Hi all

I received a PCN yesterday (Sunday) on my car in Manor Park, Newham in front of a dropped kerb. The kerb is in front of my flat and the road also has a single yellow line in front of that kerb. People normally always park there, this is the first time I've seen anybody getting a fine in this location on a Sunday. Plus, the observation time was zero (if observation time is used in this scenario).
Please see attached images - PCN and location


Please advise whether I should fight this or give up and pay....?

http://i66.tinypic.com/ofsetz.jpg


This post has been edited by NeverSayYes: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 - 12:04

It's too late to change anything substantive now. All I can suggest is that you put a short introductory para. summarising your approach and points.

I am appealing on a number of points, but my primary grounds are that the contravention did not occur - because the lowered footway meets none of the criteria specified in the Act - and procedural impropriety regarding the serious flaws in the authority's NOR. I apologise to the adjudicator in advance for submitting an appeal at such length, but the whole process and the authority's actions have frustrated me beyond belief and my typing finger responded accordingly.

As I said, hopefully the adj would simply decide on the basis of the first para.

Again I agree with HCA.

Get it sent.

Good luck with it.

Thank you Neil and HCA.
I've now appealed online.
Fingers crossed now.

Hi HCA & Neil

The appeal has been sent, decision to be made on 16 June 2016. The EA sent me copies of evidences they've put forward to defend their case.

After reading their Case Summary, I don't really know what to say:

"The Apellant has also stated that the dropped kerb does not have any significant purpose. It should be stated however that the dropped footway in place is directly outside a gate and the dropped kerb was very clear. A motorist should not assess whether the dropped kerb is going to be used or not. A motorist must simply adhered to a dropped kerb and not park across it. the apellant has further stated that a single yellow line is in place and therefore this indicates that a motorist can park there outside of the single yellow line controlled hours. It should be stated however that a single yellow line is a completely separate restriction. A lowered kerb does not need to be lined or sign posted at all. "


This is part of the summary that the EA have put forward, plus included pictures of my car which I never got to see from their website!

You could laugh?

Are you going to show us >

At least the summary.

Index

Pics.

And the most baffling bit of the case summary submitted by the EA:

"The vehicle, VEHICLE VRM, was seen parked adjacent to a multi purpose dropped footway opposite number 14 of The Warren."


Multi purpose dropped footway, that's the first time I've come across this with my communications with this EA since day 1.






Thanks for the fast response Neil, I'll upload them soon.

Hi Neil, please see below. Apologies for the delay, i've had a hectic weekend. :/

Index:


Case Summary Page 1:


Case Summary Page 2:



CEO Notes:


Car pics given by Council in case representations:

can anybody please advise?
please.

Nothing changes.

What is point 13 saying? CEO didn't see but they don't directly dispute the exemptions - unloading and assisted alighting.

Thank you Neil.

What should I do now? Sit tight, fingers crossed and wait for Thursday or write up an email to add to my statement/evidence arguing the fact that they never mentioned multi-purpose dropped kerb and the EA also has not clearly explained the purpose of the dropped kerb? Should I speak to Highways Agency for an explanation on the purpose of that particular kerb?

You really do suffer from anxiety don't you.
I don't mean that in a nasty or critical way: It just seems quite apparent and I
sympathise.

Nothing you can do other than see what an adjudicator makes of it.

Can you just remind me why you've opted for 'postal'?

Lol
I'm just too emotional when it comes to parking tickets.

Don't get me wrong, I do not mind paying if i have erred in something but I am not the kind of person who would just pay it to avoid the hassle. My principle is that if I am in the wrong, I'll accept and face the consequences, if I am not wrong or if there is a sense of ambiguity about the way the Council/State/etc is behaving, I'll fight till the end. At the end of the day, if the council wants to enforce rules and expects everyone to adhere to it, the council must first ensure it has provided the correct infrastructure to the public and the right training to its staff so that the rules are in line with whichever infrastructure is being monitored/controlled.

To be perfectly honest with you, I have found the responses from the council ambiguous to this specific penalty and my gut feeling says they are just playing along hoping to see me giving up and paying that £130. Its an indirect corporate bullying.

I'm pretty sure, even if I died in the car and the car stopped in front of the dropped kerb, they would have refused both informal and formal appeals.


I chose postal because of my work schedules not allowing me to take time off. That wouldnt make a difference to the Adj's decision, would it?

Perhaps a question re the definition of the DK as multi purpose. This is not specified as a DK that can be enforced under the regs, so what is it
Cant be vehicular access, nor for pedestrians as no corresponding DK opposite

Just put it into the mind of the adjudicator

IMO, you make it absolutely clear that:
You saw the reconfigured footway at this location;
You knew its significance if it was a dropped footway;
You would never consider parking against a dropped footway;

From previous experience of parking in this road and at this location specifically you were absolutely clear that the original dropped footway whose size and construction as well as the absence of any tactile paving and corresponding dropped kerb opposite etc. make it clear that it was installed as a vehicle crossover for a purpose which has long since stopped and that far from what is claimed by the authority all that remains is a practical nuisance for pedestrians, especially wheelchair users (we'll use the description used by the authority!) because it actually impedes their progress along the footway because of the transverse trip hazards created by the kerbing.
The authority's photos show that this disused vehicle crossover must predate the flank wall and the small pedestrian gate and would seem to correspond to the gap between the buildings which, although now infilled, can be seen clearly. Probably this gave access to the rear of buildings for long-gone garages or for 'back door bin and return' * refuse collection.

You would hope that the adjudicator would agree that it is clear is that this is not a 'dropped footway' as defined and that therefore the contravention did not occur. You would also hope that if the adjudicator allows your appeal they would, for the benefit of motorists in the future, include a comment that further enforcement by the authority at this location should cease and that the highway authority should look at removing the trip hazards.



* blimey, I am showing my age

Thanks PMB and HCA, please see below my 'further evidence' which I'm now going to attach this case on LT website.


Dear Sir/Madam,

The EA has advised in their representations in this case that the alleged dropped kerb is a multi-purpose dropped kerb. The EA has failed to mention in any of their communications to me, despite my several attempts to requesting the EA for an explanation of the purpose of the alleged dropped kerb (informal appeal and formal representations to NOR).

As per the regulations in Section 86(1) of the Traffic Management Act 2004, a dropped kerb must fit only one of the criteria set in the regulations (pedestrian crossing, cycle crossing or vehicular access). The alleged dropped kerb in this particular scenario, described as a multi purpose dropped kerb by the EA, does not fit the criteria as per the regulations, which nullifies the dropped kerb enforcement at this location.

In addition, as this alleged dropped kerb, with the absence of a corresponding dropped footway on the opposite side of the carriageway, does not allow a pedestrian, especially a wheelchair user, to cross the carriageway, neither does it, alongwith the absence of a cycle track, allow cyclists to join or leave the carriageway and nor does it, alongwith the absence of garages/drives and the presence of a relatively small gate, allow vehicles to cross over to join or leave the carriageway, it is clear that the alleged dropped kerb is a practical nuisance for pedestrians, especially wheelchair users because the transverse trip hazards created by the kerbing along the footway actually impedes pedestrians, especially wheelchair users to progress along the footway.

I hope that, for the benefits of motorists in the future, further enforcement by the authority at this location should be ceased and that the Highways Authority should look at removing the trip hazards at the alleged location.

Thank you for taking your time to read my appeal.

This post has been edited by NeverSayYes: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 - 12:56

Not Highways Agency, they look after motorways and specified trunk roads, it's the highway authority ( a department of the council).

Thanks for that HCA. I'm learning quite a lot with this penalty.

Hi everyone

Apologies for the delay.

GOOD NEWS!

The Adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has allowed the appeal on
the grounds that the contravention did not occur.
The reasons for the Adjudicator's decision are enclosed.
The Adjudicator directs London Borough of Newham to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and
the Notice to Owner.
If any penalty or fees have already been paid, the Enforcement Authority must now issue a refund
without delay. Enquiries regarding payment of the refund should be made to the Enforcement
Authority.
An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
Calls to London Tribunals may be recorded
Adjudicator's Reasons
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked adjacent to a footway lowered to meet
the level of the carriageway when in the Warren on 1 November 2015 at 11.16.
The Appellant's case is that she had parked at this location to unload heavy luggage and to set down
her disabled father. She also argues that the location is not a lowered footway for any of the permitted
purposes of section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004
I have considered all the evidence and I find that the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of the fourth
exception pursuant to section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 at paragraphs (5) (a), (b) and
© apply and also (8) (b). I have highlighted the sections of the Act that I find apply in this case below,
which are self explanatory.
86 Prohibition of parking at dropped footways.
(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.
(4)The third exception is where the vehicle is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police
purposes.
(5)The fourth exception is where—
(a)the vehicle is being used for the purposes of delivering goods to, or collecting goods from,
any premises, or is being loaded from or unloaded to any premises,
(b)the delivery, collection, loading or unloading cannot reasonably be carried out in relation to
those premises without the vehicle being parked as mentioned in subsection (1), and
©the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary and for no more than 20 minutes.
(6)The fifth exception is where—
(a)the vehicle is being used in connection with any of the following—
An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
Calls to London Tribunals may be recorded
(i)undertaking any building operation, demolition or excavation,
(ii)the collection of waste by a local authority,
(iii)removing an obstruction to traffic,
(iv)undertaking works in relation to a road, a traffic sign or road lighting, or
(v)undertaking works in relation to a sewer or water main or in relation to the supply of gas, electricity,
water or communications services,
(b)it cannot be so used without being parked as mentioned in subsection (1), and
©it is so parked for no longer than is necessary.
(7)In this section "carriageway", "cycle track" and "footway" have the meanings given by section
329(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (c. 66).
(8)References in this section to parking include waiting, but do not include stopping where—
(a)the driver is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control or it is necessary for
him to stop to avoid an accident, or
(b)the vehicle is stopped, for no longer than is necessary, for the purpose of allowing people
to board or alight from it.
Whilst I have allowed the appeal on the grounds of the loading/unloading exceptions and the setting
down provision, I find that this is a lowered footway for the purposes of the Act (86) (1) (a) 9ii) and that
the presence or absence of a single yellow line is not relevant to this restriction, which is operational
24 hours a day 7 days a week.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.



Thank you HCA, Neil and all. Your help is greatly appreciated. )