3 June 2025: Elms Legal issued an original Letter of Claim (LoC), stating a deadline for payment of 30 July 2025, which is inconsistent with their own assertion that the letter expired “30 days from the date provided.”
10 June 2025: I received the original LoC. Under the PAPDC, the 30-day period would have expired on 3 July 2025 if otherwise compliant.
17 June 2025: I issued a detailed response under paragraph 6(b) of the PAPDC, pointing out procedural deficiencies and requesting documentation and information that they are obliged to provide prior to commencing proceedings.
25 June 2025: Elms Legal issued an “Amended LBC” that:
• Retrospectively shortened the response deadline from 30 July to 3 July 2025.
• Failed to restart the 30-day response clock, despite reissuing the LoC.
• Contained an internally contradictory statement: it first asserted the expiry date was 3 July 2025, and then stated that proceedings would commence if payment was not made by [blank]—leaving the due date completely unspecified.
• Ignored my 17 June response entirely and failed to provide any of the requested documents.
1. Failure to Respond to Protocol-Compliant Requests Elms Legal has disregarded their obligations under paragraph 6(b) of the PAPDC by failing to respond to my legitimate request for documentation before proceeding to court.
2. Procedural Inconsistencies and Ambiguity Their amended letter introduced confusion by attempting to retroactively alter deadlines and omitting key information (e.g. the due date for payment). This contradicts the expectation of clarity and transparency demanded of regulated legal professionals.
3. Breach of the CILEx Code of Conduct The conduct of Elms Legal likely breaches the following CILEx Principles:
• Principle 2 – Uphold the rule of law and proper administration of justice.
• Principle 4 – Maintain trust and confidence in legal services.
• Principle 5 – Deliver a competent and diligent service.
• Principle 6 – Deal with regulators openly and cooperatively.