header-logo header-logo

Pre-action Protocol Number 13: unlucky for some?

22 February 2018 / Peter Thompson KC
Issue: 7782 / Categories: Opinion , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
nlj_7782_thompson_0

The latest pre-action protocol for debt claims creates extra hoops for creditors to navigate, says Peter Thompson QC

Pre-action Protocol No 13, in force since 1 October 2017, provides extra hoops through which financial institutions and other creditors are expected to jump before having recourse to the courts. The broad aim is to deter creditors from using the courts for debt recovery. Since April 2015, Protocol No 1 has covered the same ground less prescriptively: it laid down that ‘litigation should be a last resort’ and a creditor should be expected, before issuing proceedings, to allow the debtor 14 days to respond to a detailed statement of the claim, a summary of the facts and the disclosure of relevant documents. Protocol 13 goes further and requires, in addition, the delivery of 10 pages of documents including an information sheet, a response form and a statement of income and expenditure and allowing 30 days for the debtor to respond. This must be the biggest turn-off for creditors since the Grayling hike

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll