⚠ Important — please read this first. The guidance and templates in the FtP Navigator are general information for UK regulated professionals. They are not legal advice, and reading or using them does not create a solicitor—client relationship with Regulation Resolution Solicitors Ltd. Every case turns on its own facts and evidence, regulators change their rules and guidance, and a template used in the wrong situation can damage your case. You use this material entirely at your own risk: to the fullest extent permitted by law, Regulation Resolution Solicitors Ltd accepts no responsibility or liability for any loss arising from reliance on it. If your case involves dishonesty, sexual misconduct, criminal proceedings, vulnerable patients or an interim order hearing — or if you are unsure about anything — take specialist legal advice before acting.
How to use this page. Read it at the stage your case has reached, and bookmark it now so you can come straight back when you need it — press Ctrl+D (Windows) or Cmd+D (Mac) on a computer, or tap the share icon → "Add bookmark" on your phone. Fitness to practise cases run for months; you will want this page again. If you’re not sure where your case is up to, start at the FtP Navigator hub and follow the stages in order.
A holding response is a short, position-preserving letter to the Investigating Committee or Case Examiners that puts down a clear, organised denial and reserves your position on the merits — without committing to a detailed factual account. This free, solicitor-drafted holding response template avoids the biggest risk at this stage: silence, which examiners are entitled to read adversely.
It is the companion to our guide on how to respond to the case examiners and the alternative to the full substantive response template. The choice between the two is the key strategic decision at this stage — make it deliberately, and record why.
When should you send a holding response?
Send a holding response when engaging with the merits now would harm you more than help you. That typically means: disclosure of the investigation material is plainly incomplete and you are still pressing for it; the investigation is at an early stage and the case has not been fully formulated; the matters in dispute turn on finely balanced credibility issues best assessed on live evidence; or your position is best protected by an organised denial without committing to any particular factual matrix.
Understand the trade-off before you choose this route: you forgo the opportunity to close the case at this stage, the case proceeds towards a substantive hearing (and possibly interim order proceedings), and costs, insurance disclosure obligations and third-party engagement continue. If you have full disclosure and a clear, evidenced account, the full response is usually the stronger play.
How do you use this template?
Replace every square-bracketed prompt with your case-specific content, select only the reasons in section 2 that genuinely apply (delete the rest), and adapt the committee name to your regulator. The template is written for a represented registrant; if responding in person, convert to the first person. Even a holding response is on the record — proofread it against anything you have already said to the regulator or your employer.
Practice tip. The most important sections are 2 (why a fuller response is not provided) and 3 (reservation of position). Be specific about what disclosure is outstanding — a vague complaint about disclosure persuades no one.
The template
(Free to read and copy on the page. Working precedent — adapt to your case and regulator. Not legal advice; use at your own risk.)
[Firm letterhead / your name and address]
[Regulator name and address] · [Regulator case reference] · [Date]
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Sirs,
Re: [Registrant name] — [registration number] — [regulator case reference]
We are instructed by [Registrant] (“our client”). Please ensure that future correspondence in this matter is directed to this firm.
We write in response to your letter of [date]. Our client is grateful for the opportunity to make written representations to the [Investigating Committee / Case Examiners].
1. The registrant’s position in summary
The allegations are denied [or — partially admitted as set out below].
Our client has at all times sought to engage with the regulator’s investigation in a constructive and timely way. He has [confirmed the position to date / provided documents / attended interview / corrected matters of factual inaccuracy] as requested.
Our client maintains the categorical denial of [the allegations / the pleaded particulars / the suggestion that any conduct was sexually motivated and / or sexual in nature].
2. Why a fuller written response is not provided at this stage
[Select one or more — adapt to facts, delete the rest:]
Disclosure of investigation material remains incomplete; specifically, the items identified at [item / category / date] are outstanding. We have raised this with [the regulator’s case officer / investigator] by letter / email dated [date], and our client should not be required to commit to a substantive position on the merits until full disclosure is to hand.
The regulator’s investigation is, on the face of the papers, ongoing. [Identify the specific outstanding investigation steps — further witness statements; expert reports; employer disclosure; clinical records.] It would not be proportionate to commit on contested matters before that material is available.
The pleaded particulars are imprecise and our client cannot reasonably be expected to commit on a moving evidential picture. Specifically, [identify the imprecision].
The matters in dispute turn on finely-balanced credibility issues that can be properly assessed only by reference to live evidence. Reducing the registrant’s position to a single written narrative at this stage would risk distorting matters that should be properly tested at any substantive hearing.
3. Reservation of position
Our client reserves his position in full on the substantive merits of all allegations.
In particular, our client reserves the right to: provide a substantive written response if and when the outstanding disclosure / investigation steps are completed; raise legal submissions, including on the real prospect test, misconduct, sexual motivation and current impairment; rely on contemporaneous and current evidence as to fitness to practise; advance any procedural or fairness submissions, including on the conduct of the investigation.
Nothing in this letter should be taken as an admission of any fact, allegation or characterisation pleaded against him. Where matters are admitted, that is identified expressly. Where matters are denied or not admitted, that is identified expressly.
4. What our client invites the Committee to do
We invite the [Investigating Committee / Case Examiners] to direct that the regulator complete the outstanding investigation steps and disclosure within a stipulated period.
On completion of disclosure, our client will provide a full written response, accompanied by his bundle of supporting documents, within [21 / 28] days of receipt.
In the alternative, if the Committee is minded to proceed without further disclosure, we ask for the matter to be listed for an oral hearing so that the matters in dispute can be fairly tested.
We further ask that no decision to refer the matter to a substantive hearing be taken without the registrant having a meaningful opportunity to make full written representations on a complete evidential picture.
5. Current impairment — preserved position
Without prejudice to the registrant’s primary position that the allegations are denied and that the matter does not cross the real prospect threshold, we briefly identify the following matters relevant to current impairment, to be expanded on in any substantive response.
Our client has [N] years’ service in the profession, with no prior complaints, conduct concerns or disciplinary findings. He continues to practise [in his current role] without any concerns having arisen.
A short bundle of current professional documentation is enclosed [or — will follow]. It includes the registrant’s up-to-date CV, current training documents, and [N] testimonials from clients / colleagues. We invite the Committee to consider these documents with care.
6. Procedural matters
We are content to receive future correspondence by [email at the address below / post]. Please copy us into all communications with the registrant.
We confirm that the registrant is available to attend any hearing in this matter on reasonable notice. Please give as much notice of any listed date as the regulator’s rules permit.
Our client is content for the regulator to engage with the firm directly on all procedural matters, including timetabling, disclosure, and listing.
7. Reservation in the alternative
If, contrary to the position set out above, the Committee proceeds to consider the matter substantively at this stage, our client invites it to apply the established principles on the real prospect test, misconduct and impairment, and to find that the threshold for referral is not met. Detailed written submissions and supporting evidence will be provided on request or before any oral hearing.
Yours faithfully, [Signed] · [Firm name] · [Solicitor / Counsel] · [Date]
[END OF TEMPLATE]
Working precedent — adapt to your case and regulator. Not legal advice; use at your own risk.
Frequently asked questions
What is a holding response?
A holding response is a short letter to the case examiners or Investigating Committee that records a clear, organised denial, explains specifically why a fuller response is not being provided yet — usually incomplete disclosure — and expressly reserves your position on the merits, without committing you to a detailed factual account.
When should I send a holding response to my regulator?
When disclosure is plainly incomplete, the investigation is still ongoing, the pleaded allegations are imprecise, or the dispute turns on finely balanced credibility issues best tested in live evidence. If you have full disclosure and a clear, evidenced account, a full substantive response is usually the stronger option.
Is staying silent at the case examiner stage a mistake?
Yes. At every regulator, silence is taken adversely — the examiners are entitled to assume you have nothing material to add. A holding response avoids that risk: it engages constructively with the process while preserving every substantive argument for later.
What should a holding response include?
A summary denial, specific reasons why a fuller response is premature, an express reservation of position, requests to the Committee (complete disclosure, a timetable for your full response, no referral without a fair opportunity to respond), brief preserved impairment points, and procedural housekeeping — nothing that commits you on disputed facts.
- SRA-regulated
- Google 5-star rating
- Lines open 24/7
- Free 30-minute consultation
Need help deciding between a holding and a full response?
Speak to a specialist fitness to practise solicitor today. Call +44 (0)208 088 5161 for a fixed-fee quote — our lines are open 24/7 and your first 30-minute consultation is free. Or email [email protected] / book a free case assessment.
← Back to the explainer: How to respond to the case examiners. See also the full substantive response template. For help, speak to our fitness to practise solicitors.
This page is general information, not legal advice. No liability is accepted for reliance on it. Rules and guidance change — always check the current position or take specialist advice.