Parking over a drop kerb - Fined
Discussion
vit4 said:
streaky said:
vit4 said:
Interesting turn; ticket actually reads 'parking adjacent to a dropped footway'.
As I understand it, this is for pedestrians etc to cross the road but this was a kerb paid for by the house owner and there is no dropped kerb/footway opposite which confuses me slightly
But can anybody clarify this please?
Can you clarify these please?As I understand it, this is for pedestrians etc to cross the road but this was a kerb paid for by the house owner and there is no dropped kerb/footway opposite which confuses me slightly
But can anybody clarify this please?Streaky
rawgrafix said:
Rules in Enfield (London Borough)
If it's a pedestrian drop kerb, IE; to assist less able'd folk to cross the road - then you'll get a ticket.
If it's a residential drop kerb then the owner of the property must call the council to report a vehicle blocking access. As such i would suggest a strongly worded letter from the owner would be enough to quash the ticket.
The residential drop kerbs are enforceable regardless of a white or yellow line.
Cheers, should be alright then. Ticket was in Redbridge but I'd imagine pretty similar?If it's a pedestrian drop kerb, IE; to assist less able'd folk to cross the road - then you'll get a ticket.
If it's a residential drop kerb then the owner of the property must call the council to report a vehicle blocking access. As such i would suggest a strongly worded letter from the owner would be enough to quash the ticket.
The residential drop kerbs are enforceable regardless of a white or yellow line.
I should probably point out, that it is a wide pavement with signs instructing road users to park with two wheels on the kerb. I was also in a marked parking bay which had no 'close' point to show where it ended, if that makes sense
Ticket therefore comes under the category of "Parking attendant being a knob in order to hit targets."
My betting is that despite any representations you make the council will decline your appeal under the usual policy of "Decline the first time hoping they go away." WHich means you will have to have the second throw of the dice to the Independent Appeals and if you are lucky the council will immediately fold.
It's like a game of flaming poker.
We used to get a few tickets when blocking in our own drive in Streatham. I was never too bothered about it as they always cancelled when we appealed with a utility bill with registered keepers name on it. It soon stopped people blocking off drives.
What was more amusing was people who made gardens into driveways without dropping the kerb. They were forever getting blocked in, serves them right for being cheapskates!
What was more amusing was people who made gardens into driveways without dropping the kerb. They were forever getting blocked in, serves them right for being cheapskates!
bga said:
We used to get a few tickets when blocking in our own drive in Streatham. I was never too bothered about it as they always cancelled when we appealed with a utility bill with registered keepers name on it. It soon stopped people blocking off drives.
Which contradicts what was said above regarding access to residential properties.Streaky
vit4 said:
Interesting turn; ticket actually reads 'parking adjacent to a dropped footway'.
As I understand it, this is for pedestrians etc to cross the road but this was a kerb paid for by the house owner and there is no dropped kerb/footway opposite which confuses me slightly But can anybody clarify this please?
Sorry, a "dropped footway" is not limited to the definition you'd prefer.As I understand it, this is for pedestrians etc to cross the road but this was a kerb paid for by the house owner and there is no dropped kerb/footway opposite which confuses me slightly
But can anybody clarify this please?Traffic Management Act 2004 said:
86 Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.
(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,
(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or
(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or
(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.
This is subject to the following exceptions.
(2) The first exception is where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised.
A “designated parking place” means a parking place designated by order under section 6, 9, 32(1)(b) or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).
(3) The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.
This exception does not apply in the case of a shared driveway.
If the place you parked was within a marked bay (white lines, etc.) then you may have a case under 86(2) above. However 86(3) seems to provide you with a specific defence against your PCN in the situation you outlined.(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—
(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—
(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,
(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or
(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or
(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.
This is subject to the following exceptions.
(2) The first exception is where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised.
A “designated parking place” means a parking place designated by order under section 6, 9, 32(1)(b) or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).
(3) The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.
This exception does not apply in the case of a shared driveway.
Since your infraction took place in Redbridge, I'd suggest looking at this thread on Pepipoo wherein a Redbridge inhabitant successfully squashed a PCN for the same infraction.
The poster there has offered to share the letter used to get that result, so you might want to sign up to Pepipoo and get in touch?
FOOTNOTE: rather sadly, it seems that 86(3) really does make it an "offence" under certain circumstances for somebody else to "park outside my house", which I find rather depressing...
skwdenyer said:
FOOTNOTE: rather sadly, it seems that 86(3) really does make it an "offence" under certain circumstances for somebody else to "park outside my house", which I find rather depressing...
Only when parking over a dropped kerb, which I think is fair enough, as the dropped kerb is there to allow access to/from the property and someone parking over it defeats that point. Especially considering the dropped kerb frees up people parking on the road.chriscpritchard said:
skwdenyer said:
FOOTNOTE: rather sadly, it seems that 86(3) really does make it an "offence" under certain circumstances for somebody else to "park outside my house", which I find rather depressing...
Only when parking over a dropped kerb, which I think is fair enough, as the dropped kerb is there to allow access to/from the property and someone parking over it defeats that point. Especially considering the dropped kerb frees up people parking on the road.It is also almost comically inefficient to have a system in which cars are ticketed (and, in my area, towed), only for tickets go be routinely appealed and quashed on the grounds of it being one's own driveway!
skwdenyer said:
Yes, but in many places the dropped kerbs are far larger than they need to be, the driveways numerous, and the offence complete by the slightest overlap of the dropped kerb (regardless of whether or not an obstruction is Actually created by the parking in question).
It is also almost comically inefficient to have a system in which cars are ticketed (and, in my area, towed), only for tickets go be routinely appealed and quashed on the grounds of it being one's own driveway!
Ah, in my area the dropped kerbs seem to be just right, so that isn't a problem. That's a problem with the LA making the area too big. Perhaps an (optional) system of free printable permits to show the parking attendents who is allowed to park on the dropped kerb. Could be made with a unique code that's tied to the number plates. Or perhaps enforcement only if the resident complains, though that may mean they do not have access to their drive if they have to wait for the vehicle to get towed!It is also almost comically inefficient to have a system in which cars are ticketed (and, in my area, towed), only for tickets go be routinely appealed and quashed on the grounds of it being one's own driveway!
skwdenyer said:
It is also almost comically inefficient to have a system in which cars are ticketed (and, in my area, towed), only for tickets go be routinely appealed and quashed on the grounds of it being one's own driveway!
Presumably if a vehicle is towed when it is parked with permission then the vehicle is returned free of charge? If not, why not?Plus if it is, then presumably the towing / storage contractor still wants paying, which comes from ratepayers. Or?
The other thing that always amuses me about that bit of legislation is the
Regulations said:
3) The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.
Which opens up the questions of displaying permits, and one immediately wonders about the bureaucracy that could entail.F i F said:
skwdenyer said:
It is also almost comically inefficient to have a system in which cars are ticketed (and, in my area, towed), only for tickets go be routinely appealed and quashed on the grounds of it being one's own driveway!
Presumably if a vehicle is towed when it is parked with permission then the vehicle is returned free of charge? If not, why not?Plus if it is, then presumably the towing / storage contractor still wants paying, which comes from ratepayers. Or?
The other thing that always amuses me about that bit of legislation is the
Regulations said:
3) The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.
Which opens up the questions of displaying permits, and one immediately wonders about the bureaucracy that could entail.The self-print permit it one way to go, as most wardens in this area now have scanners to check residents' permits for validity, for instance.
skwdenyer said:
You can't get your car back until the yard has been paid... If you can't afford that (which many people cant - £250 isn't always available when you need it for a lot of people) then the car is disposed-of. If you can't get to work because the car has gone, you might lose your job.
The self-print permit it one way to go, as most wardens in this area now have scanners to check residents' permits for validity, for instance.
And then you claim / get your £250 back presumably after appealing with evidence, hopefully.The self-print permit it one way to go, as most wardens in this area now have scanners to check residents' permits for validity, for instance.
So assuming appeal is upheld with all the hassle that entails and you get your money back, and car undamaged, the taxpayers are still out £250 a pop because the yard won't be giving their bit back.
Think I'd be putting some councillors in fear of losing their seats if that were implemented and actually enforced where I am.
F i F said:
skwdenyer said:
You can't get your car back until the yard has been paid... If you can't afford that (which many people cant - £250 isn't always available when you need it for a lot of people) then the car is disposed-of. If you can't get to work because the car has gone, you might lose your job.
The self-print permit it one way to go, as most wardens in this area now have scanners to check residents' permits for validity, for instance.
And then you claim / get your £250 back presumably after appealing with evidence, hopefully.The self-print permit it one way to go, as most wardens in this area now have scanners to check residents' permits for validity, for instance.
So assuming appeal is upheld with all the hassle that entails and you get your money back, and car undamaged, the taxpayers are still out £250 a pop because the yard won't be giving their bit back.
Think I'd be putting some councillors in fear of losing their seats if that were implemented and actually enforced where I am.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff