Have you ever encountered a situation where a settlement agreement has been signed by your client without your knowledge?
A number of our solicitor clients have recently observed a concerning trend among some social landlords, including local authorities, attending directly upon tenants to obtain signatures on alleged “settlement agreements”. These attendances can appear designed to bypass the Claimant’s solicitors and often result in agreements that lack clarity around key matters such as the scope of works to be carried out, the relevant timescales, and the position on costs.
Where this occurs, it is important to remember that procedural tools are available to obtain clarity about the circumstances in which those agreements were obtained.
The role of CPR Part 18 requests
In appropriate circumstances, CPR Part 18 requests may be used to obtain further detail regarding the circumstances surrounding such attendances.
This may include seeking clarification as to:
- who attended upon the tenant
- who instructed or authorised the attendance
- the purpose of the visit
- the circumstances in which the alleged agreement was obtained
Where the individual involved is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, such conduct may engage paragraph 1.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct. If regulated by the Bar Standards Board, the conduct may engage Core Duty 3 and/or Rule C9, as clarified in guidance gC24.
At the very least, the apparent circumvention of the Claimant’s solicitor may give rise to an appearance of impropriety, which may become relevant when the court considers costs.
Costs implications under CPR 44.11
Under CPR 44.11, the court may take into account improper or unreasonable conduct when assessing costs.
Part 18 questions may therefore legitimately be raised to clarify the nature and extent of such conduct where irregular or unusual attendances have taken place.
If those questions are ignored, it may be appropriate to apply for an order compelling responses.
A recent successful application
Your Legal Costs were recently successful in such an application against a London local authority, with the court directing that if answers were not provided within 21 days, the Bill of Costs would be assessed as drawn.
This outcome serves as a useful reminder that Part 18 requests remain an effective procedural tool where clarity is required about the conduct of the parties and the circumstances surrounding disputed agreements.
Not just a tool for Paying Parties
There is a long history of Paying Parties using Part 18 requests to attempt to reduce their costs liability. Familiar examples include disputes over the breakdown of medical report invoices where agencies are involved, such as:
- Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust v Hoskin (County Court at Manchester, HHJ Bird, 22 May 2023)
- JXX v Archibald [2025] EWHC 69 (SCCO)
However, it is worth remembering that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
Part 18 remains a procedural tool that Receiving Parties may also deploy where appropriate.
A practical reminder for Claimant solicitors
Whether this approach is appropriate will depend on the facts of the individual case. For example, where a Claimant has ceased to provide instructions or becomes uncooperative, it may instead be more appropriate to pursue these issues as part of a PAD application in connection with prospective proceedings for inducement to break a retainer.
However, where concerns arise around attempts to circumvent Claimant solicitors, Part 18 requests can provide a useful mechanism for obtaining clarity and protecting the Receiving Party’s position on costs.
Swift Actions. Results that Resonate. Clients First.
If you would like to discuss costs strategy or procedural approaches in housing disrepair or related litigation, the team at Your Legal Costs would be pleased to assist via instructions@yourlegalcosts.co.uk or 0151 449 0005.