Yes, you absolutely still have solid grounds — both for your formal complaint to Elms Legal and your regulatory complaint to the SRA — even with the updated date of 4 June 2025 for their reply.
Here’s why:
1. Issuing a Claim the Day After Stating the Case Is "On Hold" Is Still a BreachIf Elms Legal’s reply was sent on 4 June and the claim was issued on 5 June, then:
• The claim was prepared and submitted before or at the time of their 4 June response;
• Their statement that the matter was “on hold until 4 July” was made knowing that the claim had either already been submitted to the court or was about to be;
• That is still a deliberate misrepresentation or at best, reckless disregard for the truth.
This means:
• They misled you as to the procedural status of the dispute,
• They withheld knowledge of imminent litigation, which the Pre-Action Protocol expressly aims to avoid.
PAPDC paragraph 7.1 requires both parties to provide full and honest information to avoid litigation where possible. Saying “the matter is on hold” while already triggering litigation is the very opposite.
2. The Pre-Action Protocol Does Not Require a Delay After Response, But It Does Require Fairness and TransparencyEven though the PAPDC does not set a fixed waiting period after a reply is received, it requires:
• Reasonable time to exchange information,
• Good faith efforts to resolve or clarify issues before court action,
• No ambush tactics or misleading behaviour.
Elms Legal’s assurance that the matter was on hold created a legitimate expectation that no court proceedings would be issued before 4 July. That expectation was violated.
3. The Formal Complaint to Elms Is Still Entirely JustifiedThe fact that their “on hold” response was issued the day before the claim date does not help them. Instead, it reinforces that:
• They likely already knew the claim was about to be issued,
• They had full control over when to submit or hold the claim,
• They issued the response in a calculated attempt to give a false sense of delay.
This still amounts to:
• Procedural misconduct,
• Misuse of the pre-action process, and
• Abuse of the Defendant’s trust and legal position.
So, yes, you still have strong and legitimate grounds for:
• A formal complaint to Elms Legal,
• A regulatory complaint to the SRA,
• A strike-out or costs application under CPR 3.4(2)(d) and 27.14(2)(g).
The date change does not weaken your position. It actually confirms how tight the sequence was and how the misleading nature of their conduct cannot be dismissed as oversight.
As long as you have adjusted everything to reflect the correct 4 June date, it's good to go.
