I would like to finally bring this matter to a conclusion. Taking stock here - your only apparent defence to my claim was your assertion that I was shareholder and director of the company that owns titanic.co.uk and that somehow this meant I was not an individual subscriber. You now know: (a) that your assertion is factually untrue as I am not shareholder, director, or even employee of the owner of titanic.co.uk, and never have been, and (b) that the registrant and registrar of a domain is unrelated to whether the recipient of an email is an individual subscriber. The regulations define both subscriber and individual, and this relates to the contract for the relevant communications services and nothing to do with who owns a domain. This leaves your only defence defeated. The facts of the case are that you sent an unsolicited direct marketing email to an individual subscriber that had not given any prior consent to the sending of such email and as such you have acted in breach of section 22 of The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. Under section 30 I am entitled to claim damages for such a breach. I trust that you now agree these facts. They are supported by evidence. You currently have no defence to this claim. You have, however, stated that you will not be settling my claim, confirming that discussion and negotiation has now broken down. Without prejudice, I am prepared to settle the matter in full if you make a payment of £10 today. If you are not prepared to settle the matter today, then I am considering taking legal advice on the value of my claim. In particular, the consequences of your breach have now led to some 28 emails being exchanged. Each email uses resources on my Internet connection and computer systems, wastes my time, causes distraction and annoyance and distress, and delays reading of other emails. Significant stress has been caused by you repeated accusations of fraud and scamming. It also breaks my concentration, which is important for my day to day work designing and developing software. As you rightly point out, I own and run a company so disruption to my day to day work has an impact on my final income. I see from other successful claims by other people under these regulations that claimants have won amounts ranging from as little as £270 to well over £1000. It seems to me that with appropriate legal advice I may find I have severely underestimated the damages I have suffered and may be in a position to revise my claim. It is, of course, entirely up to you whether you want to risk not only a court case (having now exhausted discussions and negotiations) but to also risk a much higher claim for damages. If I do revise my claim, I will, of course, give you time to respond to the revised claim and an opportunity to resolve the matter without going to court as per the pre-action directions. I look forward to your prompt reply, and payment.-- Adrian Kennard
2013-07-30
Trying to wrap this one up...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fencing
Bit of fun... We usually put up some Christmas lights on the house - some fairy lights on the metal fencing at the front, but a pain as mean...
-
Broadband services are a wonderful innovation of our time, using multiple frequency bands (hence the name) to carry signals over wires (us...
-
For many years I used a small stand-alone air-conditioning unit in my study (the box room in the house) and I even had a hole in the wall fo...
-
It seems there is something of a standard test string for anti virus ( wikipedia has more on this). The idea is that systems that look fo...
Just a note to say "Please continue - it may feel to you that you're being slightly hilarious - but you're doing what we would want to do, if we had a really understanding boss..."
ReplyDeleteI assume that he didn't cough up and therefore that he considers your threats as empty as his turned out to be. Ho hum.
ReplyDelete