ACS Law : GCB Limited

[debtinfo]

Hi, just a thought as i dont usually venture into this area (i do debt information) but has anyone thought about complaining to the CIB (companies investigation branch) of the insolvency service as they deal with investigations into live companies and can apply to the secretary of state to wind up companies if they are acting against the public interest

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/cib/index.htm

[kurvaface]

That is definitely a tool to be used with this lot. I just wonder how many companies this group of artistes has abailable to it to commit this fiddle?

[farcedirect]

Now a company called GCB Limited have picked up the Media Cat claims and is taking up where ACS left off.

 

The GCB "payment centre" number is 020 3239 2527.

 

Calling that number now gives a recorded message:

 

"If you have received a letter from GCB Ltd please disregard this letter as GCB is no longer persuing the matter stated in the letter."

 

Looks like they've pulled out pretty quickly, just as all other dubious companies have eventually done in the past...

 

Here's a summary of what happened in court on 17 January:

 

http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/acslaw-file-sharing-fiasco-astonishes-judge-18525

 

Next hearing is 24 January...!

[JKDE2008]

According to feedback from those at the court, this GCB Ltd issue has been raised and it appears that the barrister for the claimant knew nothing about it. There has had to be a 10 minute recess whilst he takes instructions from Crossley who is also there.

[zoomboy]

According to feedback from those at the court, this GCB Ltd issue has been raised and it appears that the barrister for the claimant knew nothing about it. There has had to be a 10 minute recess whilst he takes instructions from Crossley who is also there.

 

And I can imagine the barrister saying "YOU DID WHAT?!?!?!"

 

After all if you were going to **** in the pool it's best not to do it from the high dive board if you want it to go unnoticed.

[JKDE2008]

And I can imagine the barrister saying "YOU DID WHAT?!?!?!"

 

After all if you were going to **** in the pool it's best not to do it from the high dive board if you want it to go unnoticed.

 

Does the first asterisk stand for p or for s?

[kurvaface]

From Slyck:

 

 

Someone from Ralli sent in witness statement stating that a new outfit GCB appears to be acting for MediaCAT.

 

Judge Birss stated

"I am not happy about this ... I want to know what's going on?"

 

The ONLY reason that this was raised in court because Crossley screwed up and GCB sent it to one of the 27 defendants and therefore admissible in court.

 

Adjouirnment so Ludbrook could take instruction - Andy visibly squirming.

 

Stated that JCB (sic) was formed by 2 former ACS employees and was planned back in September but only enacted now.

 

Birss "I am not (at the moment) content that I have received full knowledge, we'll come backto this - something very very odd going on here"

 

"I want to tell you and your client I am not happy and I get the distinct impression with every twist and turn that there is a desire to avoid any judicial scrutiny"

 

Counsel then went on about why should be discontinued and why the process was not an abuse of legal power.

 

[kurvaface]

Follow "DinaGreek" and "revsorg" on Twitter for the latest from what seems to be the court

[zoomboy]

From Slyck:

 

The ONLY reason that this was raised in court because Crossley screwed up and GCB sent it to one of the 27 defendants and therefore admissible in court.

 

 

That is just pure class! Whatever you do, don't let GCB Ltd come up in court Ok, which dumbass sent that letter out? Hahahahaha. Mr. Crossley, can you spell "incompetence"? You hired them!!!

[bob92101]

 

Judge scathing comments about the "twists & turns" of the case. made him think the claimant appearing to be trying 2 avoid judicial scrutin

 

Judge said he didn't think claimants had deliberately mislead he thought content in some lettter sent to defendants "potentially misleading"

 

AC said because of personal abuse suffered by his family, criminal acts against his business he was ceasing his work - (in this area )

 

and alllgedly GBC has stopped representing, no new letters pending nor new cases planned ..

 

Judge Birss asking Media Cat barrister why he shouldn't make order of discontinuance but with provisos. to cease & desist

 

ie no more letters to anyone until the matter can be properly examined by the courts

Not sure what to make of this other than that Andrew Crossley may have decided to pull out of this sot of case and that the Judge isn't ready to announce a decision yet.

 

I wonder when the ICO & SRA will wake up and do soemthing about all this?

 

Well done to the various guys who didn't accept Crossley's 30 pieces of silver

[Jasper1965]

Don't hold your breath on the ICo doing anything about the data side of this litigation, that would involve positive action but I don't think the SRA can continue to pretend to ignore problem cases like Crossley much longer. HHJ Birss may not have the authority to stop AC doing this for a living per se but AC is fighting for his professional life here be in no doubt. He might be saying that due to the abuse etc he is withdrawing from this field but I don't think the SRA will like the disrepute he's caused the profession one iota and with an ICO data leak fine hovering, huge insurance increases, loss of this cash cow he's going to struggle to pay all the costs of these 27 cases and the costs of anyone who chooses to chase him for monies already paid. or not paid but wasted in defending themselves against his frivolous claims.

[unclebulgaria67]

Sounds like the judge may take a week or so to make a decision on this. On another forum it mentions that he has another case starting in the high court Wednesday I think, so it would depend on what other items are in the diary. But I did read somewhere that he is considering a decision that might be considered unusual given the details of the case.

 

The defence did raise the issue of wasted costs and I suppose that is unusual ? I don't think I would like to be in the claimants position having to wait for a week or so, thinking about what judgement might be made. Could the judgement also include having to pay back everyone who had made a payment to ACS Law following a letter from them ? If that was the case on top of the court costs and costs of running the scheme, I dread to think about how much this would add up to. It can be no wonder that ACS Law apparently advised in court that their Insurance bill had shot up to £150,000 a year.

 

If the worst happens then I cannot see anyone picking up the ball and running with pursuing copyright infringers, until the law had been changed.

[bob92101]

From the BBC website on Tuesday January 25th at 03:43

In a statement read to the court, solicitor Andrew Crossley, said he had now ceased all such work.

 

He cited criminal attacks and bomb threats as reasons.

 

"I have ceased my work...I have been subject to criminal attack. My e-mails have been hacked. I have had death threats and bomb threats," he said in the statement, read to the court by MediaCAT's barrister Tim Ludbrook.

 

"It has caused immense hassle to me and my family," he added.

 

In September ACS: Law was the victim of a cyber attack which exposed thousand of its e-mails online.

 

These e-mails detailed all the people it was pursuing and the pornographic films they were accused of downloading for free.

ACS:Law is described as the 'Victim'? What about the people whose names and addresses have now been released into the public domain?

 

 

According to the BBC Andrew Crossley also said that he had no connection with GCB Ltd beyond the fact that the founders of the firm had previously been employed at ACS:Law.

 

So in that case, did the founders of GCB Ltd steal the details of the people that they subsequently chased? Did they fraudulently include a letter apparently from ACS:Law saying that ACS:Law had abandoned further action?

[sillygirl1]

Andrew Crossley is showing classic 'bully boy' behaviour, by presenting himself as a 'victim' of the system he is trying to mislead the uninformed consumer of his true involvement, similar behaviour was displayed by Basil and Amanda Rankine.

 

I can think of a few other 'solicitor for rent' firms who may end up going the same way.

 

I hope all the people this odious practice has deceived will get their records cleared (including any markers removed from their credit ratings) and any monies recovered should go back to the people who have paid up.

 

You can only begin to imagine the fragile relationships which have been destroyed by this shark.

[sillygirl1]

Actually solicitors insurance liability would be a very good achilles heel against the firms who think they can misuse the system, the more cases a firm brings to court the higher their insurance should be, so perhaps that model could be looked at by somebody within the profession who has the power to weed out the 'solicitors for rent' firms.

 

I can supply the names of the firms from this website who engage in litigation rather than any other method.

[unclebulgaria67]

I would think that any claim on the solicitors liability Insurance would fail. Surely any liability that is created about any advice given to clients would not be succesful, being that this was a joint venture with a profit share arrangement ?

[sillygirl1]

Love this from the link to the case

 

“In all these circumstances, a default judgment arrived at without notice by means of an essentially administrative procedure, even one restricted to a financial claim, seems to me to be capable of working real injustice.”

 

Default judgements now seem to be coming under the spotlight of the higher court so maybe the legal system will wake up and 'smell the coffee' and put an end to this loophole.

[sillygirl1]

Crossed messages?

[sillygirl1]

The hypocritical whatsit! He has caused a lot of misery for people by claiming they were doing illegal things with 'dubious' files, and now the boot is on the other foot he is finding it is a very very tight and poor fit.

 

Long may his crocodile tears last!

[unclebulgaria67]

I find it very surprising that any official of government would make any public comment on their Twitter and Facebook pages.

 

This is either a joke or a total breach of confidence.

[kurvaface]

Andrew Crossley is showing classic 'bully boy' behaviour, by presenting himself as a 'victim' of the system he is trying to mislead the uninformed consumer of his true involvement, similar behaviour was displayed by Basil and Amanda Rankine.

 

I can think of a few other 'solicitor for rent' firms who may end up going the same way.

 

I hope all the people this odious practice has deceived will get their records cleared (including any markers removed from their credit ratings) and any monies recovered should go back to the people who have paid up.

 

You can only begin to imagine the fragile relationships which have been destroyed by this shark.

 

Playing the "victim" is something paedophiles do.

 

On another forum there is a suggestion that Judge Birss might start digging re GCB ltd. Now that would be interesting!

[kurvaface]

From the BBC:

 

The judge was keen to find out what the relationship was between GCB and ACS: Law, something Mr Crossley sought to clarify in his statement.

He said that he had no connection with GCB Ltd beyond the fact that the founders of the firm had previously been employed at ACS: Law.

 

 

[panther12]

Crossley...good odds in anyone’s Death Pool!

[bob92101]

If Andrew Crossley had no connection with GCB Ltd beyond the fact that the founders of the firm had previously been employed at ACS: Law, who on earth wrote the letter some time in December allegedly from ACS:Law and included in GCB's pack of documents, saying that the unresolved cases were being taken over by GCB?

 

Wouldn't Crossley as the principal of ACS:Law be responsible for any correspondence on their headed notepaper?

 

Surely he couldn't have forgotten that detail when he told Judge Birss QC that there was no connection between the two companies?

[caledfwlch]

Given the woes currently befalling ACS and Mediacat....

 

I wonder if it would not unreasonable for the 27 claimants to apply for one of those deposit things - whereby ACS/Mediacat have to deposit what presumably could be quite significant funds into the court, in case the defendents win costs etc?

 

I don't know if thats only something that is involved with employment tribunals, or if it does apply to wider cases/law.