Spam wars - "determination of damages" hearing date set
Taking a spammer to court to get them to stop isn't for the faint of heart.
Here's the history:
A company, "Cybernet Media" (stick .co.uk on the end of that and you'll find their website, I'll not give them the benefit of a link) started sending spam way back in 2006.
I asked them to stop, they continued.
I pointed out to them that by sending it they are breaking The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. I asked them to reply and confirm they would stop sending the spam. I said that if they send any more I'll bill them £50 per email for my time so far. I said if they didn't reply I'd take more formal action.
They didn't reply, I didn't get round to taking the formal action... until they sent 2 more emails. I phoned them and faxed them. They said by phone they'd stop but decided to send 4 more emails within 24 hours. This was now August 2007.
So, I sent them an invoice for 6 emails. They didn't pay or respond.
I called them again in September and said if they don't pay I'd take them to court. They didn't pay so I started a small claims court action against them.
Here I made a mistake: I asked for the damages plus a statement from them that they would comply with the regulations in future. That meant it had to have a "directions hearing" which of course cybernet didn't turn up to either. Still the result of the directions hearing was headed by a line: "1. There be judgement for the claimant for damages to be determined by the court" - so I guess that means they agree I have a claim the only question left is how much.
I now know the small claims court can't make people say they will comply with regulations (that's what the judge explained to me in the directions hearing). To do so I would have to take out an injunction. If they break the injunction and send more spam, they commit a criminal offence of contempt of court (and could even go to prison for that). Problem is I still haven't figured out how exactly what to do to take out an injunction. At the moment all I'm claiming from them is the damages from them sending spam and me having to chase them to pay the damages (which, incidentally, they've never contested. They haven't even replied to the court which as directors of a limited company may be another offense under the Companies Act, I'm not sure though). Anyway, damages so far £1,005.37.
I still have another week in which to decide if I want to take out an injunction on them but to be honest I have proper work to do and I can't afford the time to research it. I do now realise why the information commissioner has never taken anyone court for breaking the regulations though. The judge raised a good question - "Do you think they will actually pay?". I have no idea, I'd rather hope that with a court order against them they would have to. My case is against both an individual and a company. They don't declare their company number on their website (they really should, but hey, no one's perfect), "Chris" who I spoke to didn't know the company number and then claimed he worked as an agent, not for the company. As he sent the spam, I put him down personally on the claim as well as the limited company. Mid February is the hearing date - I'll keep you posted!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Spam wars - "determination of damages" hearing date set.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://mt.steveroot.co.uk/mt-tb.cgi/279
hi steve,
this company are well known spammers. the names i have associated with it are Alex Harvey and Chris Mortimer.
well done for making a stand. i really doubt you will get them to pay anything. the best way to deal with a company like this is to completely waste their time. ask them to do some research, arrange meetings and dont turn up, etc.
childish i know but ooooh so satisfying. other things you can do is just keep mentioning the 'agents' names all over the net...you know like CYBERNET MEDIA, ALEX HARVEY oh and not forgetting CHRIS MORTIMER
see: http://www.webworkshop.net/seoforum/viewtopic.php?t=17850
As someone actively employed in the SEO/SEM industry, I find companies like this one reprehensible. I would say to get the injunction, and up your "damages" so that a collection agency will take the case and pester the living daylights out of them.
Oops, Chris Mortimer sent his message to me today and explained very carefully why it isn't spam. For some reason a lot of Cybernet Media websites are now blacklisted in a few high profile places... Can't believe I've not come across this company earlier!
The injunction sounds wonderful too but surely they've list washed you by now anyway? It seems unlikely you'd be able to catch them at it again.
Anyway, this is wonderful, best of luck getting it sorted.
To be honest Cybernet Media LTd are the few companies who really get results. I used them and the service and wresults achieved was excellent. I really think you should try the company before you judge a company.
The have a front page listing for "search engine optimisation" URL: (removed as spam by Steve) .
Iused SEO companies before like (three company names removed) and they were rubbish.
@Kay - If the judge finds in my favour, I'd guess they'll have to pay.
@Nuclei - One bad company shouldn't reflect on the rest of the industry
@Kevin - The injunction (if I ever get to it) will be worded such that they comply with the regulations. That means if they break the regulations again by sending you or anyone spam, they commit a criminal offence of contempt of court (that was how it was explained to me by the judge). I'm pleased to say they haven't sent any more spam to me since then.
Hello Richard,
I was going to say that I haven't commented on Cybernet's ability to do their job. Just that they persist on sending spam knowing they are breaking the regulations. Knowingly breaking the law is simply bad business practice. It's not like I didn't give them time to correct the 'mistake'. I thought it was a mistake at the beginning, but the more the case continues the more I feel it is their normal way they work. That's why I always kept their name out of my blog until they didn't reply to the court or attend the Directions hearing.
I was going to say that until I decided to check the IP address you used to post your comment ( 82.29.106.250 ) against the spam emails from cybernet. I randomly chose one of the spam emails sent to me from cybernet media and checked the headers. Perhaps I was just lucky...?
Received: by 107216-app1.server3.rootskitchens.co.uk (Postfix)
id 4303D5B05CF; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:30:39 +0000 (GMT)
Delivered-To: sroot@107216-app1.server3.rootskitchens.co.uk
***** look at this line *****
Received: from cpc2-stre3-0-0-cust622.bagu.cable.ntl.com (cpc2-stre3-0-0-cust761.bagu.cable.ntl.com [82.29.106.250])
by 107216-app1.server3.rootskitchens.co.uk (Postfix) with SMTP id 3ACA15B054D
for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:30:38 +0000 (GMT)
***** see how it comes from the same IP address! *****
From: "Alex Harvey"
To: "sr"
Subject: CYBER NET MEDIA LTD
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:30:47 +0000
Organization: Cybernet Media LTD
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C6527E.AE8904D0"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Message-Id:
So Richard, Chris, Alex, or whatever name you wish to use, you've been caught red handed once again. Perhaps next time you'll go and use a library computer if you want to post false representations about your own company under a different name. As for whether cybernet media are any good at SEO, I'm still not in a position to say but I'm sure potential customers can draw their own conclusions if they read this. By the way, you never took the time to reply to the court - are you coming this time?
And another thing, you posted that comment as:
Commenter name: Richard Jones
Commenter email address: info@tradesmenquoter.co.uk
Commenter URL: tradesmen quoter. co. uk
Commenter IP address: 82.29.106.250
Now the domain name has the owner details hidden under the individual opt-out rules. As the site is clearly a business I've asked nominet to publish the contact details so I can look and see if there is a connection.
In the mean time, Does "Richard" exist too or is it a made up name?
Is it just a coincidence the address on the tradesmenquoter web site is:
Tradesmen House, Barton Rd, Stretford, Greater Manchester, M32 9TA
And the cybernet media address on their web site is:
435 Barton Road
Stretford
Manchester
Greater Manchester
M32 9TA
I'm sure all the readers would love to hear your response!
Hi Steve, it does seem to me that the spammers have kinda messed themselves up on this issue. They should have made sure they weren't using a static IP first.
I'm sure Virgin Media would be very interested in the fact that someone is sending spam from their network, in violation of their Accepable use policy: http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/legal/oncable/acceptableuse.html
Rather amusing I think. Good on ya Steve. :-)
Will.
I say keep fighting.
I too gets lots of this junk all linked to a London address...
tradesmenquoter.co.uk - not only falsely concealed address, but in the name "Yasser" - Nominet will serve notice on the registrants email address for failure to provide an identifiable registrant.
Companies House - 1. They will pursue satisfaction of the Companies Act and see to it that any company puts their company number, registered address, etc. on their website.
2. for a small fee they will provide names and addresses of company directors.
Court - If you win in the small claims court, and the defendant fails to pay, one option, combined with details obtained from companies house, may be to petition the company/defendant for bankruptcy. No more trouble than a small claims case.
Mailboxes Etc - Have you noticed that the company DomainHost Ltd and various of the domains/companies associated with the spam, eg. britain in business ltd and tierthree co.uk are all registered in common at the Strand, London franchise of Mailboxes Etc, www.mbe.uk.com, who provide PO Boxes amongst other useful services.
You note that department 6, floor 10, etc. simply indicate PO Box numbers, not actual office addresses.
After various adverse newspaper coverage that focussed on fraudsters, Mailboxes etc are sensibly not at all keen to be associated with scallywags, fraudsters and the like. They should frame their user agreement carefully such that such proven disregard for UK regulations, and near certain link with fraudulent money raising scams, are sufficient reason to turf them out on their ear with no more than 48 hours notice. All mail being returned to sender.
(mailboxes etc contact details removed by Steve at Alastair's request)
...such contact might fall on helpful ears - if these spamming losers could not rely upon easy access to a good mailbox at low price, maybe they and others would exit.
It is a pity that Nominet consider the address of their registrars to be a confidential matter. Making the information public and obliging their members to keep them abreast of any changes would enable us, the consumer, and Nominets source of revenues, to more quickly identify registrars who are failing in their duty. Nominet should be keen to get rid of bad, errant, incompetent and scurrilous registrars - it is not good for the UK and not good for Nominets reputation (and that can do with some polish!)
...sorry... oops. Last post a bit off the mark - my brain must be getting fried by focussing on spam today.
I meant every word of it, just not all of it relates to your case.
Perhaps you can benefit from some of it, and edit (delete) the unrelated parts and the mailboxes bit?
I certainly wish you all success and get in touch if you want info on legal matters - a mate does this stuff for a hobby, aided by legal professionals in the family, and is usually ready to advise how this that or the other is done.
Thanks for the comments Alastair, I already have the Directors details for cybernet media and one of the directors is named Yasser ... (I don't have the paperwork in front of me, but I'm 99% certain the name matches from memory). I'm also wondering if Yasser and "Chris Mortimer" are the same person, only time will tell.
It's funny you should mention "Britain in Business Ltd", late last year I asked them for where they got my email address from but they never replied. The emails stopped for now (they were selling/using the name "Bitesize seminars" if I remember correctly) but should they start again I may be a little more persistent with them too.
As for Nominet, it makes sense that individuals who register names for personal use can opt-out of the public listing. If you have a genuine need to know contact details Nominet will tell you. By not publishing automatically it helps prevent spam and other problems. If a domain is registered incorrectly they will investigate and publish the details where appropriate. I asked them to do this yesterday for tradesmenquoter.co.uk and today checking whois reveals:
Domain name:
tradesmenquoter.co.uk
Registrant:
yasser
Registrant type:
UK Individual
Registrant's address:
165 railway street
nelson
lancashire
BB9 9PG
GB
What a surprise, that address matches one of the Cybernet media addresses.
I've had ownership information published for a few domain names, a single email and 24 hours is all that's normally needed.
A few months ago I checked the domain details of some spam I received. It was owned by a limited company but checking companies house showed the company had been dissolved. An email to nominet resulted in the domain being suspended immediately. Wouldn't you just love to see the reaction of the spammer when he found out :-)
To quote an ESP who deal(t) with Britain In Business Ltd
"BIB believe they are purchasing good lists from companies like Intelligent data and Halo data"
The former of those two often coming up in conversation with a lot of B2B spammers sending to small businesses in the UK. Ask some local businesses if they see the same companies and I'll bet you all have one organisation somewhere in your past.
Re: Britain in Business
This bunch have been around for years: they used to send everything under the name Bite Size Seminars but seem to have decided Britain in Business sounds more exciting. The modus operandii is to register a domain (as a private individual of course), spam about their dubious seminars then move on. You can get Nominet to remove the private flag but they only use each domain once so it's fairly pointless. The only solution I've found is to give them their own private SpamAssassin rule(s).
What news of the court case?
Hello Rob,
Results from the case - I won! Full details posted at
http://www.steveroot.co.uk/2008/02/spam-wars-the-s.html
Nice one Rob!
I am currently taking a London based company to court as when I asked to be removed from their email list their MD emailed me telling me to "F**k off".
I also wrote to their solicitors stating I wouldn't have any other choice but to go to court and the only response was "see you in court, d*ckhead" (*changed for purposes of not trying to upset anyone)
Strangely he admits sending the emails and he's stating he is going to defend his actions.....pretty bizarre one really!