Jump to content


ACS Law : GCB Limited


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4625 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 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think it will worth rasing a formal complaint with the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

 

This whole [fiddle] involves one company hiding behind another, hiding behind an accountancy firm of one sort or another. There is no conceivable way a clued up accountant (who is of course providing his client the best service possible by understanding his business) could possibly not know what is going on here. If they didn't know, I would question their accountancy skills and whether they should be trusted to audit client's taxes etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kurvaface

 

I think you should be careful in making comments that you cannot substantiate. There is nothing to suggest that the accountants would have had any knowledge of their clients actions. The accountants would just receive information from their clients at the relevant times, so they can do whatever is required. They would not have any day to day dealings with their clients businesses.

 

You have to credit the accountants for making public comment on this forum and others, as well as dealing with the situation they have found themselves in.

 

Stick to the real targets in this sorry saga. ACS Law, Media Cat, ISP's that handed/sold the data. On 24th Jan or hopefully soon after, if the judge looks at the full range of costs that could be awarded, this could be fatal for those that started this 'speculative invoicing' process. The costs could massively outweigh any monies that have been paid to them. Not to mention the press investigations that will take place. If you read some of the other forums, the press are looking into the non appearance of ACS Law yesterday, due to the explanation given for this.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best things to do when downloading is

 

1. Use a 'roaming' ISP address

2. Turn your location services off

3. Don't do it illegally

4. If you do download make sure you have a backup ready

 

Huh !?. None of these make any sense (with the possible exception of 3.)

 

Roaming ISP ?,Location services ?, Backup of what ?

 

Andy

Edited by andydd
Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete back up of your computer system.

Phones, android pads and laptops which use Google and other systems have an area where you can switch off their 'seek and find' so when you download you have the ability to download data which is not normally available to you, such as certain US tv shows, certain books which are copyright free in the USA but not in the UK etc etc etc

 

Obviously you don't watch or see Clickonline available from the BBC, excellent source of geeky and gadgetry information.

 

I don't have a degree in computing, just a heck of a lot of practical knowledge!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should be careful in making comments that you cannot substantiate. There is nothing to suggest that the accountants would have had any knowledge of their clients actions. The accountants would just receive information from their clients at the relevant times, so they can do whatever is required. They would not have any day to day dealings with their clients businesses.

 

I am careful with my opinion and I am sure that Allan is pretty clear as to what is happening. That is why he is (Now that this is public) taking steps to distance his business from this mess.

 

I am also sure that in the interest of those victims of speculative invoicing, we have a duty to expose all the parties involved, however inadvertent, so that those seeking help on CAG have the broadest information available to them. If you choose to have a business registered at your own address it seems incredibly unwise to not have an interest in the activities of that business. There are many obvious reasons for this.

 

Mclean Reid are commenting on behalf of a party to this fiddle, and are not answering some fairly pertinent questions regarding its set up and are therefore inviting continued speculation as to the depth of their involvement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kurvaface

 

I think you should be careful in making comments that you cannot substantiate. .........

 

Stick to the real targets in this sorry saga. ACS Law, Media Cat, ISP's that handed/sold the data. On 24th Jan or hopefully soon after, if the judge looks at the full range of costs that could be awarded, this could be fatal for those that started this 'speculative invoicing' process. The costs could massively outweigh any monies that have been paid to them. Not to mention the press investigations that will take place. If you read some of the other forums, the press are looking into the non appearance of ACS Law yesterday, due to the explanation given for this.

Broadly speking, I agree with your comments on relation to the Accountancy firm although I would like to think that Allan Reid would warn his students about due diligence by referring to this 'activity'.

 

I entirely agree that the target must be the ISPs (Sky, BT, O2 & Be), Andrew Jonathan Crossley, Terence Tsang, Lee Bowden, Simon Gallant, Nicola Beale, Jonathan Miller, David Fisher, Adam Glenn, Clem Vogler, Brian Miller, David Gore and doubtless various other individuals. If these people aren't hit hard, the various supine regulatory regulatory bodies (ICO & SRA) don't rouse themselves from their slumbers and the law isn't changed, the same sort of extortion will simply reappear in the future.

 

Andrew Jonathan Crossley, Terence Tsang and Lee Bowden in particular should be made an example of.

 

The ISPs should be much more conscientious in safeguarding the details of their paying customers although you can always vote against them with your wallet - I believe that TalkTalk are the only ISP to come out of this with any credit?

Edited by alanfromderby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete back up of your computer system.

Phones, android pads and laptops which use Google and other systems have an area where you can switch off their 'seek and find' so when you download you have the ability to download data which is not normally available to you, such as certain US tv shows, certain books which are copyright free in the USA but not in the UK etc etc etc

 

Obviously you don't watch or see Clickonline available from the BBC, excellent source of geeky and gadgetry information.

 

I don't have a degree in computing, just a heck of a lot of practical knowledge!

 

I watch Click all the time and work in IT Support but the comments dont really make sense.

 

1. By 'roaming I(s)P adress' I assume you mean that certain mobile devices have an IP address that isnt instantly recognisble as a 'UK address', this would come into play if you try and use Iplayer abroad, iPlayer can 'see' that your IP address isn't a UK one and therefore wont let you, the same is true of US services like Hula.

 

However this has no relevance to using Peer-to-peer services which are used to download the majority of 'illegal' films,music, etc and these are the serivices that are watched by the companies employed by ACS like Digiprotect.

 

Also it is far less likely that anyone would use a phone data package to download large movie/music files due to the fact that they are slow and most packages are capped at 500mb/1GB/2Gb (although there are some genuine unlimited ones).

 

Are you thinking of the fact a mobile phone IP address is not 'traceable' in the same way as identified by the ISP when they hand over the data as requested by the recent Norwich Pharmaceutical Orders, but as pointed out above, the majority of people who download would use a fixed broadband connection.

 

I think you have got this point confused with the abilty to spoof/hide/manipulate the IP address so that you cant actually be identified in the first place, perhaps by using some sort of spoofing software or by using a proxy address or some sort of VPN. (For example it would be easy for me to stay at home and log into my work PC and use that to do the actuall downloading and when the file is done, simply move it to my home PC, I supoose if I wanted to be really sneaky I could log into someone else's work PC!).

 

2. Location Services would appear to be the ability to turn on/off the GPS within your phone/mobile device, whilst this may have relevance if you want to avoid telling people where you are (in terms of x,y co-ordinates) I cant see the relevance to this case.

 

4. Whilst it is very wise to back up your important data, (all my PC's are backed up as an 'image' using Windows Home Server and Acronis software, I also transfer these onto SDLT tapes).

 

However hard I look though I cant see any relevance to the ACS case, in fact it could actually count against you as normally people deny the alleged downloaded file is on their computer and that the date ACS Law say was many months/years ago and everything has changed since then, BUT if, for example you had a backup tape of the very date that ACS Law mention then it could hold incrimidating info. against you, for eaxmple, the alleged downloaded file in question.

Edited by andydd
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could some one pls explain to me what this court case on the 24th jan is about please.

 

Well simply put it's about the judge dealing with 26/7 MediaCAT claims of alleged copyright infringement through file sharing. However, it's more about the fact that they have no basis for their allegations and now the judge has seen through that little charade, it's about finding out all of the dirty underbelly of the beast and their ways of doing business.

 

Due to the main solicitor Andrew Crossley having a family emergency and failing to turn up at court, which meant MediaCAT's representation amounted to an admin clerk and a paralegal, the judge has decided to give them a little more rope to hang themselves with.

 

What's more enjoyable is the fact that even though MediaCAT/ACS have sent letters out stating they are dropping the cases the judge has denied them that right and must proceed. It looks like when you turn a bright light onto these cockroaches they run for the shadows. Well not this time.

 

So next week Andrew had better be in fine form when he faces the allegations of misconduct that seem to be being directed through the demand for "wasted time" claims that are "off the scale".

 

I think we're getting to the point where Andrew's health may take a turn for the worst.

Edited by alanfromderby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to the main solicitor Andrew Crossley having a family emergency and failing to turn up at court, which meant MediaCAT's representation amounted to an admin clerk and a paralegal, the judge has decided to give them a little more rope to hang themselves with.

Not quite - MediaCAT were represented by barrister Tim Ludbrook

 

I think we're getting to the point where Andrew's health may take a turn for the worst.

Which it has done before when he needed to wriggle out of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite - MediaCAT were represented by barrister Tim Ludbrook

 

Oh, yes. I forgot about Tim being there. Talk about being dropped in the deep end though. No briefing on how to proceed! He must have felt like the last cake at a slimmers world party.

 

Edit: Actually I am puzzled by that. If MediaCAT were represented then why shouldn't it have proceeded? Why would our mate Andrew have even needed to attend? A solicitor not able to give another solicitor instruction. I'm missing something obviously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the judge hear about the dodgy dealings we are reading about here before the case starts proper ?

 

I dont think so, these are cases originally started some while ago by ACS, this was before the strange involvement of GCB.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, yes. I forgot about Tim being there. Talk about being dropped in the deep end though. No briefing on how to proceed! He must have felt like the last cake at a slimmers world party.

 

Edit: Actually I am puzzled by that. If MediaCAT were represented then why shouldn't it have proceeded? Why would our mate Andrew have even needed to attend? A solicitor not able to give another solicitor instruction. I'm missing something obviously.

 

I think its more complicated than that, throw into the mix the facts that the previous case decided that it wasnt correct for ACS/Media CAT alone to be claimants and that ACS/MedaiCAT had asked for it to be discontinued, (but it is thought that without the joinder of the original copyright owner or without permission of the court they cant just discontinue on a whim).

 

I think the 24th will be interesting.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I am puzzled by that. If MediaCAT were represented then why shouldn't it have proceeded? Why would our mate Andrew have even needed to attend? A solicitor not able to give another solicitor instruction. I'm missing something obviously.

Because of the actions of MediaCAT in sending out letters of discontinuance they thought that that would be the end of the matter and therefore nothing for the court to decide. Judge Birss however had other ideas and stated at the beginning of the hearing that he did not think that they could discontinue without the court's permission. He would therefore be making the decision on whether they could discontinue and would hear evidence from both sides. This would have taken Ludbrook by surprise and would clearly have to get instruction from ACS. So the hearing went from going through the cases to one which was to decide on whether they could discontinue the cases - something quite different from what was originally planned.

 

With Crossley being conveniently unable to provide instruction the Judge decided to adjourn the hearing. This now gives them a week to come up with what they should do - assuming that MediaCAT have not gone into liquidation in the meantime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some great advice on how to proceed if you have received a GCB Ltd letter. I for one will not be letting it lie.

 

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=44092&p=568934#p568928

 

Following last years data breach surely the ICO have to act in regard to this further mishandling of data?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are advised that the Director has taken the decision stop further trading through GCB Ltd in respect of alleged copyright infringement. We believe that he has moved swiftly to minimise the damage to his name in taking this decisive action. We are further advised that he was unaware of the background involved in these claims or the precise nature of the claims.

Allen - you clearly have a long standing relationship with your client, David Fisher the director of GCB Ltd. You are also the registered office and are the accountants for Birchwood Components and Silicon8 which he is also a director of. McLean Reid have prepared the accounts for Silicon8 since Sept 2005.

 

Now that he has moved the registered office address of GCB Ltd away from yourselves, you may want to advise your client to check the tenancy agreement that he has with Regus at their Holborn Gate offices to see whether they allow their tenants to use their office as a registered office address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I belive you can lodge an application at the High Court to stop the company being wound up especially if the director has been involved in wrong-doing and has concealed the whereabouts of funds.

 

I also believe you can lodge an application at Companies House. There should be some kind of meeting you can attend to put in your objections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a long process and you can't interfere until they've formally given notice that they are winding the company up.

 

However it is not GCB we need to be concerned with - I think that company has effectively stopped trading - and will take at least 6 months to dissolve the company. They probably paid in advance for the use of their offices and forked out the postage and costs for a mailing house to send out all the letters. With no income, any staff they have are probably not going to get paid. I would assume that there may be further costs incurred from McLean Reid to prepare the accounts (which are now required as the company has started trading) and other costs associated with dissolving the company. I don't think David Fisher is going into business again with Andrew Crossley any time soon.

 

It is MediaCAT that needs keeping an eye on and most likely to be put into liquidation. This is not a simple process and you can be assured that counsel for the defendants will be on top of this as legal disputes have to be settled before the company is wound up. Whether there is any money left at the end to pay the creditors is the unknown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The process takes 3 months from the date the company ceased trading, assuming there are no disputes. How much money has GCB raised on behalf of Media cat / Crossley?

 

Of course the focus should be on media cat but I find it ineteresting that some "New" members think GCB ltd should be spared attention when they are all one and the same. LOL

Edited by kurvaface
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing that occured to me is that GCB ltd were taking payments up until 1pm on Monday. They were not acceptong card payments (LOL I wonder why ??!!) but were accepting cheques, which take time to post, bank and clear, and were accepting bank transfers, and the account checks out as belonging to the GCB Ltd that was registered at Allan's business.

 

So anyone who thinks GCB is in this unwittingly or anyone who thinks GCB is not in a position to trade ( ie recieve payments) today, tomorrow or the day after is mistaken. They still have an active role in this "extorsion."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The process takes 3 months from the date the company ceased trading, assuming there are no disputes. How much money has GCB raised on behalf of Media cat / Crossley?

 

Of course the focus should be on media cat but I find it ineteresting that some "New" members think GCB ltd should be spared attention when they are all one and the same. LOL

The process starts 3 months after ceasing trading - then submit formal striking off application to Companies House who then publicly give 3 months notice to remove the company.

 

I doubt if any money was raised by GCB - the first letters were received on 14th Jan giving people 14 days to pay. Everyone would have previously received a letter before from ACS which they have chosen to not pay anything so no-one would be in a hurry to suddenly pay. By the 18th they had stopped the process.

 

Can't "New " members have an opinion :!: It's not that I think GCB should be spared - I think that they thought they could make some money after being 'sold' the idea by Crossley and didn't realise that they'd incur the wrath of forums such as these. Once they realised, they backed down and hopefully that's the last of their involvement. Although some more pressure on them would probably ensure that they subsequently went and made Crossley have a real accident for getting them involved in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...