Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
    • Incorrect as the debt will have been legally assigned to the DCA and they are therefore now the legal creditor. Read up on debt assignment.   Andy
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3071 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

Looks like more people are trying to get in on Golden Eyes act.

 

( from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25347913)

 

Thousands of Germans are reported to have been sent letters asking them to pay a fee for porn they are alleged to have streamed illegally online.

 

Law firm Urmann (U+C) is acting on behalf of Swiss copyright protection firm the Archive,

and is asking for one-off payments of 250 euros (£210).

 

It confirmed to the BBC that the letters have been sent but would not say how many.

 

A growing number of affected people are claiming to be wrongly accused.

 

According to a German news site, more than 10,000 people are affected.

 

The German case is one of the first to target people accused of streaming rather than downloading pornography.

 

In this case U+C is targeting users who, they claim, have viewed content from porn-streaming site Redtube.

 

The law firm was unwilling to speak about its work to the BBC. Neither was the Archive available for comment.

 

In a twist, its campaign appears to have been taken up by cybercriminals who are sending out fake emails

purporting to come from U+C but containing malicious software.

 

It led the law firm to issue a warning on its website urging people not to open the emails.

 

"Fake warnings on behalf of U+C have been sent by email.

This email does not come from the law firm.

Warnings on behalf of our clients are shipped exclusively by mail," it said.

 

Real evidence

 

The practice of law firms pursuing alleged copyright infringers has become a growing concern in recent years.

 

"In previous cases like this, we've seen some people pushed into paying up when they may have done nothing wrong," said Peter Bradwell of the Open Rights Group.

"It can seem more expensive or embarrassing to challenge the accusation.

"If a company wants to write to people it claims have infringed their copyright, a court needs to at least make sure the evidence they have is of a high standard and that letters being sent are fair and easy to understand."

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

Dangerous if they go down the streaming route. If this was accepted by a court, then anyone who viewed copyrighted material on Youtube or any other online site could be liable to pay a relevant amount for the material.

 

Personally I think the copyright/license holders should only be able to go after the person who uploaded the material in the first place and any site that makes the material available to others.

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

Hi UB,

 

I agree - if 'streaming' is deemed copyright infringement then all users of iPlayer/Youtube, etc. will all be liable to be fined by some unscrupulous lawyer at some point.

 

Of the 80+ requests to the different (multiple) German courts for ISP user details approx 25+ were rejected because the court took issues (re: streaming as opposed to download)

 

Malibu Media also took a defeat in Münich court - where the court stated that a) they are not the owners of the movies, b) the movies had never been released locally in Germany and as such there is no copyright and c) as they are 'pure pornography' the productions are not 'personal intellectual creations' and are not entitled to protection under Germany's copyright laws....

 

G

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Sureley a point that should stand for EVERYONE now and in the future is :

How are you supposed to know if something is copyrighted if there's no copyright warning before you download or watch something.

Hi Rhino666.

I know this isn't the right thread to discuss copyright but basically every image, picture, painting work of art etc plus any written word is protected by copyright. It is up to the author how they deal with the copyright and that can cause problems. It is a complete minefield and there are many instances of copyright infringement in the courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

They (GEIL ) had 12 months to do their work. That 12 months is now well and truly up! From march 2012 that they had to destroy the IP addresses on their CD evidence after 12 months AND write to the people they'd written to letting them know their records had been destroyed. GEIL have NOT done this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

You should be OK now as there 12months to get hold of people expired many moons ago. They ignore most the court orders so if you do get a letter from them ignore it as they were supposed to have got people by approx Dec last year and supposed crime is supposed to have taken place with 3 years of them moaning about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
So to necro a thread but these monkeys are trying it on again.

 

Nothing being reported online about this. Have you had a letter ?

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

Nothing being reported online about this. Have you had a letter ?

 

http://torrentfreak.com/virgin-customers-targeted-in-new-porn-piracy-shakedown-150314/

 

Stigman

NEVER telephone a DCA

If a DCA rings you, refuse to go through the security questions & hang up!

 

If I have helped you, click on the star & say thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're ignoring what the high court said and about 18months too late.

ask them to prove who was at the PC at the time of the supposed infringement as the courts would be very interested in as many people have access to your pc and the bill payer can't be held responsible for every adult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a different copyright owner who is trying this. I think the ISP should advise its customers when they have had to pass on their personal information via a court order.

 

I have suspicion that the porn and film studios are uploading their own films to internet sites, so they can later pursue people for money. Most of what they produce would not make them much money. But if enough people download their products, then when the law permits it, they could make a lot of money.

 

Have you noticed that most of the film work titles where they are pursuing people for money are not blockbusters, where hundreds of thousand or millions of people have downloaded.

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

I have suspicion that the porn and film studios are uploading their own films to internet sites, so they can later pursue people for money. Most of what they produce would not make them much money.

 

Have you noticed that most of the film work titles where they are pursuing people for money are not blockbusters, where hundreds of thousand or millions of people have downloaded.

 

There was talk of this happening when The Expendables 3 was uploaded in near-perfect DVD quality approx. 3 weeks before the cinema release dates.

 

Then the movie owners Millennium Films & Lionsgate began then targeting file-sharers.

 

Stigman

NEVER telephone a DCA

If a DCA rings you, refuse to go through the security questions & hang up!

 

If I have helped you, click on the star & say thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was talk of this happening when The Expendables 3 was uploaded in near-perfect DVD quality approx. 3 weeks before the cinema release dates.

 

Then the movie owners Millennium Films & Lionsgate began then targeting file-sharers.

 

Stigman

 

I seem to remember that the film studios gave up because they did not want the bad publicity of going after people. Many will be young people with very little in the way of finances and in family households, it may not be easy to identify the person who breached copyright.

 

It is the person who uploaded/downloaded the material and not the owner of the internet connection who would be responsible.

 

If people are using VPN services to mask their internet connections, that won't make it easier.

 

What the copyright holders should be doing is going after the torrent sharing sites and getting their material removed.

 

This really is no different to one person buying a DVD or a book and passing it around their friends/family to see it. But of course the internet allows it to happen on a much bigger scale.

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

Back to GEIL who think they're above every law and [problem]......Yeah [problem] !

 

Do these recent letters have anything to do with GEIL ?

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

Well they seem to like putting their name to them, from what people say.

 

They would have to say so, given the previous court rulings.

 

The new letters seem to come from US law firms, who think they can make money in the same way as previous ones have tried.

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

Called ?

 

It is in the article linked to by someone previously.

 

TCYK LLC based in the US. Not sure who would be sending the letter out to UK people.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...