just some information i found on the internet

Although there are specific pre-action protocols for eight classes of dispute
(including defamation) there is not one specific to intellectual property11. The
parties are therefore to comply with the requirements relating to pre-action
behaviour in other cases.

In particular, the claimant's letter before action should, inter alia –

(a) give sufficient concise details to enable the recipient to understand and
investigate the claim without extensive further information; (NO INFORMATION GIVEN)

(b) enclose copies of the essentia l documents which the claimant relies on; (NO DOCUMENTS SENT apart for their claim)

(c) ask for a prompt acknowledgement of the letter, followed by a full
written response within a reasonable stated period; and (TWO WEEKS IS NOTHING WHEN YOU'VE GOT TO SEE SOLICTORS, TECHNICIANS, ASK FOR INFORMATION and still not get any)(from what i heard a person got reply saying pay up or else. but no info. also on one of the news site that were mentioned in this thread)

(d) state whether court proceedings will be issued if the full response is not
received within the stated period; (I GUESS THEY DID THAT RIGHT)

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/..._124_320kb.pdf



just a source from a cached page on google

http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/preact...ction.htm#annb

GENERAL PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Lord Woolf in his final report on "Access to Justice" of July 1996 recommended the development of Pre-action Protocols.
1.2 The aims of Civil Procedure Protocols are to outline the steps parties should take to seek information from and to provide information to each other when trying to resolve a dispute. The objectives of Protocols a

*

to encourage the early and full exchange of information about the dispute;
*

to enable parties to avoid litigation by agreeing a settlement of the claim; and
*

to support the efficient management of proceedings where litigation cannot be avoided.


It seems to me that davenport lyons HAVENT GIVEN ANY INFORMATION apart from the initial letter. But if you ask for information from what i've gatherd from various websites all you get is no information just a pay up or else court letter!

they also say in their letter that there is "compelling evidence" (but not definite) but have told their client "we have advised our client that a claim against you would be sucessfull". how come they know the outcome of the case. BULL****. seems like posts 248

Fraud by false representation (Fraud Act 2006)

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he-
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation-
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if-
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or
misleading.

(3) "Representation" means any representation as to fact or law,
including a representation as to the state of mind of-
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as
made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any
system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to
communications (with or without human intervention)."


i dont know if this is relevent to the case here, but their treading on some very thin ice here and once the "experts" have their say their going to have a few comebacks as well.


If anyone is going to pay i suggest they include a letter to say you did'nt do it , are not happy with the way they have been treated, and belive they have acted inappropiatlyin they did'nt give enough time to sort things out and did'nt send relevent information or give sufficient concise details to enable the recipient to understand and investigate the claim without extensive further information, that way they may be able to counter sue if the "evidence" is found to be faulty and unreliable or the way they tried to get the money out of you was not in accordance with laid out rules.

just my opinion