Jump to content


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 3825 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

Who is your ISP provider ?. I thought that I had a static IP address and found out that I did not. Firstly you need to find out if the IP address they are accusing matches yours. An easy process of elimination.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi good morning.. A quick update and could do with any suggestions please.. Spoke to my ISP this morning, apparently I do have a static IP address.. I still deny their claim in the ACS:law letter but this has now got me thinking again.. I certainly didn't download the named file, this apparent incident took place 7 months ago. Any suggestions, should I consider a solicitor..? Thanks.

 

It's up to you, but given this is a civil legal matter I'd strongly advise you to take independent legal advice. A solicitor will cost you big bucks beyond the initial free 15-30 mins and the chances of being taken to Court so far have proven to be minute. You have the CAB or legal advice lines attached to home/car insurance policies nowadays.

 

The thing to do is to not give any information away when you do your LOD, but this is still legally very much a grey area, what with IP hijacking, spoofing, unsecured wireless, etc. You need to check that your internet connection hasn't been hijacked by a virus on your PC/laptop, no kids or other adults in the household haven't done it, your wireless router has a password on it, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is your ISP provider ?. I thought that I had a static IP address and found out that I did not. Firstly you need to find out if the IP address they are accusing matches yours. An easy process of elimination.

 

Hi and thanks for the reply. ISP provider is UKOnline, through Easynet through BSkyB.. Checked my IP lastnight with the one on their letter, they do match.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could have been a victim of foul play or something else. Seek independent legal advice which I think most people in this situation have, I certainly did and it gave me great peace of mind. You need to complain to the SRA, etc, so that this company can be stopped from bullying people into paying them money. With a bit of luck they will cease in this area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's up to you, but given this is a civil legal matter I'd strongly advise you to take independent legal advice. A solicitor will cost you big bucks beyond the initial free 15-30 mins and the chances of being taken to Court so far have proven to be minute. You have the CAB or legal advice lines attached to home/car insurance policies nowadays.

 

The thing to do is to not give any information away when you do your LOD, but this is still legally very much a grey area, what with IP hijacking, spoofing, unsecured wireless, etc. You need to check that your internet connection hasn't been hijacked by a virus on your PC/laptop, no kids or other adults in the household haven't done it, your wireless router has a password on it, etc.

 

Thanks for this.. Will definately be looking to take legal advice now, like the idea of speaking to my car insurance people as I think I do have legal assistance help with it, will check with that.. Regarding the LoD, I'll use a template as a guide and work it from there, no details or information will be given. Thanks again, will keep with the updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ zero_flight

 

I complained to the SRA yesterday via their website and given what you and Scooby Doo69 say and from everything I've read, Legal Advice is next on the list. I do know I haven't downloaded the file in question and it certainly wont be on my hdd but trying to recall what happened 7 months back on a particular day isn't easy!! Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got my second letter today saying my response matches a template on the internet so they are disinclined to believe me. They've said since I didn't pay the open offer within twenty-one days they're upping the offer to 990 pounds. They're threatening to use CPR 36.14 if the matter proceeds to court. Not really sure what to do now :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Got my second letter today saying my response matches a template on the internet so they are disinclined to believe me. They've said since I didn't pay the open offer within twenty-one days they're upping the offer to 990 pounds. They're threatening to use CPR 36.14 if the matter proceeds to court. Not really sure what to do now :confused:

 

So, you used your initiative and looked on the internet and found a staple reply, so what.

 

So, they don't believe you due to the above, so what.

 

They are trying to frighten you into paying up.

 

Experience so far (don't take my word for it, search the net including ACS's web site yourself) has shown a massive ZERO cases being taken to Court by ACS out of the thousands of letters they have sent out.

 

If the wording of your letter is as you state here I'd be putting a complaint into The SRA, Watchdog and write to your local MP. This is the only way that this process will be stopped.

 

Take independent legal advice, don't crack and pay up if you are innocent.

 

Even if you were guilty of the offence, the offer of payment would be more in the region of £40-£60 as full and final settlement, but if you go down that route they may take you to Court to set an example.

 

Scoobs

Link to post
Share on other sites

The text in red below probably states why ACS are cautious about going to Court and having their "evidence" tested, even under the balance of probability ruling.

 

 

Whilst there is no prohibition against a party making an offer to settle in any way he chooses, if the offer does not comply with the provisions of Part 36, the consequences set out in the rule will not apply.

Part 36 not only applies to claims, but also to counterclaims and other additional claims under Part 20. A Part 36 offer can be made at any time, including before the commencement of proceedings (CPR 36.3(2)), but must comply with the formalities prescribed by CPR 36.2 and accordingly has to:

  • be in writing;
  • state on its face that it is intended to have the consequences of Part 36;
  • specify a period of not less than 21 days within which the defendant will be liable for the claimant's costs in accordance with CPR 36.10 if the offer is accepted;
  • state whether it relates to the whole of the claim or to part of it or to an issue that arises in it and if so to which part or issue; and
  • state whether it takes into account any counterclaim.

CPR 36.3(4) makes clear that a Part 36 offer will only have the consequences set out in Part 36 in relation to the costs of the proceedings in respect of which it is made, and therefore not in relation to the costs of any appeal.

Where a Part 36 offer is accepted within the relevant period, the claimant will be entitled to the costs of the proceedings up to the date of acceptance (CPR 36.10(1)). This will include any costs incurred by the claimant in dealing with the defendant's counterclaim if the Part 36 offer states that it takes into account the counterclaim (CPR 36.10(6)).

 

The essential reading in Part 36, especially where an offer has been made by a claimant, comes in the form of CPR 36.14 - Costs consequences following judgment.

If a claimant obtains judgment against a defendant which is at least as advantageous as the proposals within its own Part 36 offer, a court will order, unless it considers it unjust to do so, that the claimant is entitled to its costs on an indemnity basis from the date on which the relevant period expired, interest on those costs of up to 10% above base rate and interest on the whole or part of any sum awarded at a rate not exceeding 10% above base rate (CPR 36.14(3)).

 

If a claimant fails to obtain a judgment more advantageous than a defendant's Part 36 offer then the court will, unless it considers it unjust to do so, order that the defendant is entitled to his costs from the date on which the relevant period expired and interest on those costs (CPR 36.14(2)). The sanctions set out above in respect of a claimant's Part 36 offer are not available to a defendant's Part 36 offer so there remains a more powerful incentive for a defendant to accept a claimant's Part 36 offer than vice versa.

 

The Court of Appeal's controversial decision in BAA v. Carver [2008] arguably places at least some additional pressure on a claimant to accept a defendant's Part 36 offer. Under the old rules a claimant would have been entitled to the enhanced benefits in Part 36 where they bettered a defendant's payment into court or Part 36 offer, even if only by £1. However, the position since Carver is now much less certain. Where a claimant rejects a Part 36 offer and then, at trial, beats it by a small amount, the claimant may still be penalised on costs if the overall result is considered to be less advantageous than the defendant's rejected offer. As a result of Carver, strict monetary comparison is not now the only governing criterion - the phrase "more advantageous" was interpreted as permitting a wide-ranging review of all the facts and circumstances of the case in deciding whether the judgment obtained was "worth the fight", including more subjective factors such as the emotional toll of the litigation. However, Lord Justice Jackson has suggested in his recent preliminary report on costs that serious consideration should be given to a rule change to reverse Carver as it has introduced an unwelcome degree of uncertainty into the Part 36 process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Should I bother sending another letter or just ignore them?

 

Opinion varies and none of us on here are legally qualified to advise, hence get independent legal advice.

 

If it was me I'd reply once more stating the facts again as a denial and you won't be entering into any further discussion.

 

If they respond again with an offer it could be deemed to be harrassment in my opinion.

 

Remember, the number of cases taken to Court by ACS to the best of our knowledge is ZERO.

 

Let's face it, if ACS took someone to Court and won they'd be shouting it from the roof tops as they did with The DEB.

 

On their web site they have claimed that litigation was to be issued on more than one occassion soon, but we've yet to see evidence to back this up, or evidence of any kind come to think of it! LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its been over five weeks since I received my first letter off ACS Law and I have not heard anything more. I am certainly hoping that this stays the same. Will just have to wait and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

You may not hear for some time, or as early as next Week.

 

The Davenport Lyons model was leaked some time ago and is probably similar to what ACS use.

 

It's a game of numbers. ACS send out say a 1,000 letters. Some people pay in full, others offer to pay by installment, some ignore the letter, some deny the claim.

 

Once they've hoovered up as much money as possible, then they will concentrate on those who ignored their letters of sent LODs.

 

Scoobs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey, they still trying it on?

 

The Davenport Lyons model was leaked some time ago and is probably similar to what ACS use.

 

 

No suprise, some of the Davenport people went over to ACS.

 

They started this caper over a year ago and have failed to provide any credible evidence of success through the courts. Not suprising really, their case is fatally flawed and they know it.

 

Standard procedure: Send 1 letter of denial, then ignore them. They will drip on for a bit, then go back to trying to find some mugs that will pay them.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
Blimey, they still trying it on?

 

 

 

No suprise, some of the Davenport people went over to ACS.

 

They started this caper over a year ago and have failed to provide any credible evidence of success through the courts. Not suprising really, their case is fatally flawed and they know it.

 

Standard procedure: Send 1 letter of denial, then ignore them. They will drip on for a bit, then go back to trying to find some mugs that will pay them.

 

David

 

Just my opinion, but these letters could potentially lead to legal proceedings. Don't give them any room to claim anything. Cover yourself by advising them that you will not be entering into any further correspondance, that way if they hassle you again without going to Court, it will count against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it helps, I was due "imminent court proceedings" against me.... 2months ago. I bet this evidence is worth waiting for, I would actually like to take the time to see a case in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i have received my 2nd letter today. The amount has gone up. Well it has doubled.

 

He pointed out that i have used the template from the internet and is ignoring my response.

 

Do i write another LOD in my own words this time? Also not giving away any further information? Also do i not send this response for another 21 days?

 

Help is needed here please.

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

whether they ignore your LOD or not is irrelvant. You have answered their initial letter and have proof of such. What they are trying to do is get into a conversation with you. Standard sales techniques. they can only get money out of people who converse with them. They won't take you to court, however if they badger you enough and you respond to it, you may just give up and offer them money just to go away and leave you alone. The choice is yours, however its pretty obvious from this forum, being threatened, and Slyck that no one has been taken to court, probably won't be, their evidence in all probability won't stand up to scrutiny in court, they have already admitted that they don't accuse you of downloading only your connection was used for this alledged infringement. i do find it cheeky that they are sending a standardised letter out telling people they aren't accepting your standardised letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to my post before, their initial response to template letters are the same across the board... I had the same telling me that they were going to enter into proceedings... 2 more letters later and I heard nothing more.

 

You need legal advice, or at least not take the advice of others on here as gold, but I generally believe that all should respond to the first LOD whether it be templated or not. Further to that it's at your own discretion to respond to subsequent replies from the idiot at ACS. I did and nothing bad has happened as of yet (first letter was almost a year ago).

 

Hope that helps!

Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3825 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...