Just got a letter from Davenport Lyons RE-Colin Mcrae Dir

[boingboing]

The guy basically said "if you tell us someone else might have had access to your network we won't pursue you"!

Bidlybong, did you misinterpret this, or did he really say that. Its not on the C4 website.There is a DL guy, but he doesn't say anything like that. If he definitely did say that, then it is very different to what is in my replies.

Did anyone else see this?

[BiddlyBong]

The guy basically said "if you tell us someone else might have had access to your network we won't pursue you"!

Bidlybong, did you misinterpret this, or did he really say that. Its not on the C4 website.There is a DL guy, but he doesn't say anything like that. If he definitely did say that, then it is very different to what is in my replies.

Did anyone else see this?

It was taken from a comment on the Register, although, it can't be substantiated.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/20/davenport_lyons_25000/comments/

[bubbster]

Interesting C4 article.

A pity the ZDNet guy didn't have the balls to just come out and state how IP addresses can be spoofed, manipulated, stolen, cloned, forwarded - to name but a few, meaning that having someone's IP address really proves very little. It's also a shame nobody has questioned the legality of the company that is supplying DL with this data.

[Donkeyfumbler]

Yes - much more thorough piece by C4. At least it was fairly clear in saying that this was one of the undefended cases, contrary to some of the propaganda (outright lies?) put out by DL which has to be reassuring.

I've not been a recipient of one of these letters and don't actually file share (for various reasons too dull to go into here) but I've been following this saga carefully because of the implications it has on so many different fronts - privacy, presumption of guilt, fallibility of the British legal system and domination of the law and the government by businesses and lawyers at the expense of the people who it is supposedly meant to serve.

DL's tactics are deplorable intimidation and moral-free bullying, but while it's scary enough that they are allowed/encouraged to get away with this, what would be more scary is that if all of the arguments put forward in this and similar threads as to how this 'evidence' is nothing of the sort were to be ignored in a contested case.

The whole 'balance of probability' thing worries me a lot. While it is probable that the majority of those on DL's list DID actually fileshare the game, it is also equally probable that a lot of them (including a number on these forums) didn't. The open wireless network argument should be enough to inject doubt into all of these cases and so all of them would fail in a criminal court. However, is that argument enough to convince an incompent or technically illiterate judge in a civil case? Would he therefore rule for DL and damn a number of innocent people to large fines purely because he either doesn't understand the case, or because 'on the balance of probabilty' if 24,000 out of 25,000 did download it then chances are the person in front of him is one of the 24,000 and not the innocent 1,000?

How can it possibly be fair to hit someone with a massive fine when there is a fair, if statistically unlikely, chance that they are innocent?

I appreciate this has yet to happen, but if it does then it should destroy any lingering thoughts that the british legal system is in any way fair, balanced or just and thats the real scary story lingering behind this sorry saga.

[enigmax]

The PR company working for Davenport Lyons admitted that it was a default judgement

http://torrentfreak.com/uk-game-piracy- ... es-080821/

[Paladwyn]

It may be appealed...that is, if she did contest it.

I have a feeling the 'contested' part put out by DL is merely that she wrote a letter to them saying she didn't do it, or shouldn't be found guilty. However, if they have proof of her doing such a thing - as some neighbours have big mouths, then there isn't much one can do for her. It's really tough to say too much without knowing exactly what happened.

[dedd]

So where does the contested part come from? That's what I would like to know.

Also, it seems that the defendant moved house at some point, is it possible that she simply had no idea she was even involved in this until she failed to turn up in court? I have no idea how the procedure works?
For instance, if someone involved in one of these cases were to move away from the home DL have on their list, and did not reply to any more letters, because they did not receive them, would they be able to proceed with a court case and get a default ruling without the defendant knowing?

I'm beginning to realise how little I know about law in reality, rather than what I believe law should be...

[Meek]

If you don't turn up to court, then you will get a default judgement against you and will be found guilty. As I once found out concerning a driving conviction. The letter was sent to an old address of mine (admittedly it was my fault for failing to notify my change of address) and in my absense I was found guilty.
When I did finally find out about it and contested it they were quite leanient.

I know this is a completely different scenario, but thought it might explain a little of how the court process works in the terms of a default judgement.

[dedd]

Also, is it me, or is the world just slightly messed up when a soliciting company has its own PR company... which it then uses to strike fear into the people it solicits.

[sharp910sh]

Just to make sure I need to sent them a letter, as a result they are less likely to go to court? Or would it be more likely?

[Duracell]

Just to make sure I need to sent them a letter, as a result they are less likely to go to court? Or would it be more likely?

Send a letter to protest your innocence, assuming you are innocent. Check the rest of this thread for tips on what to say.

[Meek]

sharp.....it seems to be that all the people who have been taken to court, have not replied to any letters or defended themselves so found guilty by default judgement.

[Alisha]

Has anyone emailed the BBC about the fact that what they have been publicising in there reports about DL quoting that this was the first case that wasn't a default judgement, and that they got their facts wrong ( as we now beleive this was a default judgement)?? And tell them they should re-issue a press release stating the thorough correct facts of the whole issue/case??? instead of confusing the poor sods that have been receiving these letters??? I've gotta decide weather to pay them the settlement of £500 (which I don't have so would have to go into debt) or say I'm not guilty and refuse to pay their over the top fine?? I've not got long left to make my mind up.

(Hope I'm not confusing everyone even more!!! )

[Fenrix]

I've gotta decide weather to pay them the settlement of £500 (which I don't have so would have to go into debt) or say I'm not guilty and refuse to pay their over the top fine?? I've not got long left to make my mind up.

Why have you not got long left to decide?

[Paladwyn]

The BBC is really dropping the ball...as I stated before, this is the last thing a news reporting company needs, is for people to second guess and find them unreliable.

BBC is unrelaible. They lie, misinform and generally report wrong news - really only on this matter that I know of, but hey...if people can see that their reporting is substandard, they will get real bad credit.

[unhappy]

Just to make sure I need to sent them a letter, as a result they are less likely to go to court? Or would it be more likely?

Sharpish - I don't want to sound unhelpful here but you need to make your own decision on what action to take. There has been plenty of advice and suggestion on this and other forums but at the end of the day it is your decision to make not someone elses. If you are really stuck on what to do then I would seriously consider getting legal advice as no-one on this forum knows exactly what will happen.

That said, my opinion is if your are genuinely innocent then I would not pay and send them a letter refuting their claims. DL have already said they picked 6 random non-replies to take to court - 4 of which have been publicised as Default Judgements (not sure what's happened to the other 2?), and of these one has been put before the patents court for award of damages. I presume the other 3 will have the same treatment quite soon.

[stonecold316]

would she have had to sign for the court summons? surely DL couldnt just send it in the normal post what if it got lost she may not have even known she was being summoned.

[sharp910sh]

I shall look back at the thread and get some ideas for a letter considering I am innocent. It seems like me not replying or anything will make it seem like I am guilty. The problem with legal advice is it will cost me more than 500 quid for what they are asking. So if I do get some real legal advice I may as well pay them instead. The thing which is stopping me is as I am innocent, and they are supposely going to court with people they know they will win, if i do sent them a letter then the chance of them sending me to court is lower than if i don't do anything.

[Alisha]

Oh its a tough one!! I managed to get a free 15 minute solicitors consultation bout all this, showed them original letter from DL and they beleive it best to pay them now as he reckoned once a few more poeple get done for these so called downloads it will make a legal president and DL may at that point go to court with batches instead of individual cases. The solicitor mentioned its a 50/50 case of probability in a civil court. Ask citizens advice in your local town which solicitor firm is providing free consultations or google it and you should be able to find someone to give you some advice.

I got second letter stating that I now have 2 weeks left to pay the settlement figure or they will begin court proceedings, which is what I meant by not having long left to decide weather to pay the £500 or not.

[sharp910sh]

Oh its a tough one!! I managed to get a free 15 minute solicitors consultation bout all this, showed them original letter from DL and they beleive it best to pay them now as he reckoned once a few more poeple get done for these so called downloads it will make a legal president and DL may at that point go to court with batches instead of individual cases. The solicitor mentioned its a 50/50 case of probability in a civil court. Ask citizens advice in your local town which solicitor firm is providing free consultations or google it and you should be able to find someone to give you some advice.

I got second letter stating that I now have 2 weeks left to pay the settlement figure or they will begin court proceedings, which is what I meant by not having long left to decide weather to pay the £500 or not.

So it really is best to pay? I am tempted, so i can forget about all of this.

[Fenrix]

Its a tough one, if someone came to your door and said someone used your ladder to access his house and nick his ipod, and the guy wanted you to pay for his ipod as your ladder was used (even without your permission), would you pay? Of course not, but if that guy said pay for my ipod, or i kick in your door, nick your tv and ipod , and take your car, and there were no repercussions for him if he did this, then would you pay for his ipod?

Thats what DL are doing at the moment, theres a good chance nothing will happen , but theres always that doubt.... it used to be called a protection racket........

At the end of the day, it apepars DL are just hitting the defaulters, the no shows at court. Until someone turns up at court, defends their case, and loses, theres no change to anything anywhere. I for one will be looking for the first defended case , if the defendant loses, a cheque will be in the post, before DL can smile, IF DL lose, they will receive the metaphorical dog turd in the post....

[MrFredPFL]

I got second letter stating that I now have 2 weeks left to pay the settlement figure or they will begin court proceedings, which is what I meant by not having long left to decide weather to pay the £500 or not.

the following should not be construed as legal advice. it is an observation from reading this thread, and the dream pinball thread.

countless people have been told the same thing you were told - pay now, or we begin proceedings. now, i am a senile old man, so perhaps some younger readers will catch me if my cane fails me of all the people who said they were told this same thing, not one has ever said they were then served with court papers.

this is not to say that they couldn't, at any time, START doing what they threaten you with. in the final analysis, no one can make this decision for you.

[sharp910sh]

Has any one tried to call their phone number?

[Alisha]

Thx for all the advice. Does help and I do appreciate it. I don't want to be out of pocket, it'll mean no days out or Butlins holidays for my two toddlers for sometime to come and I don't see why they should suffer for somethink I don't think we did. It's my other half who's got this letter but all we have belongs to both of us so if he pays, the whole family does. He went to the solicitors and told me what to type on his behalf just now. surely the solicitors have more knowledge on this then us? I donno. So confusing.
If you don't pay the settlement figure within the time DL set and they do begin court proceedings is it not to late to then decide to pay the original settlement figure? They won't exept it after the offer of settlement has elapsed will they?

Donno sharp if anyones tried it, I did ask before.

[Paladwyn]

People have called them before, and it is usualyl fruitless...as they seem to like to give the same answers. Just keep pushing your innocence - if you are innocent, if you are guilty try a different approach...this only applies to those who are truely innocent.