Based on the justifications provided by CDER, it is clear that issuing a Rule 6 Notice under the Pre-Action Conduct and Protocol is not just a suggestion, but a strategic move that can significantly enhance your case. This approach is more effective than relying on a Subject Access Request (SAR).
CDER has proactively set its own deadlines, underscoring the importance of issuing a Rule 6 Notice.
When CDER fails to comply with a Rule 6 Notice for the exchange of information and evidence, or they seek to delegate responsibility to a third party, it will seriously weaken any defence if you decide to pursue a claim for breaching the Enforcement Provisions. The court will view CDER's non-compliance as a sign of their unwillingness to cooperate, which could significantly impact their case.
Moreover, the deadlines under Rule 6 are more rigorous, compelling CDER to adhere to your timeline. This means that you can expect a more prompt and efficient exchange of information, which can be crucial in legal proceedings.
By contrast, the informal nature of communication under a SAR, combined with the absence of penalties for non-compliance, offers little leverage when dealing with bailiffs.