Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I received £1500 from a friend and another £1000 another from their Revolut accounts, which are fine. I would be OK if Revolut just returned the money to them. Happy to provide proof of income and they are happy to do so, too.
    • POFA plays no part in limiting court costs.  costs recovery under the small claims track is very limited   2 cases heard together? 1st you've told us about this....        
    • Just a general comment - as I know nothing about legal procedures...   I agree with what I think BankFodder is suggesting - it really ought to be a straightforward question of a breach of contract.  You've paid for a service and the other party (or their sub-contractor) has failed to perform that service - safe delivery to the addressee.  It seems daft to me that the risk of non-delivery gets passed back to you because you've not paid for insurance against their failure to perform their responsibilities.  It's an inherently unfair* business model that has crept up by stealth, assisted by the growth of internet shopping.  Of course, a court may not agree...   I also agree with BF that you should be able to do some research yourself, and you should see this as an opportunity for self-directed learning as well as self-help!  You can always check back with BF, Andyorch and dx100uk that your understanding is correct.  You might get some ideas for final year dissertation - it's a bit of an academic problem with real-life commercial implications.   *Of course, in the absence of this business model, courier fees would go up, but I would argue that's a fairer way of spreading the risk of loss/damage etc   (PS - I was a law student a looooooooong time ago.  In your position I'd have tried my tutors as a sounding board as well.  I also thought SBU had it's own law clinic - although the advice is likely to be quite basic unless somebody sees this as an "interesting" problem)
    • Thanks EB, I will catchup on the mentioned thread as I had used it before the hearing.   I went for hearing. Rep approached mentioning settlement, talking about them having a strong case to which I pointed out their bundle which they were going through that it says Excel here so aren't you here for the wrong company.   They mentioned sister companies, I mentioned companies house and then I said let's leave it to the judge they went away from me. The rep went into a room presumably to call their firm Elms Legal I think probably for advice.   We ended up being the last hearing before lunch, as the Usher called out our names and said the judge will call you in shortly. The rep came over saying something like I'm surprised you're going in without submitting a WS!   I said it has been served they said well I haven't seen it, when was it sent, do you have copies as I could get the Usher to copy, I said I may,  rep - you either do or you don't Take care of yourself.I said well we will have to put this in front of the judge now.   Inside the rep said to the judge about my WS not being served and they asked me on multiple occasions for the WS I said 5 minutes before coming in is not multiple occasions. The judge said they had my WS along with an index of papers I had sent in that they have been looking at.   The rep started with their page contract and terms and conditions picture in their bundle saying they have a valid contract and that in the Tariff /T&C picture it mentioned about entering into a contract with VCS.   The judge asked me what I made of that I argued where is the contract giving them, a 3rd party, authority from Excel to issue proceedings in their own rights? The judge said to the rep, Defendant not accepting this so we are not getting anywhere rep raised WS issue again saying they asked on multiple occasions, again I repeated what 5 minutes before coming in. I said I had Cert of Posting.   The rep mentioned about being given a few minutes to read it and I said I had a copy but the judge was saying it's near lunch and it will take too much time even though the rep said there is still 35 minutes left.   I said the WS was served see COP but the judge said they may have lost it etc so to send it again. I said the rep could have a copy now but the rep was like I couldn't take pictures of it and send back to my client as they only get things from them via email.   I said you could post it but the judge said the rep is saying they can't use post for whatever reason so if I could send it again. Case adjourned.   The rep asked about costs and judge said reserved and I asked about my loss of earnings and that I would have to get leave booked again. Reserved seemed to be the answer but the judge was apologising about being the last morning hearing and said he would make sure we were first next time and the rep asked for an hour instead of 45 minutes so judge asked me and I said ok.   The rep asked about the reason for adjourning to give to their client as they would have had to pay them to attend. Outside at the ushers desk the rep had spoken to the Usher to make a copy from mine (didn't accept it Infront of the judge) and also asked to see the COP and I obliged saying I deem this served now but the rep said you have an order/instruction from the judge to send to VCS. I regret giving them a copy thinking I should have said you will have it once I send it again to VCS. Whilst inside, the judge said as the hearing never started it wouldn't be infront of him again and also the rep said it would probably be someone else as she also wasn't the person named in their WS. As per POFA my understanding is one cannot be made to pay costs more than in the NTK. As it will now be a 2nd hearing, 2 days off work for me and 2 representations for them, will there be double AL for me to claim if I win or double expenses if they win?   There was supposed to  be 2 cases heard together but I only had WS for this one am I supposed to have asked for another WS? Will they be claiming the fee/expenses for both cases with one hearing yet I could only claim for the 2 days AL?   What do you make of what happened at the hearing from their rep, maybe they realised it won't be straightforward especially when it was a judge they were not aware of perhaps they conferred with their team about ways to handle aswell as ways to escape? Thanks      
    • the sil landlord, it was for £20k plus he added £18k for rent and utilities bills.
  • Our picks

hugo777

I have a goldeneye 2015 letter - help

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1350 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I haven't I should add.

 

Apparently, a company called GoldenEye have got a court order to get my name because I've been illegally filesharing.

 

Funny thing is if you go to the goldeneye website it seems more concerned with fighting piracy than anything else. I can smell a [problem].

 

Awaiting a speculative invoice now. Sounds very fishy to me. I'm guessing they do very well out of people who get scared and just pay up.

 

Looks like they do porn films as well. Obviously, they know that if they sent letters in the post demanding payments for downloading porn then this may carry more weight. Can just imagine it. Husband gets letter and thinks flipping heck better pay this before wife sees it.

 

Absolutely scandalous behaviour. Should be illegal.

 

As someone who works in IT, know that an IP address can in no way be used as absolute proof. Its just too easy to spoof. I can't see how they've got a leg to stand on unless they come into your house and find said downloaded file on your computer.

 

Hi

 

I got this letter too. I have sky broadband at home used by the whole family, friends, guests

 

I haven't downloaded any of their material and have no recollection of ever downloading their material. Having done some research, I believe for any official legal action to be taken there must be evidence with regards to who the copyright infringer is. As I've said, my internet is used by a lot of people, so how would this ever be possible?

 

Since you work in IT, you think this whole issue is something that will gain any official legal momentum and one should worry about? Or simply ignore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

 

I got this letter too. I have sky broadband at home used by the whole family, friends, guests

 

I haven't downloaded any of their material and have no recollection of ever downloading their material. Having done some research, I believe for any official legal action to be taken there must be evidence with regards to who the copyright infringer is. As I've said, my internet is used by a lot of people, so how would this ever be possible?

 

Since you work in IT, you think this whole issue is something that will gain any official legal momentum and one should worry about? Or simply ignore?

 

In the test cases which were held in front of a Judge who had specialist knowledge of this area of law,

the ruling was that a claim could not be brought against the person who paid the bill for the internet connection

and under current law the claimant had to try to find out who carried out the copyright infringement.

 

 

The copyright holder could obtain the details of who owns the IP address and write to them, but that was about it.

And before you ask i don't have these details to hand, but you will find it covered on forum pages going back a few years.

 

If you genuinely have no knowledge, you could write back to whoever is chasing this, saying that you have no knowledge of this

and have asked family who share the connection, who also say they do not know anything about this.

Advise that you will not engage in any further communications about something which have no knowledge about.

Or you ignore and you may hear no more.

 

 

Whether the new firm chasing will try to take cases to court, i cannot answer.

A bit doubtful, particularly against households with numerous people using the internet connection.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pers I'd ignore and not enter into silly letter tennis

 

 

they'll think they've found a mug that awaits fleecing

 

 

dx

 

 

we could do with seeing one of these new breed of letters


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DO ignore the letter

 

This comes up time and time again and noone is ever prosecuted or taken to the civil courts.

 

For a criminal action they have to prove it was you that downloaded it.

 

In a civil case they have to use the balance of probabilities and would still struggle. That they would also have to prove loss (Which they cannot do) and would have their expenses severely limited to the rules afforded by the small claims track which would leave them far more out of pocket than the paltry "penalty" they will try and impose

 

Ignore Rule Of Law, he is using legal bluffal to try and intimidate and scare you. No defence is needed unless you are prosecuted (Wont happen) and/or receive an N1 Claim form.

 

If either of those happen return here for advice.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong

 

This whole thing is a scare tactic to get misinformed internet users who aren't well read or aware of the wider spectrum of how the internet, downloading, IP addresses etc works to feel ashamed/scared, contact Goldenshi*, admit/give them more details so that they can have leverage and subsequently demand some form of payment.

 

The company has an infamous track record of trying this tactic since around 2010. In reality an IP address is not enough to actually gain any legal momentum for them as it does not identify the actual infringer with any real certainty.

 

The ideal course of action is to ignore the correspondence, and if subsequent letters are received from Goldenshi*, reply along the lines of; I deny their accusations, inform them that an individual's broadband is used by a wide range of people - family, friends, guests etc and they need to identify the infringer as I have not viewed their content and have not given anybody consent to download or view their content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore do not reply

 

Dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So to summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong

 

This whole thing is a scare tactic to get misinformed internet users who aren't well read or aware of the wider spectrum of how the internet, downloading, IP addresses etc works to feel ashamed/scared, contact Goldenshi*, admit/give them more details so that they can have leverage and subsequently demand some form of payment.

 

The company has an infamous track record of trying this tactic since around 2010. In reality an IP address is not enough to actually gain any legal momentum for them as it does not identify the actual infringer with any real certainty.

 

The ideal course of action is to ignore the correspondence, and if subsequent letters are received from Goldenshi*, reply along the lines of; I deny their accusations, inform them that an individual's broadband is used by a wide range of people - family, friends, guests etc and they need to identify the infringer as I have not viewed their content and have not given anybody consent to download or view their content.

 

A fair summary.

 

Worth reading ACSBore wordpress blog and Slyck.

They have uncovered quite a lot of information on the various people involved in the latest invoice project.

 

 

It is exactly what they tried before and this time they apparently don't have any firm of Solicitors officially handling anything,

apart from the IP address info requests.

 

 

The American Lawyers mentioned back in Summer in relation to copyright claims has had their company dissolved.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

own thread created

 

 

could we possibly see the letter please

 

 

follow the UPLOAD

 

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite true they wont take action, individuals have been taken to court and lost and had to pay large amounts, although not in the UK as far as Im aware.

 

Legal action HAS also taken place in the Uk although not successfully as far as Im aware.

 

I do believe though that it is theoretically possible to take an individual to court with enough information and prove to a Judge that the individual did indeed download a film in question and ask for a reasonable amount of damages (£20 ? for the loss of a DVD sale ?) I dont believe we should dismiss it out of hand, after all the Beavis Supreme Court Case surprised a lot of experts, as did the original banking charges case.

Edited by Andyorch
removed quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to tack a reply onto a thread from last year, but I have some additional questions around the technical aspects of this.

 

In the majority of cases consumer internet connection equipment makes use of dynamic IP addressing,

in other words each time your router is restarted you may be issued with a different IP address from your ISP.

This is in contrast with the majority of commercial equipment that uses static IP addressing.

 

 

The former means your ISP would need to establish not who's currently using the IP address used to download the content,

but who was using at the time of the alleged offense.

 

 

I gather ISPs are now required to keep records of that, so it's not impossible, but certainly more difficult and time-consuming to establish.

Do ISPs have the right to make a charge to the solicitor attempting to gain this information which could in theory be passed on to the alleged offende

r should the matter come to court?

 

My second question is around WiFi. It's never responsible to operate an 'open' wireless network onto which anyone within range could connect

, but would doing so bolster a defense of not knowing who downloaded the content?

 

 

For example, if the consumer were to have realized that their wireless network was 'open' and then closed it at a later date,

would it be more difficult to appoint blame for anything that was downloaded in that time frame,

after all it seems the 'owner' of the connection cannot be held responsible for what's downloaded using it.

 

Finally, if a firm chasing a consumer must prove specifically who downloaded copyrighted content

and in a dynamic IP environment your ISP will only ever hold the IP address of your gateway (in other words your router)

and not that of any equipment inside your network, how could they ever prove who actually downloaded it?

 

 

All they could ever prove is that your connection was used to do it, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its a load of old willy waving to fleece people anyway.

none of the money they would get would ever go back to whomever suffered the 'loss'.

straight to their pockets and down the local club with it.

 

nearly every Broadband router, esp any of the BT ones have free wifi to anyone with a BT login that is nearby

so whom to say it wasn't done by someone parking outside a house and doing it

the occupants wouldn't know nothing about it.

 

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its a load of old willy waving to fleece people anyway.

none of the money they would get would ever go back to whomever suffered the 'loss'.

straight to their pockets and down the local club with it.

 

nearly every Broadband router, esp any of the BT ones have free wifi to anyone with a BT login that is nearby

so whom to say it wasn't done by someone parking outside a house and doing it

the occupants wouldn't know nothing about it.

 

 

dx

 

Yes I noticed this, it would kill any claim stone dead if you have a similar router, just by BT ?, havnt looked into much but I know its used by BT, my dad has one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the advice on this now? I see citizens advice say you should respond.

 

I've had two letters in one envelope from them.

 

 

One saying I ignored a recent letter dated 3rd may - I never had this.

 

 

And the other which looks like a cease and desist agreement.

 

Im wondering if the cease desist is a trick.

Get me to sign something say I promise to not share and delete it

- surely this implies I'm admitting to having it?

 

Worth replying saying no idea what your on about and I've never downloaded etc anyway so can confirm I dont have a copy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same advice as every other time.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do wiki search for ben dover (uk porn star) it explains all about his goldeneye [problem].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...