Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN 27 Obstructed dropped kerb?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Hi Folks - I wonder if someone could offer me any advice please regarding a PCN Code 27 that I received earlier this week. I parked my car on a main road and was confident that I was leaving it properly parked without causing any obstruction. It turns out that this is a special enforcement area and the resident of the adjacent property has registered their dropped kerb. Their property has a pavement-facing wall with a 10ft gate opening onto the 11ft main dropped kerb with another 3ft per side as sloping kerb. If you look at the photo which is one that they are using as evidence then you will see the rear of my vehicle is parallel with not only the sloping kerb but also a 38 by 28inch dropped earth-filled hole containing a tree.

Firstly I didn't know that parking by the sloped bit is illegal although The Highway Code says it is but other sites state that the sloping part is not actually the relevant dropped kerb. Other posters have said that it can only be an offence if the resident has complained but I rang the Council to ascertain whether or not they had received a complaint but apparently in this borough it is not necessary to enforce Code 27. My main argument is that with there being a tree obstructing this part then I could not possibly have obstructed access unless you drove a tank across obliterating the Council planted tree!

Do you experts think I have any grounds for appeal or should I just cough up knowing that it was an opportunity to fine me not for causing any problems with access but just because they can. Many thanks in advance for your thoughts....


(Image hosted by ImageShack -

(Image hosted by ImageShack -
De minimis. But don't expect the council to cave in. You would probably win at adjudication, but it isn't a certainty.
The purpose of the dropped kerb is the first relevant bit.
The second is where the dropped kerb starts.

The purpose of the main dropped kerb seems to be to allow vehicles to cross the footway.
That allows enforcement.
Against that, is that there is a ruddy great tree in the way that sorta prevents any vehicle except a Dinky Toy from using that bit.
So it fails its purpose as far as any bit you may have been adjacent to.

Second is the amount.
Rear wheels not on any part of the DK and even the boot overhang is on the slope.
Which many adjudicators accept is not the dropped kerb as it is not the bit "lowered to the level of the carriageway"

Even if they do not, De Minimis, that is a contravention so trivial as to not have occurred.
Especially with the tree in the way.
Actually, the offence did not occur ! The rear of the car is only adjacent to the sloped part, so is not in contravention. For a contravention to occur, the car must intrude into the dropped section; this car doesn't.
Many thanks for such prompt responses - sounds as if it is worth pursuing.
Does anyone know where it is written as a legal statute that as my vehicle was only adjacent to slope and not the road dropped kerb bit it is not an infringement so that I can quote it as my defence?
Thanks again!
QUOTE (squirrel62 @ Sun, 29 May 2016 - 13:59) *
Many thanks for such prompt responses - sounds as if it is worth pursuing.
Does anyone know where it is written as a legal statute that as my vehicle was only adjacent to slope and not the road dropped kerb bit it is not an infringement so that I can quote it as my defence?
Thanks again!
I suspect that the resident complained and the CEO issued the parking notice to shut him up regardless that there was no contravention

Appeal it on the grounds that their own photograph shows that there was no contravention
Quote the legislation and suggest that the CEO is in need of training
Pete D
Read This :
Pete D
QUOTE (Pete D @ Sun, 29 May 2016 - 16:42) *

Sorry Pete, it's not legally accurate. the contravention area is as stated in the statute, the part lowered to the level of the carriageway.
Many LT cases have ruled on this


The issue in the case is whether a contravention occurred. The local authority case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked adjacent to a dropped footway, and so a Penalty Charge Notice was issued and the vehicle was removed. The local authority rely on the parking attendant's notes and photographs, and the notes taken of the householder's complaint which resulted in the vehicle being removed. The Appellant says that she returned home late the previous night with her daughter, whom she could not carry far, and found nowhere close to park as there are real parking problems locally, and security issues if she parks a long way away. She parked where the vehicle was seen by the parking attendant but did not believe that she caused an obstruction, and was sure that the householder would be able to exit and enter their driveway. I have carefully considered the evidence adduced. In doing so I am particularly mindful that the legislation defines "dropped footway" as meaning "any part of the footway or verge where it has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway of a road". I therefore examine the photographs of the location carefully. Having done so the local authority have not satisfied me that the vehicle is parked in contravention, for the following reasons. Firstly, a careful examination of the site photographs at the additional evidence "J" shows that the kerb line is elevated and level, but then drops to almost meet the level of the carriageway - but in fact never quite does meet the level, which is what the legislation requires. Secondly, the additional evidence "J" shows that when tracing the line of the kerb from the elevated state to the place where the kerb line becomes level, there are two stones: one is clearly at an angle and descending throughout; the second descends and becomes level about 2/3rds of the way along. When comparing this to the parking attendant's photographs - particularly image 2 - it is not clear that the vehicle does overhang that bit of the dropped kerb which meets the lowered footway which meets the carriageway. It follows that the local authority have not satisfied me on the evidence adduced that the vehicle was parked in contravention. I therefore allow the appeal, and make a direction refunding the fees paid.
OP, can't read the PCN.

On the basis of the photo, this is not an issue of de minimis, it is clear that the contravention did not occur because no part of your car was parked adjacent to the prohibited area which is that area AND THAT AREA ALONE where the footway meets the carriageway.

Part of your car is adjacent to the sloped footway. Big deal, irrelevant.

There are only TWO possible conditions: the footway either meets the carriageway or it does not, there is no third way where for example it's heading towards the carriageway.

The sloped part HAS THE SAME LEGAL STATUS as the rest of the unlowered footway, it's not lowered, end of.

Make this clear using their photo and their photo alone. A single paragraph to establish your argument. Don't go into detail by quoting regs, they're presumed to know and are required to know the law - it's a prerequisite for enforcement - so there's no need to quote. If the authority are stupid enough to charge unqualified staff with the task of dealing with challenges then that's their problem.

End your challenge with a requirement that, should this be rejected by the authority, they are required to state:
1. Whether they accept that the restriction applies only to the prohibited area, that being the part of the footway which meets the carriageway;
2.Whether they accept that that part of the footway delineated by a sloping kerbstone does not form part of the prohibited area
3. What part of your car was parked adjacent to the prohibited area and the authority's opinion as to the amount of transgression measured in feet.
3. Why in any event this does not fall within the scope of de minimis.
Thank-you to everyone who has taken the time and trouble to help me out. I have submitted my appeal and will let you know the outcome...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.