Like others, I have received a Letter of Claim dated 20th October with the accompanying Order of Feb 2010. My initial thought was that this was a bare faced scam, until I Googled 'ACS:Law' and rapidly discovered the the details of this shocking debacle. I have prepared a Letter of Denial, based on the template from Beingthreatened. There are some points and issues which, if anyone can shed light on them, may assist in the fight. I have read as much of the posts that I can but can't find anything on my observations so far. If these have been addressed elsewhere, I may have missed or misundertood them.
Firstly, the guide to the first letter of denial specifically references sections of the CPDA, which seem to be the basis in the Letter of Claim; but there are others such as 16(1)(a) and 17 littered through out the claim in such a manner so as to to confuse. I have preferred to tackle reference to the CPDA 1988 by stating '...I categorically deny any offence under sections of the CDPA 1988 as alleged.'
I retained reference to 16(2) of the Act, but it appears that the Claim tries to pre-negate this by stating that any alleged infringement is committed 'either directly yourself or by authorising (inadvertently or othewise) third parties to do the same'. Seems to me like the inference is that you are stuffed whichever way you look at it.
Secondly the LOD guide/template suggests the following
'You assert in your letter that the infringement was apparently traced to my internet connection. I note that I am not personally being accused of the infringement, as you have no evidence to this effect.'
However the letter of claim does specifically make many statements that I am personally being held responsible for the infringements, on the basis of 'evidence' - the evidence being an IP address and my associated personal details.
Thirdly, the letter of claim demands that the payment and undertakings must be made within 21 days from the date of receipt of the letter. Does this apply to the time frame in which to respond with a LOD? How can delivery of second class post, with no signature of confirmation of receipt of the letter establish when the 21 day period commences?
Finally, the Order, section 10, clearly defines how a letter of claim should be structured, specifically with the wording of the first paragraph of the Claim. However in my letter of Claim a modified version of the wording appears in paragraph 2, which I would think is in contravention of the Order. Would this then make the Claim legally invalid or incorrect?
I would be happy to submit copies of the Order and Letter of Claim (this being a 20 page document, largely intended to confuse). Who can I responsibly, and trustingly, send these to, and in what format?
On another point, I notice that due to the data leak, emails to and from ACS are in possession of people other than the intended recipients. I'm pretty certain that some of these emails will note that the emails are intended ONLY for the recipient. I would be wary of broadcasting the fact that anyone has possession of these emails.