Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Russia’s economy has been cut off from the global financial system - but it is still growing. Why?View the full article
    • Well done. Are you able to tell us more about how it went on the day please? HB
    • when mediation call they will ask the same 3 questions that are in their email you had to accept it going forward. simply state 'i do not have enough information from the claimant to make an informed decision upon mediation so i refuse. end of problem.  
    • Food prices, including a $40 chicken, has stoked fury and calls for big foreign supermarket chains to come to Canada.View the full article
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue –  15 Feb 2024 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972 What is the total value of the claim? £1112 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragraph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter? Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One. Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments. What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No Here is my Defence: Defence - 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .................. Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc. I submitted CCA request and CPR 31.14. However, I didn't get any proof of postage or use registered post for the CPR (an oversight) but did with the CCA request. I received a pack which included a letter from Overdales, going over the defence I'd filed, as well as letters of Lowells and reprints of letters from Capital One. But I have no idea if this pack is in response to the CCA request or the CPR ! I would have expected two separate responses ... although I do know they are both the same company. Looking over the pack today, and looking through old emails .. I find some discrepancies in the Capital One default letters (notice of default and Claim of default). They are both dated *before* an email I have stating that a default can be avoided. The one single page of agreement sent (so not the full agreement) has a 16 digit number at the top in small print, next to 'Capital One' which corresponds to a number called 'PURN' printed at the top of each of the 10 pages of ins and outs of the account (they're not official statements, but a list of monthly goings) yet no mention anywhere on either of the account number. I cant really scan them at the moment - I can later tomorrow, but that will be after the mediation call I'm sure. I guess I may be on my own for this mediation ... I am not certain the CCA request has been satisfied .. or if the CPR has been . And then I appear to have evidence that the Default notices provided are fabricated ? Yet, I do have (elsewhere ... not at home) Default letters from Capital One I can check ..
  • 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

Solidworks - Dassault Systems - i want to use and pay for it but!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1879 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

Hi chaps. I know this is a few months on but I’ve supposedly received one of these emails from CHCJ and got a slightly different story. 

 

Im a designer who uses CAD (specifically Solidworks) regularly. However up until March this year, this usage was wholly on an employed basis under full license from the companies who employed me within their office premises. 

 

I have just set up on my own (as in - less than. 6 weeks ago) and after a bit of searching bought a second hand Solidworks machine I found on Gumtree which was loaded with what the chap assured me was a legit copy of Solidworks 2017 and 2018. (It’s perfectly normal to run these versions concurrently). As well as some ancillary software that runs alongside. 

 

I had always intended to get my own Solidworks licence - as I wanted to upgrade to 2019 anyway but obviously I tested the machine for a week or so to make sure it could handle what I needed and whether I needed to upgrade anything - I did, as it happened, and bought a hefty RAM Upgrade. 

 

(At this point I should note - just for detail that the machine is actually a high spec Mac Pro running windows on boot camp - I liked this idea as I also make music in my  spare time and the opportunity to dual boot into a little studio set up was a big plus.) 

 

I then set up my emails etc. (The email is - I fear you’ll see this coming - linked to the business domain I own and have just set up) so it would be used in the office.

 

However I then removed Solidworks and phoned up the local reseller in Cambridge to find out how light my wallet was about to get. - I know from experience you can buy a monthly license package which is slightly less eye watering. 

 

Brilliantly - they signed me up to this thing called the Solidworks entrepreneur programme which gives startups like me free Solidworks for the 1st year and a discount thereafter. Which I was accepted for and given a brand new temporary license that I installed on my newly clean system and a meeting set up with the reseller for next week (today) in order for him to visit my office and install a permanent version based on my needs. 

 

This is all seemed great until this Thursday I got a call from him saying that he’d been phoned by Solidworks to say that I wasn’t eligible for the programme because there was an ongoing piracy case against my company. I pressed him for more details and he said I should have received correspondence from the solicitor named in this thread in relation to allegations of using pirated software. Which I haven’t. - emails checked and checked again. 

 

He promised to phone back on Friday but didn’t. 

 

Im now terrified that I’ve used a pirated version of Solidworks on that machine - which will be linked to the domain and email i set up. - which has - like the other chap on this thread “design” in the name. 

 

And that I’ve just installed the license they gave me on the machine with the same MAC address and IP. 

 

I should mention that IF the versions which were already installed on the machine WERE pirated - then I can see no way of an unwitting user being able to tell.

 

When the loading screen popped up after i clicked on the icon to launch Solidworks it read “verifying licenses” just as it should. I had no reason to think it wasn’t 100% kosher. 

 

Sorry for the ramble. Any thoughts? I can’t afford to pay for the whole thing in one hit. And the version on my machine was the top notch affair with about 6 different add-ons. I’ve literally just started my business and I’m terrified. I’ve got my first contract due to begin this week and as it stands I won’t be able to work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO they're getting way too big for their boots in pursuing this course of action. They're annoying genuine and future customers off with this policy. I suggest you tell them your situation and that you were about to embark upon a licencing process but have been put off by their behaviour.

 

By chance, I too am in a position where I'm involved in a startup. Because of my experience with SW - and despite us all knowing it prety well, we've elected to switch to Autodesk Fusion 360, which has a refreshing and VERY pragmatic licencing policy which I believe will see SW's crown toppled within a few short years. 

 

It's free for hobbyists and startups turning over less than $100k

 

How enlightneed is that? It ensures massive takeup of the package by the next generation and they get an incredibly powerful de-facto beta testing army behind them.

 

There's also a ton of public domain resources to help you make the switch, including tutorials specifically for people used to solidworks.

 

It'll cost you nothing to give it a go. We hit the ground running within a couple of days :)

 

But in short, as with others, you aren't their target. I sugget you provide the above feedback, but others advise simply ignoring them. I can't argue with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly  - thank you for the quick response and taking the time to do so. Calmed the nerves slightly... however 

 

I've spoken to the reseller again today - had to check if he was still coming for our planned meeting - he wasn't. However he also let slip a few things as I questioned him pretty hard on what this is all about. 

 

1. He said Dassault won't care if I used the software or not - and have stated their attitude can be summarised using the following metaphor (one which Dassault staff use themselves) If someone steals a porsche it doesn't matter if they get 10 feet out of the showroom or drive it 100 miles. its still theft. To my mind this is massively flawed.

 

First of all - I bought a machine upon which solidworks can be run. I didn't purchase solidworks itself. and then deleted said software from the machine. There WAS a very small crossover period where a license was running on the machine however I was under the impression it was Legit.  Secondly - if you BUY a Porsche in good faith and it turns out to be stolen - fair enough you can't keep the porsche but the police can't come after you. You'd lose it and potentially have to buy another one. 

 

2. The reseller stated specifically that the solicitors / Dassault will NOT release any information relating to the data they have collected to me unless it goes to court. This seems dodgy as hell to me.

 

3. The reseller has now said that the correspondence from Dassault I should have received came in the form of an email which (incredibly) was apparently sent on the same day I applied for the entrepreneurship programme. 

 

4. He is apparently passing my details to the person at Dassault in charge of compliance and they are going to get in touch with me today. 

 

This morning I have now also received a supposedly "resent" email from CHCJ solicitors very similar to the ones others have received - however notably it doesn't contain any details about the supposed infractions whatsoever!! 

 

Please find it copied below: 

 

By email only

 

10/04/2019

 

Re: SOLIDWORKS® and certain other software licenced by Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation (including the SOLIDWORKS® Simulation line of analysis products, SOLIDWORKS® Composer, and the SOLIDWORKS® line of product data management products in all countries) ("the Software")

 

Dear Sir,

 

We act for Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation of 175 Wyman Street, Waltham, Massachusetts 02451 USA ("our client").

 

Our client is the owner of copyrights in the Software, a copy of which is available for inspection at our client’s offices. The Software is original and the related intellectual property rights vest absolutely with our client.

 

Our client has discovered that your company has been using SOLIDWORKS, without the necessary licenses, that is to say your usage has occurred without the consent of our client or any of its authorised resellers. 

 

According to the applicable national legislation, this is an infringement of our client’s copyrights in the Software. As a result of infringement of its copyright, our client is entitled to, inter alia, the following remedies:  an inquiry as to damages for infringement of copyright including an inquiry as to additional damages pursuant to s97(2) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 and damages pursuant to the Intellectual Property (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2006 and Directive 2004/48/EC or, at our client’s option an account of profits; Publication of any Judgment obtained; and Costs.

 

If you are in any doubt as to your legal rights or if you have any queries or concerns, then we suggest you seek independent legal advice. 

 

We look forward to hearing from you before 12/04/2019.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore them all 

stuff all they can do to you

there are no cases of any court action anywhere.

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, dx100uk said:

ignore them all 

stuff all they can do to you

there are no cases of any court action anywhere.

 

Hi DX100UK

 

Thanks for your reply, the only thing I'd say is that I suppose in my case its a little more complex! I don't just want them off my back, I NEED to have a working copy of solidworks to run my business. (I'd expected I'd have to go down the monthly license fee route and this entrepreneurship programme looked brilliant) 

 

But either way - I can't just ignore them and hope it goes away - I need to get the software up and running as fast as possible - and I want to do it legitimately which means talking to Dassault one way or another. But it appears these ambulance chasers are going to be ridiculously heavy handed. 

 

The version of SW that was on that machine had all the add-ins and additional software bits. It was the full ultimate package (until I deleted it all) and reading through the posts above it looks like they'll try to get me to purchase an identical install which I'm pretty terrified will cost me tens of thousands, will be FAR more than I will ever use and which frankly I can't afford. I was smarting at the prospect of finding 4-5k in installments for my little business. 

If this is how Solidworks treat new startups I'm pretty disgusted tbh. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore the ambulance chasers.

deal with DS directly yes but stand your ground.

 

you've done nothing wrong.

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

own topic created

please continue to post here now

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...