Yes and no, It is not the same as a DCA pursuing the case. In these cases there is no demonstratable loss that could be linked to an individual, we aren't talking technicalities with regards to collection of money, we are talking the entire premise of there being any debt at all being flawed. They are not suggesting you are indebted to them at all. The evidence that would be provided for a CCJ with regards to debt collection in a county court is entirely different to intellectual property cases, of which there is no current UK precedent, which would likely be heard in the high court. If you disagree then it's entirely your prerogative, but if you do choose to ignore the letters you are likely to be putting yourself at statistically greater risk than those that refute the allegations outright. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but I'd suggest you allow new posters to do their own research rather than encouraging them simply to throw the letters away and ignore them.

As much as people may wish to think so, this is not a honeytrap, logistep et al simply monitor connections on existing files (followed by verification at the end of the monitoring period). They claim not to upload any data. There is nothing illegal about their data collection under current UK law. Additionally, the ISPs are complying with a legal order to release details. If you ring them, they will state as such. However, they are not contesting these orders in court. This is why such fragile evidence is able to compel an ISP to hand over your details, the ISPs do not see it as in their interests to defend you. Again, the data handover is fully legitimate whilst unchallenged. I'm afraid all of this is simply rehashing old questions though, I'd strongly encourage anyone finding this thread from recent mailings to do a bit of googling and further research around the matter before asking the same questions over and over! Best of luck to all the new recipients. Don't panic, stand strong, you are not alone.

Mr Ton, I realise you are a regular here and have a great deal of experience with the typical cases you see on CAG. Unfortunately this kind of thing is coming at individuals from a slightly different angle. The letters are not a demand for payment of debt, but an agreement to settle with the litigant, via their chosen solicitor, currently ACS:Law. Failing to respond is, as you say not necessarily the end of any challenge, as strictly speaking this would start with court documents. However, it is important to note that unlike many debt collections etc, there is no technical obligation to pay in these cases. Due to the legal precedent that would undoubtedly be set, they would also not be heard on the small claims track. As such, both litigants and defendants have a legal obligation under pre-trial protocol to engage in discovery (as far as possible) in order to demonstrate to a judge they have both attempted to reduce costs. Whilst ACS appear very lax in their attempts to follow the guide (by disclosing nothing further on request), the defendant refusing to do so may result in higher costs to the defendant if any case does reach court. The other important consideration is that there have been 4 previous cases settled out of court (or defaulted) by Davenport Lyons. It is highly likely that these people were selected as either having partially admitted guilt, or simply did not respond (and therefore seemed likely to continue to do so). Whilst responding will open you to further correspondance, it will ensure you are complying with pre-trial protocol, and hence have a better basis for arguing costs, and make it less likely to be pursued to court as a possible default judgment by ACS Law. As a first time poster here, I will not repeat the URL again, but note that previous posters have pointed to beingthreatened, which was set up to address these cases and provide somewhat of a basis to respond. Of course, the final choice of how to respond (or not) lies with the individual, but i'd strongly encourage people to do so. Edit: Also, as stated by Mr Ton, please do log complaints with relevant bodies, including (but not limited to): Your local MP and MEP The SRA Local Media The ICO Your ISP (please focus this complaint not on the fact they handed over the data, but that they did not defend the Norwich Pharmacal order - see Slyck or beingthreatened for further info) Cheers, Renegade.