Dropped kerb definition |
Dropped kerb definition |
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 08:05
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 16 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,586 |
Hello all,
I've been issued a PCN for supposedly parking adjacent to a dropped footway. All the definitions of a dropped kerb I can find focus on a difference in height, the slope etc. The part of the road I had parked on was flat all the way around. I did not realize I had parked on a kerb at all. I absolutely don't mind paying the PCN if I was indeed in the wrong so looking to clarify the definition of a dropped kerb. I've added a pic for you all to scrutinize. Thanks for your help in advance. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 08:05
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 08:33
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
You can see tactile paving for a crossing. PCNs can be issued for both lowered and raised:
Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway Parked in a special enforcement area on part of the carriageway raised to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge For us to judge this one, post the PCN and council pics. And google street view of location. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 09:14 |
|
|
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 10:48
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
You need to show us the PCN so we can check if the wording of the contravention is correct.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 10:49
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Dropped Kerbs rely on form to "sign" that this is not a place to park.
While tactile paving is a clue, it is not the form. Let's see the PCN please and location. This should be winnable. |
|
|
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 10:55
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Think there another recent case at this location. looks more like a raised kerb
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4843394,-...6384!8i8192 This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 10:56 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 12:50
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 16 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,586 |
Hi all,
Thanks for your fast responses. Location is below: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4846365,-...6384!8i8192 |
|
|
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 13:08
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 16 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,586 |
PCN
Council pictures |
|
|
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 13:27
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
the contravention cited is the wrong one. and you cant be charged with robbing a bank if your caught shoplifting. so the PCN is invalid.
What you actually are guilty of is "Parked in a special enforcement area on part of the carriageway raised to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge" This is important as outside of London this is a lower level penalty, whereas the one cited is higher level Send a challenge along these lines. PCN number VRM dear mr parking Firstly I must apologise for my poor parking, for which I was served the above PCN. I note however that the PCN is served under code 27 "parked adjacent to a dropped footway" Photographs taken by the CEO will confirm this is not the case, I was parked " in a special enforcement area on part of the carriageway raised to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge" A PCN must state the reason why if has been issued, in this case an error occurs in doing so. rendering the PCN invalid. The PCN as served is for a higher level penalty. Had it been served for the correct contravention (code 28 in PATROL's list) then it would be for the lower level, the error creating an injustice that also would render the PCN unenforceable. I look forward to notification of cancelation at your soonest convenience -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 14:19
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
The PCN as served is for a higher level penalty. Had it been served for the correct contravention (code 28 in PATROL's list) then it would be for the lower level, the error creating an injustice that also would render the PCN unenforceable. This seems like an odd anomaly - do you know why there is a higher/lower distinction between 27/28 outside London? |
|
|
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 14:49
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
The PCN as served is for a higher level penalty. Had it been served for the correct contravention (code 28 in PATROL's list) then it would be for the lower level, the error creating an injustice that also would render the PCN unenforceable. This seems like an odd anomaly - do you know why there is a higher/lower distinction between 27/28 outside London? No but see the PATROL code list, and note the * https://www.patrol-uk.info/contravention-codes/ -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 15:02
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
The PCN as served is for a higher level penalty. Had it been served for the correct contravention (code 28 in PATROL's list) then it would be for the lower level, the error creating an injustice that also would render the PCN unenforceable. This seems like an odd anomaly - do you know why there is a higher/lower distinction between 27/28 outside London? No but see the PATROL code list, and note the * https://www.patrol-uk.info/contravention-codes/ Indeed - got the patrol list in my parking folder. Seems no reason. But one other point is that some councils outside London, including Manchester, don't list 28 in their contravention list. This may be an issue in this case. https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/info/471/t...s_and_charges/1 27 just says: Parked adjacent to a dropped footway. So will come down to wording. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 15:04 |
|
|
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 15:04
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Let's get my rant out of the way first:
From the photos this is b****y dangerous parking, facing oncoming traffic and forcing drivers to manoeuvre around you on a blind bend while inevitably and unavoidably having to move into the carriageway of oncoming traffic. It's clear from GSV that this is a raised footway, but you will have to lead the authority by the nose to get the result you want otherwise they'll not have enough evidence presented by you - don't expect them to research your argument, that's your job. I accept that I was parked at a location where the footway and carriageway are at the same level thereby giving rise to one of two contraventions namely that the footway has been lowered or the carriageway has been raised. That they are at the same level is not the issue, which of the possible contraventions is, however. It is clear from the CEO's photos that the carriageway and footway converge. It is equally obvious that there is no declination of the footway, therefore the carriageway has been raised. GSV also makes this obvious from the reverse direction around the corner where there is a clear change in the aspect of the yellow line which can arise only if the carriageway surface has been raised. There are further indicators such as the gully gratings where you will see that there is no dip around the perimeter, characteristic of simple resurfacing. But here the gratings are of different design and have been raised to the level of the carriageway which indicates that the whole fabric of the road surface has been raised. This is given further support if one inspects the corresponding area some 50 metres further on where the single yellow lines show that the carriageway has again been raised at this point showing that there has been an area-wide surface treatment to facilitate pedestrians crossing the road. I accept that my parking was reprehensible, but this is not a matter which can be dealt with by a CEO issuing a PCN for an incorrect penalty. |
|
|
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 15:08
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
The PCN as served is for a higher level penalty. Had it been served for the correct contravention (code 28 in PATROL's list) then it would be for the lower level, the error creating an injustice that also would render the PCN unenforceable. This seems like an odd anomaly - do you know why there is a higher/lower distinction between 27/28 outside London? No but see the PATROL code list, and note the * https://www.patrol-uk.info/contravention-codes/ Indeed - got the patrol list in my parking folder. Seems no reason. But one other point is that some councils outside London, including Manchester, don't list 28 in their contravention list. This may be an issue in this case. https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/info/471/t...s_and_charges/1 27 just says: Parked adjacent to a dropped footway. So will come down to wording. That's a shame. their signed up to PATROL so have to go with the list or the contravention did not occur coz there ain't one that fits just checked, code 28 is not listed as a higher level penalty here www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3487/pdfs/uksi_20073487_en.pdf The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of Charges) (England) Order 2007 This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 15:36 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 19:50
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Was the OP parked adjacent to a dropped footway? No, so the contravention did not occur. The fact that some other contravention might well have occurred is neither here nor there.
PASTMYBEST incidentally I don't think Mancheser is bound to use the PATROL codes (I'm sure you've noticed the code 27 wording used by Manchester doesn't match the PATROL webstite), while it's true that paragraph 9 schedule 9 TMA 2004 says "An enforcement authority for an area outside Greater London shall publish, in such manner as the appropriate national authority may determine, the levels of charges set under this Part of this Schedule.", I'm not aware of any SOS directions that restrict the manner of publication. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 20:07
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Was the OP parked adjacent to a dropped footway? No, so the contravention did not occur. The fact that some other contravention might well have occurred is neither here nor there. PASTMYBEST incidentally I don't think Mancheser is bound to use the PATROL codes (I'm sure you've noticed the code 27 wording used by Manchester doesn't match the PATROL webstite), while it's true that paragraph 9 schedule 9 TMA 2004 says "An enforcement authority for an area outside Greater London shall publish, in such manner as the appropriate national authority may determine, the levels of charges set under this Part of this Schedule.", I'm not aware of any SOS directions that restrict the manner of publication. that may well be true, but lets see how the council respond to it, my bet is that they will say no its a DK . your right about the wording M/crs matches the charging regs -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 1 Dec 2018 - 08:18
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 16 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,586 |
Thanks everyone for your suggestions. It's definitely worth a punt. I shall put in a challenge this weekend based on your suggestions above.
Hcandersen: i understand you're frustrated with my parking and not that it's excusable but in that part of Manchester, cars are parked like this on both sides of the street at the weekends because it's in the city centre and it's surprisingly free. Ordinarily the council charge £6 an hour. Also when you access George Leigh street from the A665 it's a one way st. |
|
|
Sat, 1 Dec 2018 - 10:14
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Just to weigh in on the contravention code.
The Sec of State lists penalties outside of London that attract higher penalty. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3487/schedule/made Only if the contravention is on the list can Higher Level penalty be charged. This is not a dropped kerb, it is a raised carriageway, had they applied the correct contravention, the lower amount would be due. Penalty exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. They cannot argue that it is one and the same as both London and Patrol acknowledge the difference between raised and lowered. Plus as HCA has detailed, it is not lowered anyway so the contravention as stated makes no sense. |
|
|
Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 08:08
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 16 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,586 |
Just an update in case anyone else gets caught out at the same spot. Manchester council obviously refused to cancel the ticket so I've taken it to representations with the same argument it was a raised carriageway and not a dropped kerb. Thanks again all.
|
|
|
Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 12:44
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Just an update in case anyone else gets caught out at the same spot. Manchester council obviously refused to cancel the ticket so I've taken it to representations with the same argument it was a raised carriageway and not a dropped kerb. Thanks again all. its always a good idea to keep us in the loop. the rejection could well have raised fresh points please post it and what you said in representations -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 18:12
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Just an update in case anyone else gets caught out at the same spot. Manchester council obviously refused to cancel the ticket so I've taken it to representations with the same argument it was a raised carriageway and not a dropped kerb. Thanks again all. Shows us all the paperwork. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:55 |