in what happens to an accused infringer after the court order is granted and a letter sent, Crossley said that his company was not suggesting that the recipient is definitely guilty in all cases, but the Internet account holder who receives the letter could perhaps help them to identify the person who had actually carried out the infringement.

In justifying his application for the court order, Crossley said that they do it because “businesses are failing, jobs are being lost,” while citing dubious IFPI statistics (95% of all music is pirated) to justify his case.

CMW asked Crossley how long the scheme would continue for, who replied “…for as long as P2P file-sharing continues Master.”

When CMW asked why rightsholders were dealing with Media C.A.T and not directly with DigiProtect, Crossley said that “[Media C.A.T] happen to operate in the UK…dealing with UK companies…”

In referring to the scheme ACS:Law and DigiProtect operate in respect of these hardcore porn titles, Crossley tried to suggest that they were doing a public service by helping to prevent the sharing of restricted movies on P2P.

CMW responded by noting that “[this is] not a moral crusade” and that in his opinion, ACS:Law and DigiProtect were doing this “…because you want the money.”

Edited February 8, 2010 by robstanley1

[BARFLY]

the end is near for ACS......apparently!

ACS:Law to 'account for their actions' to SRA on letters sent to alleged illegal file-sharers - Broadband Genie

[robstanley1]

LOL - just logged on to post that myself :D

[BARFLY]

that's at least two of us with fingers crossed

[BARFLY]

then again, i won't hold my breath! let's just hope some regulatory authority has the guts to do something for once.

[cashins]

then again, i won't hold my breath! let's just hope some regulatory authority has the guts to do something for once.

 

Agree with that.

 

However, the SRA has worked extremely hard over the years to establish a spotless reputation as the 'regulator least likely to take action'

 

Short of a solicitor being caught red handed making off with a clients money, (complete with mask, stripy jumper and a bag marked swag over his shoulder), the SRA manage to excuse just about any action taken by members of their 'profession'.

 

We shall see.

 

David

[JackSchidt]

FYI:

 

Dear Mr Crossley & Co

 

A Questionaire eh ?

 

So I'm assuming that because you can't find any evidence to support your claim, you'd like me to do it for you.

 

So I'd become a sort of Private Detective ? Like Sherlock Holmes ? How Exciting ! - I've just seen the new film.

 

Now, to the evidence that you'd like me to provide : I can fill in the questionaire as you ask, but maybe it would be better if you sent me some names to put on it. They don't have to be real names, just names that you have plucked out of the air.

 

I know that some people might see this as being slightly shoddy evidence, but hey - it's worked so far for you guys.

 

Finally, I'm afraid we will have to address the sticky subject of payment.

It goes without saying that I will not be working for free - according to the film, this could be a dangerous job.

 

Please send me a cheque for £750 to cover my costs (Dear-stalker Hat, Clay Pipe, Magnifying glass etc..).

 

I've included a payment form with this letter for you to complete.

 

I can accept installments if your current finances are in a bit of a state.

 

All the best

 

 

XXAnon (Private Detective)

 

[patrickq1]

now now dont go upsetting mr crossgay please he is a sensitive bum and dont take kindly to being upset