Btw, what do you guys actually think of the letter as a whole? I mean, there isn't the mention of a single person within the company, I may as well send my credit card details to someone in Nigeria. Not to mention, there is grammatical and punctual mistakes everywhere...
You can always phone Davenport Lyons to verify that their letter did indeed come from them (there's the whole our ref/your ref code at the top). Once you have established that it is genuine, you visit a solicitor who is competent in these matters and request proof of the allegation. In a lawsuit any such proof has to be shown to the defense.
I have little doubt the letter is genuine, after everything I've read on the net. It's the fact that the letter is so poorly composed. And they're supposedly a "professional" company... It's just interesting...
well there was all that stuff going around about scammers sending fake letters to get a quick £500-600 out of unsuspecting people, kinda like davenport really.
The fact is, it works. Last time they did this, some 40-50% paid up. At at least £500 a letter, they obviously made quite a profit. They'll continue to do it while they can. So far, my plan of attack is to ignore the first letter, if I get more letters, I'll send them one back, with no information about me, but requesting they send all the information they have about my under the CRA 1998.
We got told, dawg ^_^ Lecturer in EPR mentioned today that in Law it's common to divide laws into two categories - ones derived from morality and ones made simply for the sake of the established system. Can't remember the names. Is that true? Because it's the key distinction really. I was wrong insofaras some laws are derived from morality and benefit society, like you say - but others are functionless bureaucratic garbage. Calling them both "the law" is downright misleading, because one set upholds the fabric of civilisation and the other set just shift money around and/or slow things down.
Well, the ***** with internet forums is few of us are IRL-acquaintances, so if anyone posting here previously did end up in prison, we're unlikely to hear about it
Tru, but I was joking about the jail bit. The chances are they would just be forced to pay the fine. But all avalible parts of my anatomy are crossed
Well, I sent them a letter back asking about a subject access request (they of course said their evidence was exempt from the law *rolleyes* ) I'm contemplating what to end back at the moment.
Talk to a solicitor and get him to ask again. The prosecution has to show its evidence to the defence. There are no exceptions. The very fact that they are trying to dodge this proves that they have nothing.
Exactly. The thing is, I have no money or time to see a solicitor, and it's annoying that I will have to pay money to get these people of my back. What I'll do is send another letter denying it. It took them a month to respond last time, so I'll just wait that month. By that time, their 40 days for the SAR will be up, and they could land a £5K fine
They said the data they hold is exempt from a SAR as well (without citing law). This is obviously not true, and by being dishonest to gain an upper hand, the case will fall through. They know this, and hope that I don't. Although I do. They prey on those with a lack of knowledge in these matters, that are to naive to know any better. It's a shame they haven't yet been booted from the UK. Besides, even if the case did get to court, nothing will happen. Logistep refuse to reveal how they get IP addresses. Without this information, how can the accuracy be assured?
You can apply for Legal Aid (remember: you are entitled to a defense in court). You don't have to pay and if Davenport Lyons lose they pick up the tab for all legal expenses. That should discourage them. If enough people apply for legal aid, and the government itself will eventually step in to smack down on Davenport Lyons.
I can't see it going to court, tbh. Only 3-4 people have been, and they were all default judgments (probably people that moved house etc) It would seriously surprise me if that woman that got fined £16K didn't appeal against it. Is there a chance these articles aren't genuine, and have been made up by davenport to scare more people into paying?
http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-sued-for-fraud-abuse-and-legal-sham-090301/ "RIAA Sued for Fraud, Abuse and Legal Sham"
If anyone is still interested in this, DPLs data IS exempt from the SAR.... This is still nothing to worry about really, as they still have no evidence on you.... Btw, odd that they've been so quite recently..
I havent heard about this, But if this is legitimate, you may want to request copies of all legal documents they possess, so that if it is real and you are issued with a claim form, you can apply your defence. Speak to the Consumer Credit Councilling Service or CCCS for short. If not your local CAB just to find out what your options are.
