DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 118923--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: whiteleggy
Date: May 17, 2026, 1:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
bump!
#Post#: 118937--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: Dave65
Date: May 17, 2026, 4:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Strange, if you submitted b789`s defence it said the defence
denies claim.
#Post#: 118942--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: whiteleggy
Date: May 17, 2026, 5:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> 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 Claimants 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 Courts 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.
[/quote]
Yeah this is the defence I submitted and it literally says in
the first line "The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety".
I'm not sure if I should pushback and re-iterate my current
defence (probably a bad idea, given the judge clearly doesn't
like it)
Or I should change my defence and tackle the main facts of my
point being:
The vehicle was not parked it was stationary for 1 minute 25
seconds while actively unloading Amazon Flex deliveries
A contract by conduct cannot be formed in under 5 minutes
(BPA/IPC Code of Practice minimum consideration period)
I have evidence: the app showing delivered at 18:54, Google Maps
timeline, the delivery address matching the location
The signage contained no prohibition on unloading
Not sure if I should accept to a paper disposal either, guidance
appreciated but if there's no advice I may just accept it,
change my defence and hope for the best, perhaps I should've
paid the £100 mediation settlement figure after all, arghhhh!
#Post#: 119047--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: whiteleggy
Date: May 18, 2026, 7:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is my proposed amended defence
AMENDED DEFENCE
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT MANCHESTER
Claim No: [XXXX]
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL PARKING CONTROL GROUP LIMITED (Claimant)
and
[YOUR NAME] (Defendant)
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.
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle
registration [XXX] and was the driver at the material time. The
claim is denied in its entirety for the reasons set out below.
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.
2. It is denied that the vehicle was "parked in an area where
parking is prohibited" as alleged. The Claimant's own evidence
shows the vehicle was stationary at the location for 1 minute
and 25 seconds only (18:53:47 to 18:55:12). The Defendant's
version of events, pursuant to CPR 16.5(2)(b), is as follows.
3. At the material time the Defendant was working as a
self-employed delivery driver under contract to Amazon Logistics
UK Limited (trading as Amazon Flex), undertaking deliveries on a
pre-allocated delivery block.
4. The vehicle was momentarily stopped for the sole purpose of
unloading parcels and delivering them on foot to residents of
the apartment building at the location. A delivery to that very
building is recorded in the Amazon Flex application as completed
at 18:54, falling squarely within the 1 minute 25 second window
relied upon by the Claimant.
5. The Defendant denies that the act of momentarily stopping a
delivery vehicle to unload constitutes "parking." The Defendant
will rely on the County Court appeal decision of His Honour
Judge Charles Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd
[2016] B9GF0A9E, in which it was held that brief stopping for
the purpose of unloading is not "parking" in the ordinary sense
and does not engage parking restrictions of this kind. While
Jopson concerned a resident's right to unload, the underlying
principle that loading/unloading is functionally and legally
distinct from parking applies with equal force to a delivery
driver lawfully unloading goods at the same destination.
6. Further or alternatively, it is denied that any contract was
formed between the Defendant and the Claimant. A contract by
conduct in these circumstances requires a reasonable
consideration period during which a driver may locate, read and
decide whether to accept the terms of the signage. The
International Parking Community Code of Practice (in force at
the material time) and the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (in force from 1 October 2024) each prescribe a minimum
5-minute consideration period. A stop of 1 minute 25 seconds
falls well below that threshold, and the Claimant has adduced no
evidence capable of establishing acceptance of any contractual
terms.
7. In any event, the signage relied upon by the Claimant makes
no reference to a prohibition on unloading, loading or stopping
for the purposes of delivery. The Defendant denies that any
reasonable driver in his position would have understood the
signage to prohibit the brief stop in question.
8. To the extent the sum claimed exceeds the original parking
charge, any additional "debt recovery", "administration" or like
costs are denied. Such add-on sums are not recoverable, being
either an abuse of process or already subsumed within the
parking charge per the reasoning of the Supreme Court in
ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
9. It is denied that the sum claimed, or any sum, is due. The
Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of: (a) the
contractual terms relied upon; (b) the formation of any contract
with the Defendant; (c) the alleged breach; and (d) the basis on
which the sum claimed has been calculated, including any element
of damages and any entitlement to interest.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Amended Defence are
true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be
brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without
an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
[YOUR NAME], Defendant
Date:
"
I've been asked today to call DCBLegal, even though we've had
mediation they want to propose a settlement it seems, I'm
seriously considering going ahead, unless anyone here thinks
it's a bad idea?
#Post#: 119048--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 18, 2026, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you want to pay £0, its a bad idea.
DCB Legal will usually discontinue if you stay the course, but
it depends on how much cost you want to attribute to your time
and effort in doing so.
We give you time and effort for free to help you.
#Post#: 119053--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: whiteleggy
Date: May 18, 2026, 7:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> If you want to pay £0, its a bad idea.
>
> DCB Legal will usually discontinue if you stay the course, but
it depends on how much cost you want to attribute to your time
and effort in doing so.
>
> We give you time and effort for free to help you.
>
--- End Quote ---
Judge Iyer's comments made me feel like I'd veered of course and
messed up with the original defence, am I still on the right
lines by accepting paper disposal and submitting a new defence?
It seems I don't need an N244 as Judge Iyer has proposed it
himself?
Any thoughts on my proposed defence?
#Post#: 119055--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 18, 2026, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: whiteleggy link ---
>
> It seems I don't need an N244 as Judge Iyer has proposed it
himself?
>
--- End Quote ---
His order states:
[indent]If the Defendant wishes to amend his Defence, he must
make an application by 27 May 2026[/indent]
This would tend to suggest form N244 would be required. You
could always try without such an application (with the potential
risk of p*ssing off the judge), or seek to rescue the matter at
the Witness Statement stage.
--- Quote ---
> DCB Legal will usually discontinue if you stay the course
--- End Quote ---
If the matter is heard on the papers, there'd be no real
incentive to discontinue. You could push for an in-person
hearing but you'd seemingly need to provide a compelling reason
to change Iyer's mind.
#Post#: 119056--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 18, 2026, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good point, thanks. Id forgotten the point about a hearing on
paper rather than in person.
#Post#: 119057--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: whiteleggy
Date: May 18, 2026, 8:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> [quote author=whiteleggy link=topic=6871.msg119053#msg119053
date=1779108243]
> It seems I don't need an N244 as Judge Iyer has proposed it
himself?
>
--- End Quote ---
His order states:
[indent]If the Defendant wishes to amend his Defence, he must
make an application by 27 May 2026[/indent]
This would tend to suggest form N244 would be required. You
could always try without such an application (with the potential
risk of p*ssing off the judge), or seek to rescue the matter at
the Witness Statement stage.
--- Quote ---
> DCB Legal will usually discontinue if you stay the course
--- End Quote ---
If the matter is heard on the papers, there'd be no real
incentive to discontinue. You could push for an in-person
hearing but you'd seemingly need to provide a compelling reason
to change Iyer's mind.
[/quote]
Thanks DWMB2 that's really helpful. Given DCB Legal have no
incentive to discontinue at a paper disposal, am I better off
pushing for an in-person hearing despite the judge's apparent
reluctance? Paragraph 6 of the order leaves the door open:
"While it may be reasonable to request a hearing to provide oral
submissions to the court..." Could I argue that I wish to give
oral evidence as the only witness to the events in question
(i.e. whether the vehicle was being unloaded or parked), since
that is a contested factual issue and not just a legal point
that can be decided on papers? Would that be a "compelling
reason" to change DJ Iyer's mind
N244 form comes with fees, at this point I've got no choice
really other than to fork up to change my defence, or plead at
witness stage I am not eligible for help with the fees. £303
#Post#: 119058--------------------------------------------------
Re: Amazon Flex Driver "Parking" Charge but I was
un-loading and have *some* evidence?
DIR By: whiteleggy
Date: May 18, 2026, 8:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
by way of a somewhat (sad) update, I called and have paid £20 to
settle the matter, I won't say how here, but I may (for
arguments sake, or may not) seek my own form of revenge which
will cost them well in excess of the £20 I paid, in fact, it
will likely stop them issuing further fines for a considerable
period of repeatable times. I'll get my moneys worth one way or
another and relish in the excitement of it!
thanks for all the help, regardless I have saved a considerable
amount relative to what I would've paid if it was not for this
forum.
The stress and time was not worth more than £20
From a principle perspective, I've got that part covered, I'll
come out on top.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page