Skip to main content
REPAIR CLAIM DEFENCE · DISPUTED-CHARGE EVIDENCE

Container Repair Claim Defence & Disputed-Charge Evidence Software

Used by depots, M&R workshops, leasing companies, and shipping-line operations across Europe, Africa, Australia and the Middle East — including operators on lanes where repair charges and off-hire claims are routinely audited or contested.
ConPDS Checker is the commercial evidence layer for repair claim defence. It captures the matched pre-repair, work-in-progress, and post-repair record — every photo linked to the ISO 6346-validated container number, the active work order, and the responsible counterparty at capture. For the category definition of that lifecycle, see container repair evidence system.

Stop writing off contested repair line items because the matching evidence is on a phone that has since changed hands. Replace informal photo handling with a structured repair record that can still be produced when an off-hire dispute, lessor audit, or shipping-line claim review arrives months after the repair.

No obligations — reply within 1 business day · Checker adapts to your M&R operation — work-order system, integration stack, and counterparty mix all shape the workflow, not the other way around.
Field-tested in container M&R operations since 2013
ISO 6346 container number validation at capture
AEMS, DepotMaster, EOS, IMARS, OVMR, FIS integrations

What every written-off repair charge has in common

A repair charge is only as strong as the matched evidence set behind it. When pre-repair condition lives in a phone gallery, the work order lives in the maintenance system, and the post-repair photos live in a chat thread, the record is hard to reassemble quickly enough to defend the charge — and counterparties often dispute the line item by default. The cost lands not only on the workshop, but on the operator's repair revenue line. The repair evidence system category page defines that lifecycle; this page is the commercial workflow for defending or contesting the charge.

In many M&R operations, repair photos are still

Captured on the workshop technician's personal phone — not container-linked
Filed in shared folders by date, not by container number or work order
Sent via WhatsApp or similar chat — hard to index by container number and easy to lose under time pressure
Missing the pre-repair baseline — only finished work was photographed
Disconnected from the repair system — invoiced without an evidence pointer

The result when a charge is contested

No baseline — counterparty argues the damage pre-existed custody
No work-order link — counterparty questions whether the repair occurred
No parts evidence — lessor or insurer queries the parts billed
Photo retrieval takes hours or days — past the dispute response window
Repair charges are settled on the strength of the evidence trail, not on the strength of the invoice line item. A structured repair record removes the ambiguity at source. For the broader case, see container damage documentation best practices →

A Structured Repair Documentation Workflow — From Pre-Repair to Defensible Record

ConPDS Checker applies the repair evidence lifecycle to claim defence — from pre-repair baseline through work-in-progress to post-repair condition, linked to the work order at capture. The category spine is defined on container repair evidence system; the steps below are the commercial workflow.

01
Pre-Repair
02
Link
03
In Progress & Post
04
Distribute
Step 01 — Pre-Repair

Capture the Damage Baseline Before Any Work Begins

Workshop staff photograph the damage area, the surrounding panel context, and any related pre-existing condition before lifting a tool. The pre-repair baseline is the evidence the work order is built on — without it, every subsequent photo loses defensive value when the charge is contested.

Step 02 — Link

Automatic Container Number Validation and Work-Order Linkage

The app reads the container number with on-device OCR and verifies the ISO 6346 check digit (owner code, serial number, check digit). Wrong recognition is flagged for retake or manual entry. Every photo ties to the active work order — container-indexed and work-order-indexed from the first frame.

Step 03 — In Progress & Post

Document Work-in-Progress and Final Condition

Photos are added to the same container record as the repair progresses — parts removed, parts replaced, weld seams, primer, paint, finished surface. The complete chronological repair sequence lives under one container reference, retrievable as a single defensible package.

Step 04 — Distribute

Push to Repair Systems and Counterparties Automatically

When distribution rules are configured, repair packages can route to the operational repair system and to the responsible counterparty (lessor, shipping line, insurer) — immediately or after a delay, on demand, or via secure guest portal. Every distribution attempt is logged with success or failure.

Maersk AEMS DepotMaster EOS CMA-CGM IMARS MSC OVMR Hapag FIS Custom API · REST · FTP · SFTP

What Defensible Repair Documentation Actually Requires

A photo of finished work proves nothing without the pre-repair baseline, the container link, the work-order pointer, the timestamp, and the distribution log. ConPDS Checker bakes all six into the record at capture — not after the fact.

Pre / In / Post Pairing
Pre-repair baseline, work-in-progress, and finished-condition photos stored chronologically under the same container record — one complete, retrievable repair sequence.
ISO-Validated Container Link
Every photo linked to an OCR-validated container number at capture — not filed by date, not renamed manually, not reliant on technician memory.
Work-Order Linkage
Repair photos tied directly to the active work order — invoice line items reference the photographic evidence that supports them.
Timestamp & device context
Capture timestamp and device-recorded geographic location when available are retained with the record — capture context for later review, not independently verifiable proof of presence.
Counterparty Distribution Log
Every package sent to a lessor, shipping line, or insurer is logged — who received what, when. Chain of custody preserved from capture to claim review.
Configurable Retention
Retain repair records for the full claim window of every counterparty — set per tenant, enforced automatically, privacy-by-design on EU-hosted infrastructure.

Informal repair photos vs the structured evidence layer

When a repair charge is contested, operators with a matched, retrievable evidence set are in a stronger position to defend or settle the line item. Operators without one often write the charge off because the photos cannot be produced in time. The difference is built into the workflow at capture — not negotiated months later when informal evidence is already gone.

✗ Informal Repair Photo Handling
Photos in chat threads — not container or work-order linked
No pre-repair baseline — counterparty disputes pre-existing damage
Informal sharing makes retrieval and custody hard under time pressure
No distribution log — no reliable record of what was sent to which counterparty
Photo retrieval depends on the technician who took the picture
✓ Structured Repair Documentation with ConPDS
Pre / in-progress / post photos linked to validated container and work order
Pre-repair baseline captured before the first tool touches the damage
Timestamp and device-recorded location when available retained with the archive
Distribution attempts logged when rules are configured — channel, recipient, success or failure
Container-number search retrieves the repair history from the shared archive

Frequently Asked Questions — Repair Claim Documentation Software

What is container repair claim documentation software?
Repair claim documentation software captures structured photo and metadata evidence of every repair stage — pre-repair condition, work performed, parts replaced, post-repair state — and links it to the ISO 6346-validated container number, the repair work order, and the responsible counterparty. It produces a retrievable record for contested charges, lessor audits, and off-hire disputes. For the category lifecycle definition, see container repair evidence system.
How does structured repair documentation help defend a repair charge raised against a counterparty?
A repair charge is easier to defend when the depot or workshop can produce a matched evidence set — pre-repair damage photos, the work order, parts records, and post-repair condition — linked to the validated container number with capture timestamp and device-recorded geographic location when available. Exact requirements still follow the contract and counterparty process. ConPDS Checker builds that paired evidence set at capture so the repair record can be retrieved from the shared archive when the dispute arrives.
How does it help dispute a repair charge raised by a lessor or shipping line?
When a lessor or shipping line raises a repair charge after off-hire or return, independent photographic evidence of the container's condition at handover is often the strongest defence. ConPDS Checker can capture that evidence at transfer points — gate-in, lease return, off-hire — linked to the validated container number with timestamp and device-recorded location when available. The matched pre-handover and post-handover record turns a contested charge from recollection into a retrievable file.
Does it integrate with AEMS, DepotMaster, EOS, and other repair systems?
When distribution rules are configured, repair photo records can be sent to the operational repair system — Maersk AEMS for shipping-line repair workflows, DepotMaster and EOS for depot M&R, and CMA-CGM IMARS, MSC OVMR, Hapag FIS, and others via Custom API. Every attempt is logged with success or failure. ConPDS Checker does not replace your maintenance system; it adds the structured photo evidence layer attached to the work order.
Can repair documentation be retrieved months later for an audit or dispute?
Yes. Repair documentation is stored in a searchable cloud archive organised by container number, work order reference, and date — retrievable from the web dashboard regardless of which field worker took the photo or which device was used. Retention periods are configurable per tenant to align with claim windows, leasing contracts, and regulatory requirements.
How does it support distribution to lessors, shipping lines, and insurers?
Structured repair documentation can be distributed by configured rule (for example every reefer repair to AEMS, or every leased-container repair to the lessor's M&R address) or shared on demand via a secure guest portal scoped to specific containers or work orders. Rules can trigger immediately or after a delay. Every distribution attempt is logged in the audit trail.
How does the platform support GDPR-governed workflows and shipping-line data-handling requirements?
Data is stored on EU-hosted infrastructure with privacy-by-design and role-based access to support GDPR-governed workflows. Each operator runs in its own secure tenant with configurable retention and audit logging of capture, view, and distribution events. The customer remains responsible for their own purposes and policies. Shipping-line specific data-handling requirements are detailed on the Checker integrations page.
Trusted by container operations across Europe, Africa, Australia and the Middle East
Alisan Den Hartogh Aktas APM Terminals Autamarocchi CCIS Contrepair Cut Coal Eimskip Eurobox Gruppospinelli HRS Isotank Central James Group International Medlog Namops Logistics Porpet QTerminals Kramer Rotterdam Rhespa Europe SDT Marine & Cargo Washmed Werra Kombi Terminal Zuidnatie Zwennis Containers

Stop writing off repair charges you should be defending

See how ConPDS Checker puts the evidence layer underneath your repair operation — pre-repair baseline before any tool touches the damage, work-in-progress and finished-condition photos linked to the work order, every counterparty distribution logged. The contested-charge conversation moves from opinion to evidence; the repair revenue line stops leaking.