The luxury lifestyle of the "hard-up" file-sharing lawyer

Anyone actually surprised?

Would anyone actually be surprised by this story?
The recent super injunctions have shown that there is one law for the rich, with access to smart lawyers and accountants, and one law for everyone else.
This just shows once again that ot's the poor people who are dumped on.

By MrBBrown on 26 May 2011

Nicole Kobie

Would Nicole Kobie (the author) like someone to publish pictures of her house and details of her income?

When you start hassling people on their doorstep don't you think that's a bit much?

And no, I'm not Andrew Crossley.

By Stiggy on 26 May 2011

Pigs And Troughs

I have written elsewhere about the situation of bought law in this country. Certainly for those who can pay we have the best legal system that money can buy! Far too many of the so called justice organs are no better than 'Trotter's Independent Traders'. I am not surprised about this story and no I do not feel that this is intrusion into his private life. Yes I DO feel that this exposure IS in the public interest. There is clearly a case to answer. He has been excused payment for serious performance shortcomings in his business life on the basis of claims that do not appear to rest well with his physical circumstances. The public purse has suffered from the loss of the fines that should have been paid.

By Jonesr18 on 26 May 2011

Stiggy

I don't think Nicole Kobie has any need to publish her details.

Unlike Mr Crossley, she did not break the law and then worm her way out of a fine by claiming she was too poor.

So no. Hassling Andrew Crossley is not a bit much.

By Simbu on 26 May 2011

Fine by most

I think the people he hassled inside their homes via mail wouldn't have a promblem with this at all, in fact nor would many other.

By Embattled on 26 May 2011

Nicole - are you serious?

You want to protect this bottom dwelling scum sucker? This guy made a fortune in threatening/legally brutalising people who were poor or scared. What about getting back the money he legally scammed off his victims...

And them he scams his way out of the big fine he righly deserved - he deserves to have people recopgnise him in the street - Its this sort of privacy/anonoymity that protects the scum of the earth.

By wontal on 26 May 2011

Re: Nicole Kobie

@Stiggy:
If Nicole Kobie had lied to the ICO to avoid paying a fine that any other person or company would've had to cop fair-and-square I think it'd be quite justified to post pictures of her house.

As for income details Andrew Crossley was required by law to truthfully declare his income to the ICO after he was found guilty of the data privacy breach. He said he could only afford 800 quid (which this article has nicely shown to be a straight lie), instead of the 200,000 fine he should've got. The ICO BTW has no powers to investigate people's income nor refer cases to court - a fault in the legislation.

By happyskeptic on 26 May 2011

This is my surprised face!

No! It is, really!

A lawyer that lies to benefit himself? Not exactly unheard of is it?

I hope the judge that ruled in this case is told (loudly) that he was played for a fool.

By cheysuli on 26 May 2011

Great Article

Stiggy - I cant believe you seriously defended this guy - I think this is a GREAT story exposing a man who alledgedly extorted tens of thousands of people and is continuing to seemingly use the Law for his own ends by now lying to the information commision about his ability to pay a substantial fine for not protecting his own data.

I've personally never been contacted by ACS Law - I disagree strongly with file sharing. But I have followed the story of ACS with interest. In my personal opinion Andrew Crossly should no longer even have a home to be "hasseled" on the doorstep of. He appears to have used flawed information, bullying tactics and legal loopholes to virtually extort money from people and should now be made to pay that money back.

I want to congratulate Nicole Kobie on writing this expose - its a first class piece of journalism and this should be in the National Media not just PC Pro !

Well done Nicole keep up the great work.

By PCPROFAN on 26 May 2011

How To Get 100% in an Exam

Question:

The Information Commissioner's Office is a Complete and Utter Waste of Taxpayers Money as it is Wholly Ineffective. Discuss.

Answer: Yes, it is a complete and utter waste of taxpayers money and is wholly ineffective.

Exam mark. 100%. Go to the top of the class.

By jontym123 on 26 May 2011

Stiggy - what are you on about?

As has already been pointed out, Nicole has not (as far as I know) tried to wriggle out of paying a fine by claiming hardship whilst carrying on living the high life. What a strange post.

By AndyChips on 26 May 2011

I sincerely hope that you continue to collect evidence against this character and that the powers that be act in the end.
If I let 6,000 data records into the wild, I expect I would get a fine of considerably more than £200,000. I don't think pleas of poverty would help.
Please do pass on your findings to the judge in this case. I hope he feels as foolish as he looks.

By DrATty on 26 May 2011

Stiggy - ridiculous post!

PC Pro has not published either the address of the house or the number plate of the car. This is completely responsible journalism. Our society would be a lot better if the press did more of this type of investigative reporting.

By JohnAHind on 26 May 2011

Regarding Stiggy

Sock puppet smells of feet?

By nichomach0 on 26 May 2011

lol

If someone wanted this guys address theres a search engine which has an app or a search called goggles.
Take that picture and using streetview the road will be revealed.
Gotta love that specific search engine.
BTW hackers know his address, because he got death threats and hacks etc..
Hopefully those hackers start messing his life again the same way he did with the people that got letters from his firm.

I hope this prick gets hacked and investigated because his approach was pretty much extortion

By r1sh12 on 26 May 2011

Not surprised

I expected to be flamed for my comments.

I feel everyone has the right to privacy and be treated with respect, even if they are a scumbag.

You will notice I have never condoned the actions of Andrew Crossley or ACS.

By Stiggy on 26 May 2011

Give the guy a break! ;-)

Of course he can only afford £800. Those of us who don't have large houses and a Bentley just don't appreciate the cost of heating and council tax - yet alone the cost of filling up a Bentley's tank every 200 miles!

By CoxJul69 on 26 May 2011

Fantastic piece of work

My thanks to Nicole Kobie for doing what the courts and/or police seemed unable or unwilling to do - that is, investigate whether this man is in fact bending the truth to weasel his way out of his responsibilities.

By mviracca on 26 May 2011

@Stiggy

You have a point, and if the judicial system was even close to working it would be valid.

Unfortunately the legal system has failed, and posting pictures of the Bentley he has access to is a very good way of demonstrating the failure.

As others have pointed out, his address is in the public domain, and the house is visible on Streetview. The only detail not obvious to the casual browser is the Bentley he is too poor to own.

By tirons1 on 26 May 2011

The courts should have just sent the bailiffs around.

I bet that if someone ACS:Law accused lost a court case against them the bailiffs would have been sent around to make sure they paid.

By tech3475 on 26 May 2011

GRRRR this makes me angry!

Where is the evidence that his life was ever threatened?

"I was paid what I was due" - that will be minus one million then?

By revsorg on 26 May 2011

GRRRR this makes me angry!

Where is the evidence that his life was ever threatened?

"I was paid what I was due" - that will be minus one million then?

By revsorg on 26 May 2011

I just clicked refresh after being away from the screen for a while to see if there were any more comments and caused a double post - sorry!

By revsorg on 26 May 2011

"Rumours of my expansive wealth are much exaggerated."

- stated Crossley's second under butler, reading from a prepared statement.

By rozman on 26 May 2011

@revsorg

That is a bug with the PCPro website. After posting a comment you get taken to a page which will repost your comment if you refresh. You are not the first and I doubt you will be the last.

By tirons1 on 26 May 2011

Hang on...

...just because he lives in the house and drives the Bentley doesn't really demonstrate that he is capable of paying a £200,000 fine.

Although he appears to have a higher standard of living than most, it doesn't mean it's all bought and paid for.

However, I agree that £800 seems trivial for a lawyer (an hours work for some) but surely there is something else that is sadly amiss? How come this slippery git isn't doing any time for this?

By Disco181 on 26 May 2011

Privacy and ACS/Crossley adn the judge

Stiggy is quite correct to point out that there is a difference between invasion of privacy and Crossley's breaking of the law.

However, Crossley did put himself into the public eye of his own accord and, like anyone who gets celebrity status (good or bad), attracts media attention and their life is exposed ever more publicly. I don't believe Nicole was out of order in this case.

As for the issue relating to the judge, I don't believe it is appropriate to suggest he was fooled. I understood that the decision to reduce the penalty was made by the ICO and not by the Court. Of course, pointing fingers at the ICO *IS* appropriate as they have repeatedly and demonstrably failed to deliver on their responsibilities since their inception.

By ghirson on 26 May 2011

Oh I'm so hard up

Ever heard of a solicitor who is hard up? At £200 an hour, pull the other one, its got bells on it.

By birdmaniw on 26 May 2011

The wrong questions.

I think these scams are covered up with red herrings - by asking the wrong questions. e.g.
The Christmas hamper company "went bust" owing 44 million. - The question (I think) should have been asked is "who had/has this money?" Not how can we help the people who paid into the scheme. Similarly, the question here should be.. "Were is the money he has obtained?" Not how much is he worth now.
Simply ask the right questions and follow the money. www.mycall.mobi.

By fastfreeads on 26 May 2011

@Stiggy

To some degree, I agree with you. However, I don't think it's fair to say that Andrew Crossley's privacy has been invaded here. The journalist here has not published his address, contact details, car reg plate or anything like that.

It's just a single photograph (or evidence if you want to put it that way) of a house/car..

He extorted thousands of pounds out of people, acted appallingly with the sensitive data he collected, then weaseled out of a thoroughly deserved fine. This photo proves that he could easily pay a £200,000 fine and still end up with far more assets/money than most of his victims.

By Trippynet on 26 May 2011

Good story

Well done to Nicole Koble - one of her best stories I'm sure. Not much to do with computers, but very IT related. Fine dodgers should get no sympathy, no matter who they are or how big the company.

Anyone who cynically abuses the legal system the rest of us have to abide by deserves to be outed like this. Sure, the house is probably in his wife's name, and the Bentley perhaps leased to yet another company.

But I bet there's some serious cash hidden away somewhere too or how would they afford the running costs?

(By the way, £200 an hour isn't salary, it's turnover. It has to pay for employee salaries, commercial property rental costs, Business Rates, and general running costs. Plus, hardly any hourly costed legal services can bill 100% of a billable person's time; it also has to cover non-productive tasks such as training, staff management, administration etc.

By SwissMac on 26 May 2011

He'll probably claim that none of it is his, but all belongs to his "partner". Because they're not married, he can dispute any shared ownership.

By dinkleberry on 26 May 2011

@stiggy

Completely agree. Welcome to the world of Barry "formerly of the Daily Mail" Collins's PC Pro.

By gavmeister on 26 May 2011

What judge?

This fine was issued by the ICO, not by a court of law. As pointed out earlier by happyskeptic. the ICO cannot investigate income so they have to take Crossley's word on this, neither do they have the power to take anyone to court.

Makes me wonder if they have any power to actually collect any fines they issue - Should Crossley decide not to pay, then what? Does the ICO 'fine' him again?

By greemble on 26 May 2011

Good story

He gets away with it . In my case a different story .

I was suffering anxiety and depression when I first got a letter . It tipped me over the top .

I became so ill that I considered doing away with myself . It has put dreadful pressure on my family and due to the illness I now am unable to work or leave the house without my wife .

In my early 60`s , I am never likely to work again .
That bully has a £800 fine . I have an illness that may well have been avoided and certainly lost a great deal of money than £800 .

If you are reading this Crossley , knowing the toe rag you are , I am sure you are having a chuckle at my situation .

I just hope your daughter is really proud that Daddy has a Bentley sitting in the drive .

By Angry on 26 May 2011

He's probably not lying

It was reported that he saw what was coming and ensured that the company's money was moved to other companies. He's not lying because he probably doesn't have much - he's just played the system.

By Mark_Thompson on 26 May 2011

@stiggy et al

Not sure where the huff and puff and faux outrage is coming from. What can you do with a photo of a house? Get some perspective.

By Aspicus on 26 May 2011

Outrageous

wow so basically he shut down his firm just before this ruling was due, thus avoiding a £200k fine. And by also claiming he now had a limited income (without having to provide any proof) he ensured he was only fined £800. There's nothing at all to stop him right now setting up a "new" law firm, even still calling it ACS Law if he wants to and carry on regardless. What an utter bastard.

By Fever555 on 26 May 2011

question?

If it could be proven Crossley still has sizeable assets available could he be criminally charged with something like contempt of court, deception,... ?

By Fever555 on 26 May 2011

The ICO is not fit for purpose.

IF the claims Nicole Kobie make are true, there is a possibility the DISPOSABLE wealth of the Barrister/Solicitor (currently allegedly unemployed)is quite small.

The fact remains that if it had been an ordinary citezen, in exactly the same senerio, they would well have gone to gaol.

IF it is a case the Barrister/Solicitor has lied under oath, he will KNOW that he has committed PERJURY. As a Barrister/Solicitor this will carry worse penalties because he (probably) would be struck off and be sent to gaol.

Do not pass GO -

By lenmontieth on 26 May 2011

@lenmontieth

Liking the capital letters mate.. but here's a few for you

ICO IS NOT COURT.

NO CONTEMPT
NO JUDGE
NO JURY

It is independent from government and would not necessarily need the person to take an oath.

By willdamien on 27 May 2011

@willdamien

Thanks for the response.
I agree with you that the ICO is not a judiciary court.

The ICO, while independent, is a government body.

The ICO's web address in capacity as a public authority is:
internalcompliancedept@ico.gsi.gov.uk

Government has its own Parliamentary court, same as Parliamentary Committees etc of which anyone can be in contempt of.

The ICO acts as both Judge and Jury as an Independent Authority, obtaining its power directly from Parliament.
Interestingly, "Contempt of Parliament" can be subtle and lead to the arrest of anyone.

Any document can be signed under a legal framework:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sworn_declaration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit

The statements are taken under penalty of perjury.

By lenmontieth on 27 May 2011

The issue of whether ICO is a court of not is pretty irrelevant. Surely the key issue is the fitness for purpose of the ICO. It isn't.

By Aspicus on 27 May 2011

bentley

that bentley is probably worth no more than 30k. So no more than a small BMW

By JonH_ on 27 May 2011

sue him

Did anyone who's details were leaked not take civil action against Crossley? For allowing their full details to be leaked and incorrectly linked with pornography he claimed they had downloaded. Surely there'd be a pretty good case to have crossley pay out damages. Some of his victims ought to group together and make a joint attempt to sue him.

By Tezz5 on 27 May 2011

The luxury lifestyle of the "hard-up" file-sharing lawyer Read more: The luxury lifestyle of the "hard-up" file-sharing lawyer | News | PC Pro http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/367624/the-luxury-lifestyle-

a spell of community service would not hurt him, or even compell him to do a low paid job with the wages going to his victims untill he has repaid every penny he demanded with menaces

By invalidscreenname on 28 May 2011

Few thoughts

With regards to suing Crossley for the data leak. Can't be done unless you can show you have suffered as a direct result. AFAIK that is difficult to prove.

There is a potential for suing him for harrassment, indeed a firm of solicitors in Manchester are trying to get enough people to bring a group action against Crossley, however i suspect that you would need to have received more than one letter from ACS to prove that.

WRT to the ICO they have made it perfectly clear that the cost of complying with the DPA is much greater than any fine they could conceivably issue - providing you were willing to close your company down.

The sad thing about this whole debacle is that it has put the anti-piracy crusade back a couple of years because of the greed of one man.

Btw i don't suppose that PCPro will be covering the disciplinary tribunerals for ACS and Davenport Lyons over the next couple of months?

By randalf on 28 May 2011