Yes there is, the screenshot says "You have submitted a defence or part admission".
Can you show us (via Google Maps link ideally) where the car park in question is? The one I think I found, there's a potential argument to be made on the quality of the signage. Can you also show us the full letter you received requiring you to submit a "full defence"?
The full defence needn't be lengthy, but it should address in turn each of G24's allegations. The defence should be your own words, but here are some examples of points you may wish to address:
1. It is denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant.
2. The defendant is unable to admit or deny that they were the driver, due to having little recollection the alleged event due to the significant time taken for the claimant to issue the claim, but they require the claimant to prove this.
3. The defendant is unable to admit or deny that a term was breached, however, it is denied that a contract was formed between the driver and the claimant. The alleged contractual terms were not prominently displayed at the site, failing to meet the standards required by the relevant industry codes of practice, and failing to provide the driver with adequate notice of any contractual obligations by which they would be bound. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.
4. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date of the event, but it is denied that the claimant is able to pursue the defendant as the registered keeper pursuant to PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, having failed to meet the necessary provisions to do so, namely:
(a) The claimant having failed to give "adequate notice" of the parking charge that could be incurred by virtue of parking on the relevant land, as required by paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3).
(b) The sum of the parking charge and damages exceeds the maximum sum recoverable, that sum being the amount specified in the notice to keeper, as per Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA, that sum in this case being £100. The additional £70 would appear to be an attempt at double recovery
5. It is denied that the interest claimed by the defendant should be allowed. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant.
