Jump to content

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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Got my local freebie newspaper this morning ( 09/10/2010) and theres an article by the CAB asking people to take the threats of ACS seriously and not to throw the letter away.

CAB Chief Executive, Annette Cassam said "We have consulted a legal firm and been advised that these letters are genuine and must be taken seriously. Therefore we urge anyone affected to get in touch with us".

The way its written makes me wonder if the CAB are up to something? Why say "a legal firm"?

Why not just say who it is?

And if the CAB are saying the letters are genuine when most of us know they are not entirely genuine, it makes me wonder if the CAB are on a nice little earner here by passing people on to a legal firm?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt whther CAB have suddenly gone crooked and are doing backhanders with local solicitors, that is assuming that the solicitor isnt doing it for free anyway. they clearly can't say who it is in a local paper as that could be deemed as advertising.


You say the letters from ACS LAW are 'not genuine' what do you mean by that, they are genuine letters and they do have a legal case (albeit a weak one), although since the ACS Email Leak it is quite unlikleyt that ACS will be carrying on anyway, also the recent BT/PLUSNET Case at the high court has some bearing on this (the case was adjourned till next year in light of the ACS data leaks).



Link to post
Share on other sites

Might not be ACS, Gallant Macmillan are still out there.


ACS are reported to have sent 2nd LOC's to refute templates dated 4th Oct. So Mr Crossley is still plugging away. Probably because he has a £500k ICO bill to find soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Please read some of the thread above. All your answers are in there. Simply put it is irrelevant if they reject your LOD. It is not up to them to reject it, that is down to a court. They have accused your internet connection of downloading some rubbish track, note they have not accused you; you have written to them stating your position on the matter. It is now up to them to either accept your LOD and drop the matter, or pursue you through the courts which they won’t do. To say they reject your LOD is ridiculous as it’s not their decision to make, it is a courts. What they are trying to do it build up a correspondence with you in the hope of eventually wearing you down that you end up giving them something just to stop the letters and hassle. I would bin the letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...