Thursday, 25 July 2013

Interesting reply from spammer

Not sure what to make of it:-

Good morning Mr Kennard, 

Many thanks for taking the time to put your concerns in writing.

You do appear to be well read with regards to the various regulations and acts.

That said you are completely wrong. In fact it is you that is committing a criminal act, trying to extort monies from individuals or firms by miss representing the law.

Let me be very, very clear, we have not breached any such legislations.

If you which to pursue the matter, please do so as the last person that did so, attended four court hearings, was found seriously wanting and lost.

That said I have asked that your email address be removed.

I trust that brings an end to the issue.


I have re-read the regulations a few times - it seems very very clear to me - so I have asked the ICO to confirm. We'll see what they say.

Update: My latest reply:-

Invitation to consider Alternative Dispute Resolution.

In light of the Pre-Action Conduct Directions as part of the Civil Procedure rules we hereby invite you to consider resolution of this matter by means of Alternative Dispute Resolution. In light of the sums involved the only ADR process that seems appropriate, and is not likely to represent an unnecessary increase in costs for either party, is "discussion and negotiation" as per 8.2(1) of the directions.

We therefore invite you to provide details of the documents on which you would rely should this matter proceed to the county court small claims track. Based on these documents we are prepared to discuss the matter further to find a resolution without going to court.

In particular, as you have indicated that you believe your actions are not in breach of section 22 of The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, we invite you to provide any evidence that I (the recipient of the offending email) consented to the transmission of the email as per 22(2) of the regulations, or that you obtained the email address during negotiations or sale by you to me as per 22(3)(a).

If I do not receive a reply within 14 days I will assume you do not wish to continue with such ADR and I will have no choice but to proceed with a county court claim on the small claims track.

I look forward to your prompt reply.

14 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Darren Scott
      Managing Director
      Deane Computer Solutions Limited

      Delete
    2. Hmm, "miss representing legislations". I'm not sure that I would necessarily trust the reading ability of someone who appears to have been taught English by the Fonejacker.

      Delete
  2. May I be the first to call "BULLSHIT"?

    So, let's see.... Four times in court. Let's assume worst-case scenario and incompetence in the courts...

    Time 1 would be in the small claims court with this blokey being sued. One presumes that the person doing the suing lost and the judge called in the police who then charged him with extortion.

    Time 2 would be in the magistrates' court where, one presumes, the supposed extorter was bound over to the high court.

    Time 3 would be in the high court. One assumes that he was found guilty and...

    Time 4 would be in court for an appeal. One assumes again that his conviction was upheld.

    Personally, if I was as sure of the law as you appear to be, this blokey would be top of my list to sue. I'd love to hear what a judge says about his comments to you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeh, I do not understand 4 hearings either. A county court claim rarely goes to appeal.

      Delete
    2. Indeed. Both cases I've taken to court the judge made it clear that his decision was final and that there were practically no reasons an appeal would be allowed.

      Given what your blokey says, the only way he can know it's extortion (and the only way four court appearances would be required) was if somebody trying it on with him was charged with extortion and found guilty. I cannot believe for a moment that a) The CPS would charge somebody doing what you have done with extortion and b) that the case wouldn't have got into the likes of El Reg or Slashdot.

      Bullshit I say.

      Delete
  3. The ICO question was a lot to do with their "form" complaint that seems to allow a 28 day period for removal from list - I have asked where the 28 days comes from. If no reply I'll FoA them on that issue.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Latest plan it to pay some real solicitors to ensure we have got this right before suing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Start a kickstarter campaign - get some proper legal advice and put together a pack with solicitor approved instructions to allow Joe Public to toy with these nasty spammers ;-)

      Delete
  5. Interesting - "Deane Computer Solutions" does not appear to be listed as a Data Controller at the ICO ( http://www.ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Search?EC=3&fieldname=Deane%20Computer%20Solutions also searched by their postcode) and the ICO classes email addresses as personal data.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Got to love the ICO's answers to stopping spam mails. Not.

    http://www.ico.org.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/online/spam_emails

    No mention of claiming for compensation. No mention of any other action you could take. The last sentence is worrying though - it sort of implies that an opt-in stays with an address if the address is sold on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Replies
    1. "Monies" is the plural of "money" and therefore correct as used in the (otherwise badly written) e-mail.

      "Fred extorts money from an individual", or
      "Fred extorts monies from individuals".

      Delete
  8. "monies" lol, this reply isn't from a George Agdgdgwngo by any chance?

    ReplyDelete