DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 76961--------------------------------------------------
Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: whiteleggy
Date: June 18, 2025, 4:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello all,
I received a parking charge notice from National Parking Control
(npc)
The stated reasoning is "Parked in an area where parking is
prohibited"
The observed time is 18:53:47-18:55:12
I was un-loading for Amazon Flex
They have supplied an image of the vehicle over these times and
finally an image of the parking sign
I appealed directly and it was denied
My appeal consisted of a screenshot of my amazon flex app
showing I was delivering at the time, I stated that I was not
parked, but un-loading, and that I took took time to read
signage and left as there is nothing about unloading on the
sign, just parking.
Evidence I have:
Amazon App - I have the block time and date proving I was
working at the time
Screenshots - I have a screenshot of the overall block route,
plotted on a map showing I was in that area at the time
I also have a screenshot of one of the apartment block
addresses, proving I was on site (I do not have the second
address, but I delivered two to the same building, the only
reason I have the address screenshotted is due to seeing my own
apartment complex as a delivery stop, I found it amusing and
just so happened to catch this one.
The address in question also states a completed delivery time of
"Delivered at 18:54"
Google Maps: Google maps timeline showing me zig-zagging across
that area, for no reason other than to deliver I can argue
I had to deliver two packages to the apartment complex, both
requiring separate trips as well as a wait time for the resident
to buzz me in and collect
I have contacted Amazon to see if they can simply provide me
with confirmation that I was delivering to XXX Avenue to
building XXX without them having to confirm too many customer
details, I don't think they will comply however.
My current plan of action is to not pay the £60, and let the
matter reach court once I ignore the debt collectors.
I do have the option of a IAS appeal, do I take this?
I shall add images of the alleged contravention to see what you
guys think, I cannot add the screenshots of the route or snippet
of delivery itinerary on, but do you think that with these bits
of evidence I would successfully be able to argue (with some
more structure) that I was loading, and not parking? And
therefore the charge is not applicable?
Thanks and any advice appreciated
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 76977--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: RichardW
Date: June 18, 2025, 5:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There's little point in appealing to IAS, they almost never
uphold any appeals.
Please post the PCN. What did you say in your appeal?
#Post#: 76988--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 18, 2025, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Stopping for 1 minute and 25 seconds is not parking, I agree.
And that’s their evidence, not yours.
#Post#: 76990--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: whiteleggy
Date: June 18, 2025, 6:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve attached the charge letter to the first post just now,
should be visible
My appeal consisted of a screenshot of my amazon flex app
showing I was delivering at the time, I stated that I was not
parked, but un-loading, and that I took took time to read
signage and left the Carpark and did not enter the contract as
there is nothing about unloading on the sign, just parking
Maybe I shouldn’t have appealed in this way, I wish I’d
consulted here first but I don’t think it matters since they
didn’t respond to any of my comments and state their evidence
shows parking which nope, it just shows a stationary car which
could be loading (which I was)
#Post#: 77025--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: b789
Date: June 18, 2025, 9:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you follow the advice here, you will not be paying a penny to
NPC. However, you will not win this with any appeal. It will go
all the way to a court claim where we will advise on how to
defend it and eventually the claim will either be struck out or
discontinued.
Are you prepared to follow the advice and fight or are you
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will eventually pay
up out of ignorance and fear?
For starters, by appealing and identifying as the driver, you
have already blow away the no Keeper liability defence. Thisis
because you should only have appealed as the Keeper of the
vehicle and referred to the driver in the third person. Until
you blabbed that you, the known Keeper, were also the unknown
driver, they had no idea who the driver was.
Because their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with PoFA
paragraph 9(2)(a), they could not hold the known Keeper if the
unknown drivers identity was known. That useful defence has now
gone.
However... the same reason that they have failed to comply with
PoFA 9(2)(a), also means that they have not evidenced that the
vehicle was stopped for longer than the minimum consideration
period for a contract to have been formed by conduct. The
BPA/IPC PPSCoP section 5.1 requires that a minimum 5 minute
consideration period is required, in order to allow the driver
to seek out and find the signs, read and decide whether to
accept the terms and conditions of parking before issuing a PCN.
Also, basic contract law requires a consideration period for a
contract by conduct to be formed. Without this evidence, they
can't prove that a contract was formed with the driver and any
judge worth his salt would throw it out of court.
So, if you want to avoid paying a penny to NPC, are you prepared
to follow the advice and fight this? If not, then I won't bother
providing further advice unless you confirm that you don't want
to waste your hard earned money paying NCP.
#Post#: 77121--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: whiteleggy
Date: June 19, 2025, 3:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> If you follow the advice here, you will not be paying a penny
to NPC. However, you will not win this with any appeal. It will
go all the way to a court claim where we will advise on how to
defend it and eventually the claim will either be struck out or
discontinued.
>
> Are you prepared to follow the advice and fight or are you
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will eventually pay
up out of ignorance and fear?
>
> For starters, by appealing and identifying as the driver, you
have already blow away the no Keeper liability defence. Thisis
because you should only have appealed as the Keeper of the
vehicle and referred to the driver in the third person. Until
you blabbed that you, the known Keeper, were also the unknown
driver, they had no idea who the driver was.
>
> Because their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with
PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a), they could not hold the known Keeper if
the unknown drivers identity was known. That useful defence has
now gone.
>
> However... the same reason that they have failed to comply
with PoFA 9(2)(a), also means that they have not evidenced that
the vehicle was stopped for longer than the minimum
consideration period for a contract to have been formed by
conduct. The BPA/IPC PPSCoP section 5.1 requires that a minimum
5 minute consideration period is required, in order to allow the
driver to seek out and find the signs, read and decide whether
to accept the terms and conditions of parking before issuing a
PCN.
>
> Also, basic contract law requires a consideration period for a
contract by conduct to be formed. Without this evidence, they
can't prove that a contract was formed with the driver and any
judge worth his salt would throw it out of court.
>
> So, if you want to avoid paying a penny to NPC, are you
prepared to follow the advice and fight this? If not, then I
won't bother providing further advice unless you confirm that
you don't want to waste your hard earned money paying NCP.
>
--- End Quote ---
Good Morning
I thoroughly enjoyed your response, I admit I knew I had messed
up by appealing, it was a reaction stemmed from emotion, I shall
no longer do this on the matter.
Although I did tick the "registered keeper" and not the "I was
the driver" box, I understand by blabbing I have lost that
defence, ignorance on my part, good to know for next time.
Normally I am the gullible person who would pay, but as a matter
of principle I do not want to give them a penny of my money, I
work two jobs for my daughter, not to pay them more than the
entire amount I earned on the night, irrelevant but I hope this
echos how irritated I am at this appeal denial, it baffles me
how any sane person can sit there and deny an person with
obvious merit to be there and clearly not trying to circumvent
parking rules, simply doing my job.
Thank you so much for providing the PoFA 9(2)(a) argument, I
argued the same thing, although in layman's terms without
paraphrasing anything so moot point
So are my next steps to essentially do nothing/ignore everything
until a letter before action I assume? Sod the next appeal
correct?
I am prepared to fight this, all the way, in fact after reading
your response I think I relish the idea of fighting it.
#Post#: 77123--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 19, 2025, 3:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, do nothing, ignore anything from debt collectors but come
back when you receive a Letter of Claim which needs a response.
#Post#: 77135--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: b789
Date: June 19, 2025, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You will find this a valuable "life lesson" and well worth the
fight.
#Post#: 96235--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: whiteleggy
Date: October 30, 2025, 2:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/KiXVkMX
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/KiXVent
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/KiXVNtI
Hi Guys,
Received the money claim today! Dated 23rd Oct so I may need to
move fast with my response.
I've attached the particulars of the case which is "Parked in
area where parking is prohibited"
I also stupidly did not keep screenshots of the individual
images they supplied, not sure if that matters but I've attached
what I do have, as well as the bits I kept from my initial post
(amazon flex app showing address matching the area, google maps
timeline evidence I was delivering and not looking to or
intending to park etc)
I'm not sure I go down the route of me loading and not parking,
as I did in my appeal, using my amazon flex app screenshots, or
if I argue the observed time as stated on their letter being
18:53:47-18:55:12 and well under the 5 minute guidelines under
POFA? But does me already admitting to delivering for Amazon and
therefore unloading negate that 5 minute grace period? Arghhh!!
Any advice or guidance appreciated!
#Post#: 96247--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: b789
Date: October 30, 2025, 3:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please show the whole claim form. Only redact the claim number,
your personal details and MCOL password. We need to see the name
of the claimant and who is acting for them. However, that looks
very much like a DCB Legal claim. Also, who has signed the claim
(on the back of the form).
As it is likely a DCB Legal issued claim, with an issue date of
23rd October you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th November to
submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service
(AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 25th
November to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare
your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the
instructions in this linked PDF:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a
defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on
MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the
122 lines limit.
--- Quote ---
> 1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The
Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and
that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not
adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
>
> 2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of
Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to
the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
>
> (b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
>
> (c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts);
>
> (d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly
where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach
occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
>
> (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
>
> (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
>
> (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
>
> 4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck
out materially similar claims of their own initiative for
failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where
the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient
clarity.
>
> 5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have
found that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant
submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites
the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR
16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:
>
> Draft Order:
>
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
>
> AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they
do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of
the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are)
relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in
breach of contract.
>
> AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had
it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could
have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the
overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be
disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any
further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for
example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further
defence, with consequent case management).
>
> ORDER:
>
> 1. The claim is struck out.
>
> 2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
This will never reach a hearing if it is a DCB Legal issued
claim.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page