stunned_monkey
-
Posts
153 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by stunned_monkey
-
This was also part of my response. I connect to the internet via EE but host my domain independently. The only connection they could have made would've been through an IP address connected to my home address connected to my domain ownership connected to my website. I have not shared any models publicly (any files would record the licence but not the external IP address since this should be invisible to the cad package unless they're doing something crafty). Coincidentally even the EE account is in my wife's name. I invited them to tell me how they had made the connection in writing according to PAP law, and told them that as I haven't used it in connection to my business, the connection "is obviously tenuous".
-
Update: Original message (was actually over email but contained my name and address) was from the law firm mentioned in the article linked above. They gave me 2 days to respond. I had no intention of doing so given the law in pre-action protocol However, after 2 days I was contacted by someone from the software company offering to “help” and again reiterating strongly the commercial misuse. I replied saying I have never used their software in connection with my business, that this should be obvious, and if they wanted to discuss further, they should do so in writing. Their response was to pass me onto their UK reseller. Then the UK reseller got in touch, still pushing the commercial misuse and saying he was “here to help me avoid legal action”. This is textbook debt collector stuff with which I’m quite familiar and against whom this forum was immensely helpful a few years back. Different law though, obviously. I replied with pretty much exactly the same email but this bugger wouldn’t give up, ringing twice a day and emailing incessantly using a lot of capital letters. I blacklisted his domain from my email server and set my call control app to pickup-and-hangup any calls from his list of numbers (they all started with the same 3 digits). Then I got paranoid, decided to mail the first contact and set out exactly what I have for you good people given that I “do not trust you to perform your own due diligence”, and suggested that anyone with 5 minutes online would see that my business is unlikely to use cad, and that my website hasn’t changed since long before my misuse of their software started. I suggested that given the several months they waited to drop their bombshell, they were probably waiting for the work I was doing to gain sufficient value that they could twist my arm into purchasing a licence – but that in my case there is no value. I also suggested they don’t appear to chase private/home use (quite a lot of people saying this online). I concluded by suggesting they send me a “cease and desist” but that it’d be a bit redundant as I already have, and any communication would need to be in writing. So far no more calls or emails.
-
I wasn’t suggesting the home use as a tactic at all, just attempting to justify my transgression. I have no excuse, it’s piracy and I’m guilty. However, I have not used it for a commercial purpose and this is what they’re implying. I am not the problem they’re trying to tackle. I will ask them for their evidence in line with the pre-action protocol and suggest they’re barking up the wrong tree wrt commercial use. Thanks for the input.
-
Yep, will need to do from home. Am in my day job at the mo. My home ISP is independent from my domain host. My reason for not buying it is it isn’t sold for home use and costs many thousands. The tacit understanding by home users is they won’t come after you for using it, and that it is so easy to pirate for a reason (they wouldn’t be the first *cough*Microsoft*cough*). Pirating by home users just encourages mass adoption, and the money flows from companies who adopt it. I think Bill Gates has said as much, hasn’t he? Interestingly the link posted above does talk about going after commercial users. There really is no point in chasing me as they won’t find any money made off the back of my using their software. CAB seem to think it’s unwise to simply ignore, but a reply demanding they stick to the pre-action protocol is probably a good idea. I would like to specifically request their evidence that their software has been used in a commercial capacity… because it hasn’t.
-
Yep, that's them
-
Thank you for your replies everyone. I wish it were an ambulance chaser but they’ve specifically identified me as a user of the software and connected it to me via my website. I’m not sure how (actually, I have an idea, but it would be very ‘enterprising’ of them). Yes, I’m one of those leeching so-and-so’s using an industrial package worth thousands to design a few bits for model aircraft. There are no excuses, except that it was a great way to learn the software! The reason it “makes any difference” is that, if it is genuine, they’re making a case based on assuming my use of the software to be for-profit. I believe they have to prove a “loss” associated with my use in order to make a claim. I’ll do some more background and if replying, will demand they follow pre-action protocol (the letter already breaks it at least once)
-
Hi All, hopefully you can advise me on a sticky spot I’ve just landed in. I’ve had what I believe to be a perfectly genuine threat-o-gram from a firm of solicitors representing Dessault Systems, makers of the Solidworks CAD package. They’ve correctly identified that I’ve used their software without a licence, but erroneously connected it with my very small business operation for which I own a domain and sell a few bits and pieces online. I manage my website, email etc on the same PC that on which I have Solidworks installed. The two uses are wholly independent. I’ve seen the template letter on the CAB website and will be sending off a request for them to comply with Pre-action protocol and prove when I used it. They probably can (whether they do or not remains to be seen). What they most definitely can’t do is connect it to my small business, other than via my ISP. They’ve put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5. I would like to add something to this effect in my response - asking them to prove I used it for my business and pointing out that they will find this impossible. What do you think? Thanks in advance
-
If by the private contractor, you mean the local bloke, I don't blame him at all - he privided his quote and diagnosis and on that basis we went through insurance. The insurer'sc ontractor made the same wrong diagnosis as well - again no blame here, there was good reason to make the mistake - but when they discovered the error, should have back-tracked on the whole thing I would have no issue covering a reasonable cost for the job performed, as I've made clear to everyone from the start.
-
Update: Once I escalated it to a complaint, we had a letter of acknowledgement after a few days and after a couple of weeks I got an email confirming who was dealing with the 'case' and then a followup phone call. AXA agreed to refund our excess and re-write the claim as an "enquiry". From what she said, I think they went after the contractors for their money back. So the result was better than I expected or asked for - well done AXA! The only downside to the whole thing (and again, I never believed anyone was guilty of impropriety) was the way I was dealt with by the 'claims manager' because she clearly didn't have the capability to deal with my issue and should have escalated it herself proactively rather than trying to put me off. They agreed to look into it but I said I didn't need any comeback. It's not as if anyone had been unprofessional.
-
I have absolutely no issue with covering the cost of the job they actually did - and have made that clear from the outset. Understood on the cost of a cancelled policy - thanks. As it happens it's due to expire in a couple of weeks anyway, and actually both my wife and I have car insurance with Axa/Swift too so they stand to lose more than it'd cost them to make good on this claim if we voted with our feet (though I doubt large corporations like this think like that). It'd be annoying to go elsewhere, the web front end of the car insurance arm is really well designed with great flexibility.
-
Thank you for your reply. but the relationship between AXA and their traders is not my concern. What is my concern is that I paid the excess based on a diagnosis that turned out to be wrong. This diagnosis was the responsibility of the contractor, therefore they initiated the job under false pretences (not deliberately I'm sure). However it is AXA/Swift's job to deal with the outfall as their contractor is their responsibility. Why should I (and AXA) carry the can for a mistake made by the contractor?
-
Finally had a call back from a "claims manager" earlier, who seemed totally stumped as I took her off-script. She kept insisting that I needed to pay the £350 excess on the claim I kept pointing out to her that they/we have been overcharged and what we'd agreed to pay (and did) for wasn't the job that ended up being done. At one point she asked what I would like for them to do (classic dealing-with-difficult-customer training). I said they needed to take it up with their contractor for overcharging and that we'd be happy to cover a reasonable cost of unblocking a drain. At another point she suggested I needed to take it up with the contractor directly. I pointed out that this company was their contractor, not mine. I also suggested an anlogy of taking your car into a garage for what you'd been told was a new engine, but instead turned out to need only an oil change. Would she then accept being charged for a new engine? (she ummed and arred and ignored the question). Then she'd revert back to point A about needing to pay the £350 excess that is part of our policy - this is also classic training technique of trying to generate a circular argument until the customer gets bored or ****ed off or both - but in this case simply didn't make any sense as she hadn't provided an answer to my query as to how what we/they'd been charged was reasonable. Anyway, I asked to make a complaint, and that will now include this poor effort (they record all calls after all...). Expecting a call tomorrow apparently.... #baitedbreath
-
Thanks for your reply. It was one previous, independent inspection, then the inspection and repair by the insurance company's approved people. The drain is only about a foot under the lawn and there's now no sign of leakage (quite the pond before). There was mention of a cavity in the drain because an access cover that had been paved over and replaced with another one further up. It was in this cavity that the blockage collected, and to a camera might have seemed like a collapse because it would have looked like a void full of crud.. Basically I don't really have any issue with the diagnosis or the work. I doubt anyone at any point set out to deceive. I just have an issue with the effective cost to fix the actual problem (though it would be easy to cry foul, it's not a card I want to play... yet)
-
Blocked drain in the back garden through which the kitchen and utility room drain, (thankfully no toilets). Local company diagnose a collapsed drain and quote ~£600 for digging it up and replacing it We got Swiftcover involved to see if we are covered. They send their approved people around who provide the same diagnosis (with cameras and wotnot) and confirm we are covered - pay them the excess of £350 and they'll come round and sort it out, taking up the rest of the bill with the insurance company. So far so smooth. Only when the two chaps turn up to do the work, they discover the initial diagnosis to be at fault, and that it was a simple blockage. In less than an hour, they had cleared it and were on their way. Now we find the company has charged their "half day rate" of £400+vat to Swiftcover. We aren't suggesting any impropriety on the mis-diagnosis - but it's a bitter pill to pay £350 for two blokes to do a simple job in less than an hour. We're taking it up with Swiftcover today but I'd be interested in any comments?
-
I'd hoped the fact that they aren't white would be sufficient grounds on the "sufficient quality" front. Next step, letter to them enclosing the above photo...
-
Thanks Stigman, Update: Nationwide now saying "it's an issue of quality, not goods not as described". Feel like we're banging our heads against a wall and will be closing our Nationwide account. On the consumer contract stuff, we need to make sure what the T's and C's were at the time of purchase, although no confirmation email was received and their site does not give T&C access without ordering something. My wife's trying to find the paperwork which came with the glass. Of particular note in the Consumer Contract regs (at least according to the Which summary) is the line about tailor made products, which applies here. Can't seem to find where it stems from in the govt regs, though one thing that has jumped out is that we can't be expected to return them if due to their nature, using the post isn't suitable.
-
Thanks Stigman, do you think we've scuppered our chances now we've issued the chargeback and Nationwide seem to have sided with them?
-
Recently we had our bathroom done and ordered some glass splashbacks from an on-line company called Cameo Glass to fit round our wash basin. When we ordered custom made white glass splashbacks (for some £200), we (reasonably, I hope), expected something made from opaque white glass. Nothing on their website suggests otherwise, though we now know competitor websites do make it plain that this is not the case. What turned up was white back-painted "clear" glass. This wouldn't in itself be a big problem if they had actually used truly clear glass. What we got has a distinct blue tint to it. On the left is what we've now used in our bathroom... [ATTACH=CONFIG]56336[/ATTACH] We tried to get a refund, and were simply told "that's what it's like". We are in the process of putting a chargeback request through Nationwide but they're being useless and have twice written to us first saying that this doesn't fall within the bounds of a chargeback, yet confirming in the same letter that "goods not as described" is one of the categories, then latterly saying that it's our problem for misinterpreting what we were buying. I have now asked them to show me where it explains on Cameo Glass' website that "white glass" is in fact white painted, slightly blue-tinted clear glass. I think the mistake we made was complaining about it not being white glass, but back-painted, rather than placing emphasis on it not actually being white (though this was stated in the original complaint). What do you think?
-
how long do recon engines for cars last for?
stunned_monkey replied to fredwilkins's topic in General Motoring Issues
The quick answer is of course "it depends"... but I would caveat that with "it depends on the particular engine". If the engine has a known fault with a known fix, then a "recon" engine may simply be a repair hopefully correcting the original flaw which means it's now as good as an engine that's never been apart. (eg Rover K-Series head gasket failures) Smart For2 engines (Mercedes generation) have a high but pretty consistent failure rate and are cheap and easy to do a proper job of rebuilding so what you get back is basically as good as new. If I were in your shoes, I'd look at the reputation of the engine and the reputation of the person/people who've done the "recon" and make sure to get a full list of what's been replaced. -
Hi Che, thanks for your reply 1) 9 months 2) No 3) He is unlikely to be dismissed but the suggestion is that he's unlikely to find a career in the place if he does kick up a fuss. He's in a graduate position so only just starting out and a little more un-nerved and less cynical than an old fart like me! 4) That's a very good question but I doubt it, unless under home insurance as suggested. Hi SW, he has now signed the book and was satisfied tha tthe account was accurate. It has now been pegged down. I doubt very much that they would try to resist following the letter of the law if asked, and I am very grateful for your advice. He's keeping a diary and a photographic record of his injury (he's currently still bound up but regularly having dressings changed so takes a photo every time). He's having regular phisio sessions on the NHS. Yes, he is a permanent employee. The report was logged within the 15 days notice. While he was back at work within 7 *working* days, he certainly cannot carry out his nromal range of duties considering has has only his left arm to work with.
-
He's his line manager but not supervisor, if that makes sense. The quick answer is yes because it's a 9-5 place but his manager is not repsonsible for him in that way.
-
He's now been back at work for a week and still hasn't been asked to sign the accident book despite requesting it>
-
Hi everyone, I'm posting this on behalf of a friend who has had a serious accident at work and is not sure what to do next after his line manager, in an "off the record" conversation, warned him that it probably wasn't a good idea to pursue any compensation. Let me start by saying this is not a guy looking to make a fast buck from a small incident. He works for an international company who are a household name and profitable. A week ago, he received a very nasty injury to his right arm after falling on some non-slip matting. Yes, you read that right. Other people had noticed this stuff was less than ideal in what is a pretty hazardous environment, though whether that was reported I don't know. There were many witnesses and first aid was administered immediately and efficiently. He was taken to hospital and without going into too much detail, will be in a cast for at least a month and will require frequent phisio sessions from now and probably for some time after the cast's removal, Permanent damage is a possibility, scarring is certain. None of the above is in dispute. I have the photographic evidence if anyone wants to pm me (don't do so if you're squeamish!). He's right-handed. He's a very active fit man who among other things plays rugby and is a musician who plays guitar and the drums. He also can't drive for the time being. This has come as a serious blow. He was off work for a week and on his return had a meeting with his line manager, see above. Now he's not sure what to do. Can anyone help with: - is he automatically entitled to anything? - what are his rights? - is there anything he should be doing NOW to ensure any future claim is not jeopardised? I wecome any feedback, thanks in advance.
-
Okay so I managed to set up email via my server through SSL on port 465. I hope the mods don't mind if I post a little plug for my hosting ISP, Gridstar Networking. They couldn't be more different from Orange!
-
Okay, so Broadband is finally up and running at the new house, I feel like my 3rd arm has been reconnected! I can finally try and access Orange Helpers' Facebook page.... and guess what? No link on your profile page and no way of messaging you that I can find. I've been an Orange customer for years (mobile) but your Broadband service is really starting to hack me off.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS