Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • 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
      • 160 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

SKY Multiroom minibox and copyright infringement.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1413 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

This message is a copy of a reply I sent to Samantha Clark.

 

Hello Samantha,

Thanks for your message.

 

In most cases I have a lot of knowledge about consumer affairs and problems (please see my previous replies to other members). 

 

I do not have a copy of the request for advice as it was not published on your site.

 

As I remember it is about a SKY multiroom minibox that I purchased from Ireland from another seller on ebay that I wanted to use  as an extra to the already subscribed SKY Q main box and already subscribed multiroom subscription that I agreed a contract to.

 

I am a vocal entertainer and well aware of copyright infringement.

 

I cannot understand how SKY can enforce copyright infringement to enforce eBay to take down sellers adverts from selling miniboxes.

 

If the box (spur) is inactive because it cannot connect to a main box and to get the main box you have to subscribe and to be able to connect an extra box then you must subscribe extra to use it as SKY controls this option from their systems.

 

As the minibox cannot connect in any way then how can this be copyright infringement.

 

I now have a minibox that I cannot sell on as SKY has implemented a restriction to stop me from selling it on.

 

I might add that eBay have at the time of the original message had 10 miniboxes for sale/auction and these have not been taken down or removed. aken

 

 I have duplicated this message to the forum for you to pick up.

 

Many thanks

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be very helpful if you could post your story properly spaced and punctuated.

It's very difficult for people to follow solid blocks of text and it may dissuade some people from giving the help that otherwise you might receive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is typewritten this way as it is a cut and paste from a text. It is also very explanatory in that others can understand it explaining the term of events and to warn others of the pitfall of buying and selling Sky related devices.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Post spaced

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

Thank you

 

As the minibox is a spur and cannot receive programming on its own.

It is rendered useless without a contracted Q box and subscription for multiroom being put in place. 

This then cannot be rendered copyright infringement.

 

The seller of such a box would then be correct to sell the box.

It is the buyer who would infringe copyright without having subscribed to SKY to activate multiroom authorisation. 

 

Many thanks for your help and taking the time to edit my post.

 

I have been around for a long while (a bit long in the tooth) and a bit thick :-)

Do I just leave your correction as it is or do I relist it

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

this situation is a bit like the various other like devices that 'could' be adapted to receive 'free' content that is otherwise not so.

 

what did samantha say to invoke your above reply..

 

 

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

Samantha saw my post on the FB page and advised I might get assistance because I originally paid for the minibox and because of SKY`s intervention means I am stuck with a box (having left SKY) that I cannot sell on. But eBay still listing boxes for others. Hmmm very unfair and discrimatory !   :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, who says you can't sell it on...?? poppy cockle!

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

This is the response from eBay:-

We had to remove your listing because it didn’t follow our Enabling infringement policy. Listings or items that encourage or enable copyright or trademark infringement are not allowed

What activity didn't follow the policy



We removed your item as it was reported to us by Sky. Please note that this item is not allowed on our site. Please don't relist this item.For more information please read our help pages or contact Sky directly on: https://business.sky.com/fighting-fraud/ OR [email protected]

 

I also tried another selling website and got the same response

 

Unfortunately we have had to remove your ad "Sky Q Multiroom Minibox" posted in the category "Satellite & Cable Equipment" from the site.

We have reason to believe that your ad is offering an item that infringes on intellectual property (IP) rights.  

It is likely that the IP rights owner has contacted us to alert us to this ad. 
 

there are numerous ads of the same box being sold right now:-

 

WHat is intellectual property (IP) rights.

 

(ads removed - dx)

 

    •       

Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly I just think you got targeted.

don't forget ebay is gov't by Luxy EU laws 

 

not much you can do.

 

dx

 

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

I can always ask SKY if they want it back and pay me for it ha ha ha ha ha     As Simon says "JUST KIDDING"!

 

I suppose if anything this entry is going to be a strong advisory to not buy a mini box privately otherwise you will get stuck with it !

 

I had a look for the intellectual property IP rights :-

 

Intellectual property rights are the rights given to persons over the creations of their minds. They usually give the creator an exclusive right over the use of his/her creation for a certain period of time.

 

I would like to thank everyone for their advice and help   :-)  :-)  :-) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that HB. As I said before I have assisted others before but just on the FB page and have enjoyed doing this.

 

So you never know I might bump into you some time in the future ha ha ha ha

 

C YA - HB

 

Shalamar138  :-) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...