Sunday, 28 July 2013

More from the spammer.


Mr Kennard

I could not have been more clear and succinct in my email to you.  Your persistence in this matter further highlights your ineptitude.

However in an effort to humour you, and with a view to prevent you attempting similar such actions as you have alluded to, we would simply make reference to the very same document that you refer too: “The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003”, emails sent and received.

When read in context to your circumstances it will, as has before been demonstrated before the court that your claim is without foundation.

Your prior ability to solicit monies from others is not indication of the validity of your case, nor as we have demonstrated, would prior successes before the courts.  It simply demonstrates that the defended was either also poorly informed, poorly represented or simply opted not to defend the matter and paid you monies, simply to halt your pursuit.

I trust this will bring an end to the matter, and you will cease and desist.

Update: I'll post replies as comments for now.

7 comments:

  1. the reply is big on words yet very low on content

    it's merely *banter* using fancy sounding words used out of context

    if the banter has worked in the past to dissuade complainants from proceeding with their claim

    "it only demonstrates that complainant was either also poorly informed, poorly represented or simply opted not to pursue the matter and claim their monies"

    and succumbed to such bullying tactics


    go go revk go!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, we have quite a big set of spammers that have been getting warnings now - I need to review which are the most likely to be sensible to take action and proceed and get some experience of how this works in court. I may have to fine tune the notices, and the logic of how we assess damages/costs as well. So it may not be this guy to start with, sorry.

      However, if we stick at this, we should be able to get a formula that works - both in terms of making spammers realise that they are breaking the law in the first place, and in terms of getting actual court cases to prove it.

      Delete
  2. Remember to add to the costs all the time spent dealing with his bluster :p

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I need to find what costs one can include. I think there are limits on small claims, and the time spent doing the discussion and negotiation are not normally part of the costs. But I am not (yet) an expert.

      Delete
  3. Presumably you have to reply as this is part of a discussion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeh, I assume so, I have. It is a shame his email does not actually say why he thinks he had not breached the regulations. If he is that confident then surely he must know the killer argument here - which clause I have somehow missed...

      Anyway, what I replied is :-

      On 27/07/2013 22:02, Darren Scott wrote:
      > > However in an effort to humour you, and with a view to prevent you
      > > attempting similar such actions as you have alluded to, we would simply
      > > make reference to the very same document that you refer too: “The
      > > Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003”,
      > > emails sent and received.
      > >
      > > When read in context to your circumstances it will, as has before been demonstrated before the court that your claim is without foundation.

      The context of my circumstances are that I have received an unsolicited
      marketing communications by email from you without having previously
      given consent as per 22(2) and 22(3) of the regulations. That is a
      breach of the regulations, and section 30 allows me to take action
      against you.

      Your reply does not make any specific reference within the regulations
      and does not really address the matter or explain how exactly you feel
      that they do not apply.

      So I am unclear how your reply is meant to progress this or avoid legal
      action. What exactly are you saying?

      22(1) states "This regulation applies to the transmission of unsolicited
      communications by means of electronic mail to individual subscribers."

      Are you suggesting that you did not transmit an unsolicited
      communication? If so, show when I solicited it.

      Are you suggesting that it was not an electronic email?

      Are you suggesting that it was not transmitted to an individual
      subscriber? I have the invoice for the email services and I am an
      individual.

      22(2) states "Except in the circumstances referred to in paragraph (3),
      a person shall neither transmit, nor instigate the transmission of,
      unsolicited communications for the purposes of direct marketing by means
      of electronic mail unless the recipient of the electronic mail has
      previously notified the sender that he consents for the time being to
      such communications being sent by, or at the instigation of, the sender."

      Are you saying I have previously notified you that I consent? If so -
      show that notification now.

      Bear in mind that the regulations clearly require that recipient (me,
      and not someone else) has notified the sender (you, not some mailing
      list provider) of consent.

      Are you suggesting para (3) somehow applies?

      22 3(a) states "(3) A person may send or instigate the sending of
      electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing where (a)that
      person has obtained the contact details of the recipient of that
      electronic mail in the course of the sale or negotiations for the sale
      of a product or service to that recipient;"

      Are you saying that I have been involved in the course of a sale or
      negotiation with you? If so - provide copies of the correspondence on
      that matter.

      If you do not wish to resolve this matter by discussion and negotiation,
      as your lasts paragraph seems to suggest, then I see no reason not to
      proceed to a county court claim. If your defence is simply to say I
      should look at those regulations without any more details as to why you
      think they do not apply, then that will not go well for you I am sure.

      Delete
  4. On 2013-07-28 20:01, Darren Scott wrote:
    > Mr Kennard,
    >
    > The points of disagreement are clear, you believe we were in breach, we
    > do not.

    No, the points are not clear.

    I have stated very clearly why you are in breach with detailed reference
    to the sections of the regulations.

    You have not given one reason why you consider that you are not.

    > Given that your scam is not lawful, I have no issue with how our stance
    > may be considered by the court.

    This is not a scam, it is my legal right as per section 30 of he
    regulations.

    The regulations are clear that your actions are unlawful unless you meet
    some specific points, such as consent, or obtaining the email by sale or
    negotiation, etc.

    These are all things which you could back up - you could provide details
    of when and how you believe consent was given, or when and how my email
    address was obtained through sale or negotiation where I had a chance to
    opt-out.

    You have failed to do so.

    You have not provided one statement or fact or claim even that backs up
    your assertion that you are not in breach of the regulations. Why?

    > This will be my last response to your emails as I have a business to run.

    In which case I have to conclude that you do not wish to continue with
    discussion and negotiation as alternate dispute resolution as per the
    pre-action conduct directions. I am sorry to hear that.

    > May I suggest if you wish to make the matter litigious you do so. That
    > way you are incurring costs. We will then make representation before
    > the courts

    You are expected by the courts to take reasonable steps to resolve the
    matter without resorting to the court.

    You have refused to do so - you have not yet once indicated the reasons
    why you feel your actions are not in breach of the regulations. Your
    refusal to take steps to resolve the matter by discussion and
    negotiation will not help your case as and when this matter goes to court.

    So, once again, I ask: Exactly why do you believe your actions are not
    in breach of the regulations?

    If, as you seem to believe, I have this wrong, and you are not in
    breach, it would be a simpler matter for you to state why. It would be a
    simple matter, for example, for you to state when and how you believe I
    gave consent to the sending of your unsolicited marketing email.

    If, somehow, I have missed some point of the regulations, perhaps in
    some other section, which excuses your actions, then state which
    regulation and why.

    If, as you say, you have a business to run and would rather not continue
    these discussions, then that would be the prudent course of action - to
    point out why exactly I am wrong, as that would indeed be the end of it.
    If I am wrong, I will leave you alone, and even apologise for hassling
    you. I am at a loss as to why you are not doing so - why not simply
    state the reason now so that I have no case to continue? Why invite
    court action by being evasive and refusing to co-operate in discussion
    of the matter now?

    --
    Adrian Kennard

    ReplyDelete