At the moment, the Civil Procedure Rules only have pre-action protocols for clinical negligence, defamation, construction/engineering disputes and personal injury. However the Practice Direction for these protocols does have a section called “pre action behaviour in other cases” which says….(posted 8547 days ago)“..that the court will expect the parties, in accordance with the overriding objective and the matters referred to in CPR 1.1(2)(a), (b) and (c), to act reasonably in exchanging information and documents relevant to the claim and generally in trying to avoid the necessity for the start of proceedings.”
CPR 1.1(2)(a),(b),(c) says that the Rules have the overall objective of enabling the Courts to deal with a case justly, and that includes:
“ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
a. saving expense; b. dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate - i. to the amount of money involved; ii. to the importance of the case; iii. to the complexity of the issues; and iv. to the financial position of each party;
c. ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;….”
I think that we can all agree that in most cases, the lenders are not acting reasonably in exchanging information.
If anyone was writing to their lender and quoted the above, I think it might help. Even if the lender/solicitor still didn’t co-operate, it shows at least that we’ve done our homework – we know our rights, we’re aware of the rules, and that we’re not going to be walked over.
As to the question of limitation. I found a barrister in London who is willing to give me an opinion, however its got to be in writing and through a solicitor, which obviously is going to cost me money, but I certainly think it will be worth it.