Parking ticket for wheel on dropped kerb. Contravention 27 Options

[dbuk2000]

Hi

Would be great to get the advice from someone with a bit of experience on whether i should appeal this or just suck it up and pay the fine.

So a few days ago I parked my car and I did know it was a little over a dropped kerb but didnt think it would be an issue as it isnt a dropped kerb for a car. THere are no driveways in this house did have a motorbike but there was more than enough room for the motorbike to get out.

I took my own pictures but ive put a link below to the low quality pictures that the council have.

https://ibb.co/dmUULU

Any and all advice appreciated.

Thanks

[Advertisement]

[dbuk2000]

Hey CP8759

Just wanted to thank you for reviewing and adapting it. I will be back here when the council responds.

Thanks all for your help.

[dbuk2000]

Hi

Just an update that I received a response back from the council. To sum up as expected they have not cancelled the penalty charge notice.

They say I was issued it for parking at a point where the pavement slopes down to meet the road. These points allow easy access onto, and off, the road and so need to be kept clear.

What should i do next. Its £55 reduced charge for next 14 days and then goes up to £110.

I dont partiularly want to pay, but also if its unlikely I will win on the next appeal then I would have to pay £110.

Any advice appreciated.

Thanks

[stamfordman]

Post their rejection. If they are saying the sloping part put you in contravention they are wrong in law and you could proceed with some confidence.

[rosturra]

You Have received the usual reject-a-challenge, which seems to be par for the course.

The reasons supplied for rejection are incorrect in law - so wait for Notice to owner (NTO) then make representations again.

Someone here will provide you with suitably caustic text.

[PASTMYBEST]

You Have received the usual reject-a-challenge, which seems to be par for the course.

The reasons supplied for rejection are incorrect in law - so wait for Notice to owner (NTO) then make representations again.

Someone here will provide you with suitably caustic text.

Let an adjudicator explain the true position

2160311942

Adjudicator
Anthony Chan
Appeal decision
Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
This appeal was set down for a personal hearing at 10:00 am on 17 August 2016. Neither party attended.
The Authority says that the contravention occurred because the vehicle parked past the point where the kerb starts to slope. This is an incorrect understanding of the law.
Section 86 (1) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 provides that (In a special enforcement area) a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for one of the purposes stated in the section.
This means that the dropped kerb is the part of the kerb which meets the level of the carriageway and does not include the sloping kerbs on either side.
In misdirecting itself on the key and fundamental point of law when considering the Appellant's representations, there is a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority.
I should say that by applying the correct test, I am satisfied that the Appellant's vehicle was just over the proper dropped kerb but it was so marginal that I find it to be de minimus.
I allow the appeal.

[hcandersen]

Post their response please.

I'm still amazed(should I be?) that even adjudicators get this wrong.

Their starter question

Which section of the TMA applies?

S86(1)

Name a 4-letter word that does NOT appear in s86 but is the most often used when people talk about this.........

KERB.

It does not appear.

It is irrelevant for the purposes of establishing the contravention, the FOOTWAY must meet the CARRIAGEWAY. And does it anywhere in the length of a sloping kerbstone? No.

Appeal allowed, march out, next case.

So once we've seen their response I suggest you write back setting out s86(1) and posing the questions:

Do the authority agree that the contravention occurs only where the footway meets the carriageway?
At what point along the length of the sloping kerbstone in this case did the footway meet the carriageway?

[cp8759]

Hi

Just an update that I received a response back from the council. To sum up as expected they have not cancelled the penalty charge notice.

They say I was issued it for parking at a point where the pavement slopes down to meet the road. These points allow easy access onto, and off, the road and so need to be kept clear.

What should i do next. Its £55 reduced charge for next 14 days and then goes up to £110.

I dont partiularly want to pay, but also if its unlikely I will win on the next appeal then I would have to pay £110.

Any advice appreciated.

Thanks

You will almost certainly win if you stick to it. I'd go further than that, I think there is maybe a 1 in 3 chance you would be able to get costs awarded against the council, which could result in them having to pay £72 to you. We've had adjudicators in the past hint that enforcement of a "sloped kerb" contravention can be wholly unreasonable and thus may lead to an award for costs against the enforcement authority.

[dbuk2000]

Hi All

Apologies for the slow response, I had been away on holiday, please find attached the rejection letter I had received.

I have effectively until Tuesday to decide what to do. At the moment I am caught in two minds

[Mr Meldrew]

It surprises me that you remain caught in two minds despite the clear confirmation that you were issued with a PCN for parking at a point where the pavement slopes down to meet the road, which is not the prohibition of parking at a dropped footway where a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway that has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway. Ask yourself whether the point where the footway slopes down to meet the road is “dropped”, as in “been lowered” to meet the level of the carriageway, and which of the following is likely correct?

- Harrow council
- Section 86 (1) of the Traffic Management Act 2004

[stamfordman]

It surprises me that you remain caught in two minds despite the clear confirmation that you were issued with a PCN for parking at a point where the pavement slopes down to meet the road, which is not the prohibition of parking at a dropped footway where a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway that has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway. Ask yourself whether the point where the footway slopes down to meet the road is “dropped”, as in “been lowered” to meet the level of the carriageway, and which of the following is likely correct?

- Harrow council
- Section 86 (1) of the Traffic Management Act 2004

+1 - their reply does not meet the legal test. Don't give up.

[cp8759]

Hi All

Apologies for the slow response, I had been away on holiday, please find attached the rejection letter I had received.

I have effectively until Tuesday to decide what to do. At the moment I am caught in two minds

There's no way you should pay this, the council's case is hopeless. I would register the appeal now, and in the grounds of appeal just write "detailed grounds to follow", I suspect the council won't contest (In which case you should make an application for costs).

[dbuk2000]

Thanks everyone for the replies as always.

it says if I wan to appeal that i shouldnt pay this ticket or write to them and they will after 28 days send me the notice to owner form so I will just wait for that to arrive and then come back to this forum.

Thanks once again and have a great week.

[dbuk2000]

Hi

I received the notice to owner form recently.

Would be thankful for some advice. From the first page attached would the option I have to go for be "There has been a procedural impropriety on behalf of the authority".?

Thanks

[cp8759]

Just reply with the contents of post 20, the option you want is "The alleged contravention did not occur".

[Mr Meldrew]

Change "Barnet" to "Harrow" if you have not done so already.

[dbuk2000]

Hi All

Just a update to close this thread off and to thank all those who offered their advice.

I kept following the appeals process and it kept getting rejected. The final stage was that I would have to go somewhere in central London where an adjudicator would decide the outcome. Thankfully however I got an email yesterday saying that the council has decided not to pursue the ticket against me so the fine has been rescinded

Thanks one again all.

[stamfordman]

Well done - that was inevitable but a shame that it took them so long to come to their senses.

[cp8759]

Hi All

Just a update to close this thread off and to thank all those who offered their advice.

I kept following the appeals process and it kept getting rejected. The final stage was that I would have to go somewhere in central London where an adjudicator would decide the outcome. Thankfully however I got an email yesterday saying that the council has decided not to pursue the ticket against me so the fine has been rescinded

Thanks one again all.

Just so you know, you wouldn't have needed to go anywhere, you can ask for the case to be decided just on the basis of your written submissions.