05-29-2026, 04:21 PM
As I mentioned, this will never reach a hearing in court. However, any defence would cite Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E.
You can also try citing it in your POPLA appeal, but as I mentioned, you are not dealing with an impartial or independent adjudicator and likely to be ignorant of the actual legal implications.
A 17-minute stop is not a “momentary” stop in the everyday sense, so I would avoid presenting it as if it were a 2 or 3-minute delivery. The better argument is that the vehicle was stopped for the duration reasonably required to complete active delivery activity at a large residential/mixed-use development, especially where there were multiple deliveries, controlled access, lifts, concierge/reception points, several blocks, or distance between the vehicle and delivery addresses.
The key Jopson point is paragraph 21: whether the vehicle was “parked” or merely stopped for unloading/delivery is a question of fact and degree. That allows you to say that 17 minutes is not automatically “parking” if the whole period was occupied by delivery activity and the vehicle was not left for the driver’s personal convenience.
I would frame it like this:
I would also add something like this if there is Amazon evidence:
Evidence to include, if available:
The POPLA appeal should not say “brief stop” too often if the duration is 17 minutes. Say “temporary stop for active delivery/loading activity” instead. That is more accurate and harder for the assessor to dismiss.
You can also try citing it in your POPLA appeal, but as I mentioned, you are not dealing with an impartial or independent adjudicator and likely to be ignorant of the actual legal implications.
A 17-minute stop is not a “momentary” stop in the everyday sense, so I would avoid presenting it as if it were a 2 or 3-minute delivery. The better argument is that the vehicle was stopped for the duration reasonably required to complete active delivery activity at a large residential/mixed-use development, especially where there were multiple deliveries, controlled access, lifts, concierge/reception points, several blocks, or distance between the vehicle and delivery addresses.
The key Jopson point is paragraph 21: whether the vehicle was “parked” or merely stopped for unloading/delivery is a question of fact and degree. That allows you to say that 17 minutes is not automatically “parking” if the whole period was occupied by delivery activity and the vehicle was not left for the driver’s personal convenience.
I would frame it like this:
Quote:The operator appears to have treated the vehicle as “parked” merely because it was stationary for 17 minutes. That is an error. The issue is not simply whether the vehicle was stationary, but why it was stationary and what the driver was doing during that period.
The vehicle was being used for Amazon Flex delivery activity at a large residential development. The 17-minute duration was reasonably required to complete delivery activity to multiple properties at that location. This included the time needed to locate the relevant block or blocks, access the building, complete delivery to the recipient address or addresses, return to the vehicle and depart. That is not parking in the ordinary contractual sense. It is active loading/unloading and delivery activity.
In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, HHJ Harris QC made clear that there is a real distinction between parking and stopping for delivery, loading or unloading. At paragraph 21, the judge explained that whether a vehicle is parked or merely stopped for loading/unloading is a question of fact and degree. The judgment expressly recognises that delivery activity may require the driver to leave the vehicle while goods are taken to the relevant premises. That reasoning applies here.
UKPC has provided no evidence that the driver was parked for personal convenience, nor that the vehicle was abandoned or left for any purpose unrelated to the delivery. The appellant’s evidence is that the vehicle was stopped only for the period necessary to complete delivery activity. UKPC is put to strict proof that the vehicle was not being used for loading/unloading or delivery activity throughout the material period.
The appellant will provide Amazon Flex evidence showing that delivery activity was being carried out at or around the material time. In a location such as Moat Lane, Nine Elms Park / Embassy Gardens, 17 minutes is entirely consistent with multiple delivery drops within a large development and is not evidence of parking.
I would also add something like this if there is Amazon evidence:
Quote:The appellant invites POPLA to consider the delivery evidence in context. Amazon Flex deliveries are time-stamped and route-based. The appellant was not visiting the site as a shopper, resident, guest or commuter. The sole purpose of the stop was commercial delivery activity. The operator’s photographs do not rebut that. They merely show a stationary vehicle, which is not the same thing as proof of parking in breach of contractual terms.
Evidence to include, if available:
- Amazon Flex itinerary screenshot showing the location and time.
- Number of parcels/drops at Moat Lane / Embassy Gardens.
- Screenshots showing delivery completion times.
- Any Amazon map/route screenshot.
- Any notes showing difficulty accessing the building, concierge, intercom, lifts, or multiple blocks.
- A short witness statement from the driver explaining the sequence of events.
The POPLA appeal should not say “brief stop” too often if the duration is 17 minutes. Say “temporary stop for active delivery/loading activity” instead. That is more accurate and harder for the assessor to dismiss.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
