I'm assuming that the pack included all sorts of evidence that they intend to rely on. While a "reply to the defence" may rebut new matters raised in the defence, this document improperly introduces evidence, legal argument and new factual assertions that should be reserved for a witness statement or amended PoC.
It includes factual claims (ANPR images, signage content, grace periods [sic]) and it attaches signage plans. This is inadmissible at this stage. Evidence belongs in a witness statement under CPR 32.4.
Their reply to the defence attempts to cure defects in the PoC and reframe the claim by quoting
Beavis, referencing the PPSCoP and asserting contractual formation. These are not rebuttals - they are new arguments.
At this stage, you don't need to do anything in response to the claimant’s reply to the defence. The reply is not evidence and does not change the course of the case. It’s just a pleading, and you are not allowed to file a further statement of case without the court’s permission.
However, you should be aware that the reply is procedurally defective in several ways. It improperly includes factual claims and attachments (like signage and ANPR data) that should be in a witness statement, not a reply. It also tries to fix the original claim’s lack of detail by adding new arguments and quoting case law, which is not allowed at this stage. If the claimant wanted to expand their case, they should have applied to amend their PoC.
The reply also wrongly claims that you must file an N244 to correct the tick box error on the acknowledgment of service. That’s incorrect—the defence clearly states the claim is defended in full, and the court can treat the tick box as a clerical error under CPR 3.10.
You now need to wait for the court to issue directions, which will include a deadline for witness statements. When that time comes, you can raise objections to the reply—for example, by pointing out that it contains evidence and new arguments that should be disregarded. Until then, you should not file anything further unless ordered to do so.
When the time comes for submitting witness statements, you will be able to include something along these lines in your WS that highlights to the judge that the claimant is trying to teach them how to "suck eggs":
The Claimant’s reply includes commentary on how the court process should be conducted, including instructions on how the Defendant should amend their defence and how the court should manage further filings. I respectfully submit that such commentary is unnecessary and risks undermining the court’s role in managing its own procedure.
