Some years ago ( to be honest I cannot remember without checking!) but it was more than three, I attended before Master Moncaster and sought to have the then ACS campaign kicked upstairs to a senior Judge in the hope that the matter would be kicked out by a Lord who would see the campaigns for what they were a con. I failed however it was only a matter of time before the Court’s intervene and they did finally when his Lordship Arnold intervened when Goldeneye sought the disclosure of tens of thousands of names. Goldeneye had already written to the Court when it said on 23 September 2011:-
“We are the First Applicant and act for the Second – Fourteenth Applicants in this application. It may be somewhat unusual for the Applicants to apply on their account. However, there has recently been a certain amount of publicity associated with this type of claim (ACS Law; Davenport Lyons). We therefore believe that we will be best served acting for ourselves.”
Consumer Focus t/a the National Consumer Council of England, Wales and Scotland. Consumer Focus is a statutory body created by the Consumers Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007) and it applied to intervene in the proceedings. There being no rule in CPR applicable to intervention in proceedings before this Court, the application was made informally under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction. Arnold J granted Consumer Focus permission to intervene
I think its important to bear in mind that at all times the threats have been backed up by promise to litigate to the Court that they have a genuine intention to pursue infringement actions to date I am not aware of any claims having been issued against any recipients of such letters.
The last order from Master Bowles ordered that within six months of the date of disclosure ie 26 August 2015 Goldeneye shall provide Sky a written report stating precisely from the relevant names disclosed how many of those persons (1) were sent letters of claim; (2) makes a positive and expressed confession of liability; (3) by their own volition accepts the compromise agreement without an expressed confession of liability; (4) requests the Applicants commences proceedings; and (5) against whom the Applicants have issued legal proceedings.
First step – contact Sky….Action Lawdit- have they had a report – if not then – its a breach of the Order.
Second commission a review of the expert’s report and challenge with evidence as filed in previous cases the report’s findings which supports the Letters of Claim. I need somone to step forward and advise Lawdit on this point.
Third seek to intervene and obtain an injunction against both GEIL and TCYK and suggest that in the future an independent solicitor ought to be appointed.
What we need
Someone to step in and intervene once more. Im not sure if this is Lawdit or Which or Consumer Focus or another….perhaps the readers may have some thoughts on this.
I know Ive mentioned this before but we need to get a fighting fund together to obtain an injunction – Its going to cost in the region of £30,000 +VAT and includes at least three weeks of Lawdit, Counsel’s fees and experts fees.
Its the only way to stop this mess…and if you think this will simply stop on its own accord then its worth mentioning this quote from Birss
“As at 30 June 2010, ACS:Law had sent 20,323 letters of claim and had recovered the total sum of £936,570.92, of which ACS:Law received £341,078.92.”
Its going to go on and on and on until such time as we seek the court’s intervention.