Plusnet will give your personal details to ACS Law with not informing you!!

[#1]

Ok Guys just to keep you informed, I have just had a call back from the Secretary to Chief Master Winegarten at the Royal Courts of Justice. She says that the NPO lastweek that i informed Plusnet about was MEDIA CAT Vs BE Unlimited, Sky, BT, PLUSNET,O2 and ZEN. Guess what not one of the ISPs in question put up any chalenge. What do PLUSNET and the wider BT family have lawyers for if not to put up some sort of opposition, especially since you PLUSNET should have in your posession the means to challenge these court orders.
You may also notice that Talk Talk are not even mentioned.
So Mr Vollmer, could you also inform your paying Customers, why in light of the report (I am making the assumption that you have received it) which shows that not one person has been taken to court to contest the claims from ACS Law, did you deem it so unimportant that you decided not to contest the court order, and allowed the Chief Master to pass another NPO which forces you by law to hand over yet more PAYING CUSTOMERS PERSONAL DETAILS to this bunch of "Lawyers"

[#2]

Quote

I think PN needs to be careful.  If a court order has been issued they cannot decide to ignore it so their legal team will be looking at the options available to them.  A court order is just that, an order from the courts and refusing to follow that order can have pretty severe consequences for PN.

Plusnet do not even need to challenge any order at this time, as their is not one going throught the courts, what PLUSNET need to do is publish the report which (I think) will show that NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN TAKEN TO COURT TO DEFEND THE ACCUSATIONS OF ACS LAW. This prooves beyond reasonable doubt that ACS Law and the other "Lawyers" are only in it for the Money. by not publishing the report you PLUSNET are making it very easy for them to surpass their earnings of over 1M pounds this year.

[#3]

Its a shame really.
The 7000 people that have visited this thread are POTENTIAL customers, and Plusnet would put themselves in the picture for many new sign up's if it was seen to be standing up to these people.
As it turns out, TalkTalk are the only people giving a monkeys!

[#4]

Quote from: davethir

Guess what not one of the ISPs in question put up any chalenge.

It’s so much easier to let the court order get passed…let the lawyer request the data and then make a nice tidy sum of money by charging him for it.
If Plusnet charge ACS Law £10 per IP address for instance and there are 30,000 on the list….well it’s a nice earner. Why would you want to contest the court order eh? 
Of course this is pure speculation on figures. Although on my claims paperwork they state the ISP costs were £7 per IP address so maybe I’m not far off my calculations.
I imagine the other ISP’s charge a good sum too.
I wish I was wrong… I wish Plusnet could confirm that they are going to refuse to co-operate with these mass data requests and DO something about it.

[#5]

so your saying PN would rather take a single 10 pound note and let the customer run off to talk talk where there ceo cares about its customers rights, rather than defend there customer base and keep collecting £10-22 poundish each month from the customer.
the sums dont work in PN's favour to be on the side of the likes of acs

[#6]

Quote from: Tidgy

If Plusnet charge ACS Law £10 per IP address for instance and there are 30,000 on the list….well it’s a nice earner. Why would you want to contest the court order eh?

I can't be bothered to trawl for the quote - but a PN staffer confirmed already that they don't currently charge for providing info to comply with these orders.
Presumably it is subject to change if desired, but I think it only fair to assume that PN are continuing to not charge.
Lets only throw valid mud chaps!

EDIT:
OK here the link to Fletch (PN COO) confirming [more than] what I said above.
http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,85100.0.html

[#7]

Maybe Plusnet SHOULD charge, maybe firms like this will go bust having to pay £500 000 for 50000 ip addresses

[#8]

They can't - their COO already said that they never will...

[#9]

Quote from: Asbo

so your saying PN would rather take a single 10 pound note and let the customer run off to talk talk where there ceo cares about its customers rights,

I am just speculating at WHY the ISP’s appear to be ‘indifferent’ to the way their customers are being treated. What other reason would there be? No sane person that knows this process believes it is a just way of anti-piracy! What’s Plusnet’s excuse for doing nothing in the last two years that they have been aware of it?

Quote from: James_G

EDIT: OK here the link to Fletch (PN COO) confirming [more than] what I said above. http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,85100.0.html

Thanks for this link. I have it in Black and White on my documentation that part of the sum of money being claimed (it was £507) was to cover the cost of Plusnets expenses. The £7 was the price quoted as Plusnets costs. If what Fletch is saying is true and that PN have NEVER charged ANY Lawyer for this information then i will take this up with the SRA.
The difference with my case is that it started out as a claim from Davenport Lyons and it was then handed to ACS Law.
Fletch, please can you confirm to me on here or by PM if Plusnet ever charged Davenport Lyons for data?

[#10]

Quote

Maybe Plusnet SHOULD charge, maybe firms like this will go bust having to pay £500 000 for 50000 ip addresses

Perhaps Plusnet should read the NPO (Court order) in Para 5

Quote

As regards Respondents 2 and 5: 5. the applicant shall pay to the respective Respondent all the reasonable costs of that Respondent in complying with this Order.  For the avoidance of doubt such reasonable costs will include all the reasonable costs (including solicitors' costs) of (1) considering the application (2) responding to, preparing for and attending (if necessary) the hearing of this Application, (3) complying with this Order and (4) responding to queries and complaints pertaining to this Order which are received by the respective Responden after the date on which disclosure takes place. as regards all respondents: 6. the Respondent shall supply at the same time as complying with paragraphs 1-5 of this order details of their administrative and legal costs incurred in complying with this order. the respondents shall notify the applicant in writing of those respective costs incurred. 7. each of the Respondents shall, within a reasonable period of time on incurring any aforementioned costs, notify the applicant in writing of those respective costs incurred by such respondent in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 above. 8. the applicant shall pay to the respective respondent all such reasonable cost within twenty one days of receipt of the notification of the same

Plusnet, by not claiming costs as approved on the court order, you are assisting ACS Law in fleaceing your customers. if they had to pay for all the Names and addresses, as they should do, they may think twice.

[#11]

Plusnet and Mr Vollance, We your paying subscribers have been very patient but your COO gave assurances yesterday that we would find out some news today. I know the day is not over yet but I would like an update as to where we are at this time. Please take the time to read the NPO (Court order) and you will see that you should have been claiming for your costs to ACS Law and indeed if what the last poster says is true then ACS Law are already passing these costs on !!

[#12]

Quote

Thanks for this link. I have it in Black and White on my documentation that part of the sum of money being claimed (it was £507) was to cover the cost of Plusnets expenses. The £7 was the price quoted as Plusnets costs. If what Fletch is saying is true and that PN have NEVER charged ANY Lawyer for this information then i will take this up with the SRA.

so DP an there sister company ACS are not even telling the truth about anything, maybe plusnet can take this up in a court of law to the fact that ACS is invoicing people for the cost of getting information from you, but appears they get the information free of charge.
ANY ONE KNOW WHAT LAW ACS ARE BREAKING BY FALSE INVOICING PEOPLE ?
this lawyer company just stinks of a profit making model and nothing to do with reducing copyright infringement

[#13]

Quote from: Asbo

ACS is invoicing people for the cost of getting information from you, but appears they get the information free of charge.

Hence why i would like immediate confirmation of this.
Please can someone at Plusnet confirm if they charged Davenport Lyons for providing data I would like this confirmed as soon as possible as if i have been mislead by these solicitors then it needs reporting urgently.
Please answer!

[#14]

So plusnet have released more names even when they may have had the chance not to !!!!!!!!!!
They can't say they never had any warnings about it as Dave has been reminding them for months.
I feel sick.
If I was the COO I would stay well clear of this thread for ever.
Unless he is now going to try and close the stable door.

[#15]

I have already switched provider and have lost interest in this shambles, thanks Plusnet you wore me down and i give up!