Plusnet will give your personal details to ACS Law with not informing you!!

[#1]

Quote from: davethir

[I also note that a new batch of Letters have been issued in the last couple of weeks, can PLUSNET confirm they have not given any names or adresses to ACS Law regarding this latest NPO (Norwich Pharmacol Order) or Court order. I know that many of them are addressed to BE unlimited but I do not know who proved the rest of the names.

I repeat my previous question to PLUSNET which seems to have been "Ignored", It is a simple yes or no.
With regard to whether or not ACS Law would be breaking the terms of the "Court Order" I am not a Lawyer nor do I have any legal knowledge, but i can read, and the Court order states quite categorically
"11. Within six months of the date of disclosure referred to in paragraph 3 above, the Applicant shall provide to Respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 a written report stating precisely from the relevant names disclosed (1) how many of those persons were sent letters of claim, and (2) against which persons legal proceedings were issued."
It seems quite straightforward to me
If any one is interested a full copy of the Court order is attached to post no 14 of this thread

[#2]

I read it as they have to send the information but I wonder what happens if they don't?
And what if they have not used any names but do later after the 6 months is up, maybe future orders should have a time frame that the data can be used in or did I mis that part.
Seems simple to me and can't see why Plusnet have not responded, maybe they are just waiting for the data to share with us next month. (not any personal data just total names given and numbers taken to court) but I have a feeling they will not share that information in any format.
I assume the next question to Plusnet  will be asking for the results so I hope they get them soon as July is not far away now.
And what happens to ACS if they break the court order?

[#3]

It could end up that ACS get hit with vexatious litigation claims against them (if none are taken to court).  If ACS do not follow the wording of a court order they could find themselves in contempt of court, PlusNet have a legal obligation to follow the court order, so does ACS.
If you file a court order, it isn't allowed to be to harass someone, it has to be a stage in litigation with an aim to sue, that's where vexatious litigation comes into play, filing lots and lots of court orders with no intention to follow it through is a big no-no.
However, even if PN agree that ACS are not taking anyone to court they are still unable to say no to a court order, they would need to appear in court to appeal to the court that the court order is without merit and should be dismissed before it is signed, once it's signed PN has to follow it.

[#4]

Well - why don't Plusnet try to protect their customers by filing a defence of this nature?

[#5]

Quote from: davethir

Quote from: davethir [I also note that a new batch of Letters have been issued in the last couple of weeks, can PLUSNET confirm they have not given any names or adresses to ACS Law regarding this latest NPO (Norwich Pharmacol Order) or Court order. I know that many of them are addressed to BE unlimited but I do not know who proved the rest of the names. I repeat my previous question to PLUSNET which seems to have been "Ignored", It is a simple yes or no.

AFAIK, the last time we provided a list of customers' details was back in January. Having said that, I've absolutely no idea  about the timescales involved between us disclosing the information and ACS Law actually sending the letters.

[#6]

Quote from: A

Well - why don't Plusnet try to protect their customers by filing a defence of this nature?

Plusnet are not contesting or filing a defence of any sort because they are "worried about the repercussions of such actions" as told to me. I am guessing that the request for data showing how many of the named account holders have been taken to court will be part of the "evidence" they want to obtain before they try to make a stand against the court order or take some other sort of action.
I'd like to know if PN have questioned the data collecting method used to obtain the IP's. Have they had the program independantly verified by thier experts? If not, why not? This would have been presented in court when the order was applied for so they are totally within thier rights to question it at that stage and if they are not satisfied that it is 100% accurate then they can object to the order.
Can someone from PN respond to that question please?

[#7]

What's the betting that no-one from Plusnet even bothered to attend the court when the application was heard?

[#8]

i bet talk talk did

[#9]

So do I

[#10]

Apparently all talk talk do is say that they will contest the court order then Acs law take them off the order.  They don't want anyone to fight, they want them to rollover.. Plusnet have done that so far. Perhaps until they get the answer to whether acs law have taken anyone to court, they should say they will contest the order.. ????

[#11]

Quote from: Mand

Hi guys, I don't have any news for you yet, but just wanted to let you know this isn't being ignored. The issue is with our leadership team to chase at the moment.

Hi Plusnet, could you give an update as to the progress of this matter, ACS Law have only 10 Days left to provide you with the information regarding how many people they have sent letters to and of them, how many have been taken to court. It might be a good idea to remind them of their OBLIGATION to provide this information.
I await your Reply with anticipation....

[#12]

Perhaps ACS have supplied PN with the information. PN has no obligation to make it public here. 

[#13]

I think Plusnet has an obligation to its customers to explain what its corporate policy is on this subject.
I'd like to be assured that it does its utmost to protect private data - unlike Google, Facebook, etc etc

[#14]

Quote from: Bob

AFAIK, the last time we provided a list of customers' details was back in January. Having said that, I've absolutely no idea  about the timescales involved between us disclosing the information and ACS Law actually sending the letters.

OK the date of disclosure of the names from PlusNet that i am concerned about was 31 Dec 09, this means that ACS:Law must provide PlusNet with a list of people they have taken to court out of the Hundreds, Or possibly Thousands of names plusnet provided them by the 30 Jun 10. The letters were sent on the 11 Feb 09, so there has been plenty of time for prosecutions. I note that no one from PlusNet has replied to any other of the posts since the quoted one above. I search these forums quite often and note that it normally takes a couple of hours for someone from the Customer team to answer. Except for this thread.... I wonder Why.
As I stated in one of my earlier posts, I have been a loyal subscriber to Force9/PlusNet since 2000. I would be seriously considering moving to a "Better" ISP, If there was such a thing.
But as i said in my first post noone has questioned ACS Law except TalkTalk, and i am not going to take a reduction in "service" from them.
I think that most people who use plusnet would like to know whether PlusNet will be protecting their personal data in future when ACS Law come knocking again.
Send one of your Legal staff to the high court in "That London" to say NO! When ACS Law ask if you will provide the data. Then hopefully the other ISPs will take note, afterall the definitaion of the NPO (Court order) states"The person seeking the court order must have a genuine intention of commencing proceedings.  and as i state to date noone has been prosecuted. It is one big con to get the Legally Nieve to pay up to make the charges go away..

[#15]

Quote

I search these forums quite often and note that it normally takes a couple of hours for someone from the Customer team to answer. Except for this thread.... I wonder Why.

Because the comms team are not lawyers and can only pass on info from the legal dept