Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Parking adjacent to a dropped footway PCN. Wrong to be issued?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
Trixie
Hi. I'm hoping someone can give me some advice on a PCN I was issued a few weeks ago in Eastcastle Street, London, for parking adjacent to a dropped footway.

I was parked after 6.30pm on a yellow line and hadn't noticed the dropped footway. When I came back to my car I was surprised to find a PCN on my windscreen.

The dropped footway I was parked at clearly wasn't used for pedestrians or disabled people as there was no dropped footway the other side of the road and it was not a zebra crossing or any other crossing like that. It is however, by an alleyway that runs between Eastcastle Street and Oxford St. BUT - there is no access for cars to this alleyway as it's entrance is blocked by static bollards.

I wrote an appeal letter but they said this dropped footway was only used for pedestrians - they know there's no dropped footway the other side of the road but it's a dropped footway they're enforcing anyway. Can they actually do this?? Also - the footway is not lowered to the carriageway exactly. Will post photos up (can you tell me how though please?)

I don't believe this dropped footway fits within the definition plus doesn't the yellow line suggest I can park there outside the zone's restricted hours?

Would appreciate some feedback on this... thanks guys.
Trixie
Thanks Neil. Just off out - will do that when I get back. T
Teufel
ped dropped footway is the same as vehicle one
Trixie





This was my original letter...

To whom it may concern,

Re: Penalty Charge Notice WM.....

I am writing with regard to the above mentioned Penalty Charge Notice and request that it be cancelled as it has been issued unlawfully. After referring to the Traffic Management Act 2004, I believe this dropped footway does not fall under the statutory definition of a dropped footway for the following reasons.

As the Traffic Management Act 2004, Section 86(1), states, it is a direct contravention of this Act to park adjacent to a dropped footway, if the footway was lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for one or all of three reasons:

(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;

As you will see from the photographic evidence included, this dropped footway was not lowered for any of these reasons.

With regard to subsection (i), there is no dropped footway the other side of the road, which one would expect if the dropped footway was for the purpose of assisting pedestrians or disabled people to cross. There is also no pedestrian crossing. With this in mind, it is clear that this dropped footway was not lowered to meet the level of the carriageway in order to assist pedestrians to cross.

With regard to subsection (ii), if cyclists left the carriageway at this point it would only take them onto Adam and Eve Court, which is a public footpath, or the footpath adjacent to Eastcastle Street's carriageway. Bicycles are, in law, carriages (as a consequence of the Taylor v Goodwin judgment in 1879) and should be on the carriageway not footpaths. As cycling on footpaths is prohibited by Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888, and is punishable by a fixed penalty notice under Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, this dropped footway cannot have been lowered for this purpose either.

With regard to subsection (iii), as you will see from the photographic evidence, vehicles are not able to enter or leave the carriageway at this dropped footway as the use of static bollards prevent any cars from entering or leaving Adam and Eve Court.

Clearly the purpose of this legislation to to stop vehicles blocking these lowered footways and preventing them from being used for their intended purpose. As the footway I was parked adjacent to does not fall into the statutory definition and is not used for any of the reasons laid out in the Traffic Management Act 2004, I am therefore not in violation of it and this ticket should not have been issued.

Furthermore, as the Traffic Management Act 2004, 86(1)(a) states, the definition of a dropped footway is where 'the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway'. As you will see from the photos this dropped footway does not meet the carriageway and is a good inch higher than the carriageway at it's lowest point.

In addition to this, dropped footway parking has exceptions. According to the Traffic Management Act 2004, 86 (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'. As double yellow lines have been painted on the other side of the road and across other dropped footways in this zone (please see photographic evidence) preventing parking at any time, the very specific use of just a single yellow over this 'dropped footway' suggests you know this 'dropped footway' cannot be enforced, hence becoming a designated parking space outside of the CPZs restricted times.

With this in mind, this Penalty Charge Notice should not have been issued. As well as this parking space constituting a designated parking space, the dropped footway fails to meet the statutory definition of a dropped footway in that it is not used to assist pedestrians, it is not used to assist cars or cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, it is not used to assist vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge and it has not been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway.

I therefore request this Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled with immediate effect. If my challenge to this notice is rejected, I will seek legal advice and wait for the Notice to Owner.

Yours sincerely

….

And this was their reply...

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above penalty notice, issued as the above Enforcement Officer believed the vehicle to be parked adjacent to a dropped footway.

Your challenge against this PCN has been rejected because the vehicle was parked adjacent to one of the dropped footways that Westminster Council are enforcing.

A dropped footway is defined in the 2003 Act as being any part of the footway or verge where it has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway of a road for the purpose of assisting pedestrians crossing the road or assisting vehicles to enter/leave the road across the footway or verge.

Westminster City Council began enforcement of dropped kerbs on 09/02/09 with 2 weeks of issuing warning notices then PCN's being issued from 23/02/09. At present Westminster City Council only enforces code 27 where the footway has been lowered for the purpose of assisting pedestrians crossing the road and not where the footway has been lowered to assist vehicles to enter/leave the road (eg driveways). Code 27 is currently only to be enforced on stretches of single yellow line outside controlled hours. No extra signage is required.

Although you state that there is no reciprocal dropped footway and that is cannot be for pedestrian use, the dropped footway opposite number 20 which is where you vehicle was parked is one of those which Westminster City Council are enforcing.

If you require any further clarification with regard to the leagality of this dropped footway and why this one is not marked with double yellow lines I would advise you write to our Customer Relations department at the address below.

Customer Relations
Parking Services
PO BOX 396
Warrington

I am able to offer you a further 14 days, from the date of this letter, to pay the PCN at the discounted rate. You now have two options:

Option 1 - payment at discounted rate

(it then gives ways to pay).....

Option 2 - make a formal representation

If you do not pay within 14 days from the date of this letter, the full charge of £120 will fall due. If you have not paid before the end of this 14 day period or the period of 28 days beginning with the deate of service of the PCN, whichever is the later, then we will issue a Notice to Owner to the registered keeper of the vehicle. The NtO will allow the registered keeper to make full payment or a formal representation, appealing against the issue of the PCN; the procedure for doing so will be explained on the NtO.

Any new evidence can be presented with the formal representation.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Goad, Assistant Director, Parking Services.

Sooooo - what do you think? This dropped footway was obviously once intended for when Adam and Eve Court was in use. It isn't anymore. There's no pedestrian crossing here and there's no dropped footway the other side of the road. Can they by law call it a dropped footway for pedestrians even if there's no corresponding df?

Also the DF isn't flush with the carriageway as you can see. Do I have a case there too?

Thanks.

T
KarenH
Don't know if this will help or not
but as I understand it
The height of the drop should be
Private Vehicular acess a maximum of 25mm
Agricultural Access Maximum of 25mm
Flush dropped Crossings (for pedestrians, cycleways and combined footway cycleways 0-6mm
(Taken for a Leicester council website but I'd imagine it should be the same nationwide? like http://www.leics.gov.uk/sd111a.pdf)


The one shown in your picture is definately only for pedestrians and the drop should be a maximum of 6mm in height, that looks quite a bit higher to me
Trixie
Ah thanks for that Karen. I couldn't find that anywhere. I should imagine it would be nationwide but when it comes to Westminster Council I'm sure they'll say they're different.

I think they've backed themselves into a corner with this one by saying it's a pedestrian dropped footway. This is clearly not a crossing point and the DF is not flush with the carriageway! Only problem is now- I don't fancy going back there with my ruler! From the pics it looks like it's more than 6mm though. Do you agree?

T
Trixie
Ignore my last question - just realised you said it does look like quite a lot higher to you. Will formulate my response to their rejection soon and post up.
KarenH
QUOTE (Trixie @ Tue, 23 Jun 2009 - 11:29) *
Ignore my last question - just realised you said it does look like quite a lot higher to you. Will formulate my response to their rejection soon and post up.



Wait for confirmation from more knowlegable people, I'm still pretty new at this myself
I'm sure one of the experts will comment soon
Trixie
Does anyone in the know actually run the forum?
dave-o
At the end of the day you have a good case IMO. They will probably force you all the way to adjudication though, and likely drop out just before your hearing. That would be a win though.
Trixie
Thanks Dave... This is my response to them...

Thank you for your letter dated 17 June 2009, however, regarding the above PCN, it appears you have not properly considered all the points I raised in my informal representation.

You stated in your letter that Westminster Council is only enforcing Code 27 where the footway has been lowered for the purpose of assisting pedestrians crossing the road and not where the footway has been lowered to assist vehicles to enter/leave the road. However, as there is no reciprocal dropped footway the other side of the road and this part of Eastcastle Street is obviously not a pedestrian refuge, I fail to see how one dropped footway would benefit wheelchair or mobility users or pedestrians when they would not be able to get up onto the footway once they reached the other side. Could you please explain to me why you are choosing to enforce this one as a pedestrian dropped footway. Could you also please provide evidence that this dropped footway was lowered specifically, intentionally and obviously in order to assist pedestrians cross, in the form of a traffic order relating to Eastcastle Street on the junction of Adam and Eve Court. Please treat this request as a Freedom of Information request.

You also stated in your letter that a dropped footway is defined in the 2003 Act as being any part of the footway or verge where it has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway. As I pointed out with photographic evidence in my first letter, this 'dropped footway' has not been lowered to 'the level of the carriageway', and I fail to see how a disabled person would be able to get their wheelchair over the gap. As the level of this dropped footway is not flush with the carriageway, could you please explain how this comes under the Act's strict definition of a dropped footway – this is something you didn't address in your reply to me.

Furthermore, you also did not address the exception for parking across a dropped footway. As you know, the Traffic Management Act 2004, 86 (2) states that 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'. As parking on a single yellow is specifically authorised outside the zone's restricted hours, painting this part of the road with a single yellow, where all other dropped footways in the zone are covered with a double yellow, indicates that a motorist may park there. Some people may say this is tantamount to entrapment if you are still going to issue PCNs when you have indicated, with signage, to the motorist that they may park there. Surely if the point of a dropped footway is to assist pedestrians and wheelchair users to cross, would it not make sense to install double yellow lines so it is clear they must not be obstructed at any time?

As you also say that Westminster Council only began enforcing dropped footways on the 9th February 2009, could you please explain how the motorist would know this if there are no signs to suggest this new enforcement.

For the purpose of assisting me with my representation, could you also please provide:

Copies of the entry in the parking attendant's notebook, detailing the issue of the PCN and the circumstances surrounding it.

Details of the number of PCNs issued and subsequently cancelled due to parking attendant error in the last three years

Details of PCNs issued in this area for the above contravention which have subsequently been cancelled.

Details of the error rate for the parking attendant claiming to have issued this PCN.

Please treat this request as part of my informal appeal with the relevant discount. Alternatively, you may wish to consider cancelling this ticket on this occasion.

I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this letter in accordance with the Council's protocols and procedures in dealing with communications from members of the public and advise as to the likely time-frame for your response.

Yours sincerely,

***

I think I definitely have a case - you can see that this DF was obviously once used as an access point for Adam and Eve Court. How they can say it's for pedestrian use I don't know!! How would a wheelchair user get up onto the pavement once they reached the other side???!

Will let you know what they're response is.

T

*Their* - obviously!!
mashkiach
QUOTE (Trixie @ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 - 11:56) *
As parking on a single yellow is specifically authorised outside the zone's restricted hours, painting this part of the road with a single yellow, where all other dropped footways in the zone are covered with a double yellow, indicates that a motorist may park there.

I do not think this correct. Please direct me to any legislation that may indicate so. As to the enforcement of the different dropped footways the fact that they have not enforced up to now does not preclude them to do so now.


The wording in the legislation of “Lowered to meet the level of the carriageway” still needs clarification.

I would rather go along with the argument from anorak.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t=0#entry358816

Trixie
The RTA states that there are exceptions for parking across a dropped footway and that's if it is a designated parking space. A single yellow is an indicator that it's a designated parking space outside the zone's restricted hours. All the other dropped footways in Westminster are covered with doubles, which suggests no parking at any time. This specific use of a single suggests it's a designated parking space.

Also re having to sign DFs, they would have had to have been signed before June - the councils realised the anomoly here and made an ammendement. Here is the legislation that states this traffic order i.e DFs do not need to be signed.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/pdf/uksi_20091116_en.pdf

The way I see it, the single yellow is a sign that I can park there. Anyone agree?
Trixie
QUOTE (mashkiach @ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 - 12:24) *
QUOTE (Trixie @ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 - 11:56) *
As parking on a single yellow is specifically authorised outside the zone's restricted hours, painting this part of the road with a single yellow, where all other dropped footways in the zone are covered with a double yellow, indicates that a motorist may park there.

I do not think this correct. Please direct me to any legislation that may indicate so.




Here is the legislation that states you may park adjacent to a dropped footway if it's a designated parking place...

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).


A single yellow specifically authorises parking outside the zone's restricted hours no?
mashkiach
QUOTE (Trixie @ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 - 12:55) *


Yes very sad. huh.gif




Trixie
QUOTE (mashkiach @ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 - 13:27) *
QUOTE (Trixie @ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 - 12:55) *


Yes very sad. huh.gif



So - would you say I still have a case seeing as according to the RTA, you CAN park across a DF if it's a designated parking space? All the other DFs in Westminster are covered with double yellows, which is a sign that it's NOT a designated parking space. A single yellow IS a designated parking space (outside the zone's controlled hours, obviously)..... So how can I have contravened any Act? That's my main argument... plus the fact that this DF is not flush with the carriageway
clark_kent
QUOTE (Trixie @ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 - 14:27) *
QUOTE (mashkiach @ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 - 13:27) *
QUOTE (Trixie @ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 - 12:55) *


Yes very sad. huh.gif



So - would you say I still have a case seeing as according to the RTA, you CAN park across a DF if it's a designated parking space? All the other DFs in Westminster are covered with double yellows, which is a sign that it's NOT a designated parking space. A single yellow IS a designated parking space (outside the zone's controlled hours, obviously)..... So how can I have contravened any Act? That's my main argument... plus the fact that this DF is not flush with the carriageway




(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).

Is there a traffic order that states the place you parked is a designated parking place?

Trixie




QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 25 Jun 2009 - 01:04) *
(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).

Is there a traffic order that states the place you parked is a designated parking place?



I've no idea what that means re section 6, 9 32 etc! I assumed it's a designated parking spot cos it's a yellow line and that's a parking space after restricted hours no? What section 6's etc definition of a designated parking space?
clark_kent
QUOTE (Trixie @ Thu, 25 Jun 2009 - 10:03) *
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 25 Jun 2009 - 01:04) *
(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).

Is there a traffic order that states the place you parked is a designated parking place?



I've no idea what that means re section 6, 9 32 etc! I assumed it's a designated parking spot cos it's a yellow line and that's a parking space after restricted hours no? What section 6's etc definition of a designated parking space?



A designated parking place is usually a bay with a traffic order that states parking is permitted subject to certain conditions ie permits only or 30 min max stay. If your concept of the yellow line being a designated parking place it would mean that outside of CPZ hours I could park across my neighbours drives and block them in.
Matts Dad
May be an idea for the appeal to get a photograph of the SYL at 'your' DF and photographs of other DFs with DYLs. If they're not being consistent with their road markings it could well count against them at appeal.
clark_kent
QUOTE (Matts Dad @ Thu, 25 Jun 2009 - 10:14) *
May be an idea for the appeal to get a photograph of the SYL at 'your' DF and photographs of other DFs with DYLs. If they're not being consistent with their road markings it could well count against them at appeal.



A drop kerb does not need a DYL outside CPZ hours I can park across my own drop kerb if it was a DYL that would not be possible making me at a disadvantage from those without a drive.
Matts Dad
QUOTE (Trixie @ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 - 12:55) *
All the other dropped footways in Westminster are covered with doubles, which suggests no parking at any time. This specific use of a single suggests it's a designated parking space.



QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 25 Jun 2009 - 10:25) *
A drop kerb does not need a DYL outside CPZ hours I can park across my own drop kerb if it was a DYL that would not be possible making me at a disadvantage from those without a drive.


I realise that DYLs are not a requirement, but from the OP's comment it seems that Westminster do specifically use them across DFs, and the fact that they haven't in this case could be beneficial.
Trixie
QUOTE (Matts Dad @ Thu, 25 Jun 2009 - 11:04) *
QUOTE (Trixie @ Wed, 24 Jun 2009 - 12:55) *
All the other dropped footways in Westminster are covered with doubles, which suggests no parking at any time. This specific use of a single suggests it's a designated parking space.

QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 25 Jun 2009 - 10:25) *
A drop kerb does not need a DYL outside CPZ hours I can park across my own drop kerb if it was a DYL that would not be possible making me at a disadvantage from those without a drive.


I realise that DYLs are not a requirement, but from the OP's comment it seems that Westminster do specifically use them across DFs, and the fact that they haven't in this case could be beneficial.


Well this is what I'm thinking. The fact they only used a single here, coupled with the facts it's not a pedestrian refuge or a driveway, made me think it was ok to park there! I have photos of other DF in the area - obviously not all of them but I got a few to prove my point that they gave the impression parking here was ok outside the CZ restricted times... Does anyone think I should remove the bit about the single yellow being a designated parking space from my letter? And just go with the height of the dropped footway and the fact it's not a pedestrian refuge?
rapid
Any chance of seeing the ticket what may be inportant here is the time in which you where issued the ticket. Have a look at this>>> TMA 2004 section 86(5)

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.



If you were issued the ticket before the full 20 minutes then the above regulation has been breached.
Please note I am no expert let the legal eagals advise you on what I have posted.


Trixie
QUOTE (rapid @ Thu, 25 Jun 2009 - 22:35) *
Any chance of seeing the ticket what may be inportant here is the time in which you where issued the ticket. Have a look at this>>> TMA 2004 section 86(5)

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.

If you were issued the ticket before the full 20 minutes then the above regulation has been breached.
Please note I am no expert let the legal eagals advise you on what I have posted.


I wasn't unloading... I was in a pub! So my car was parked for a couple of hours. Don't worry I wasn't drinking!!
Trixie
Does anybody know the exact legal definition of a 'designated parking space' please?
clark_kent
QUOTE (Trixie @ Mon, 29 Jun 2009 - 12:10) *
Does anybody know the exact legal definition of a 'designated parking space' please?



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).
Trixie
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Mon, 29 Jun 2009 - 18:12) *
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).


Thanks Clark Kent - I know that bit though... I just have no idea what it says in section 6,9 32 etc etc etc. I've tried looking it up but I can't make any sense of it. What I meant by my question was... what is the definition in those sections for the average lay person?
clark_kent
QUOTE (Trixie @ Mon, 29 Jun 2009 - 23:32) *
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Mon, 29 Jun 2009 - 18:12) *
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).


Thanks Clark Kent - I know that bit though... I just have no idea what it says in section 6,9 32 etc etc etc. I've tried looking it up but I can't make any sense of it. What I meant by my question was... what is the definition in those sections for the average lay person?


A traffic order designating a parking place under the RTRA 1984 would specify you could park there subject to the conditions in the order such as residents only or 1 hour maximum stay.
Trixie
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Tue, 30 Jun 2009 - 18:06) *
A traffic order designating a parking place under the RTRA 1984 would specify you could park there subject to the conditions in the order such as residents only or 1 hour maximum stay.


Ah... well I've sent the letter off now anyway as it was. I guess I don't have a case re the designated parking place, but to be honest I do still think I have a case with the height of the dropped footway. It's still an inch higher than the carriageway at it's lowest point. That can't fit within the definition! Also - I think I may have a case with the fact they say it's dropped to assist pedestrians. I'm pretty certain it isn't and have asked for the traffic order. It looks to me like the dropped footway was put there to help cars in and out of Adam and Eve Court before they put bollards up to stop traffic. How can they say it's for pedestrians but not have a DF the other side of the road?! What would wheelchair users do once they got to the other side?!

Anyone know if you can have a DF for pedestrians without a recriprocal DF the other side of the road? How common is that?
dave-o
I'll be watching this one avidly.

Lots of people get towed for parking over park of a DF. I'm sure plenty of these are well over the height of the road.

If successful, this could really be useful.
Trixie
QUOTE (dave-o @ Tue, 7 Jul 2009 - 09:57) *
I'll be watching this one avidly.
Lots of people get towed for parking over park of a DF. I'm sure plenty of these are well over the height of the road.
If successful, this could really be useful.


Well let's hope I am successful because I got a Notice to Owner this morning! I'd like to see them prove this DF was lowered specifically for pedestrian use! Anyone can see it wasn't!!!
Trixie
OK - I finally received the NtO this morning for parking adjacent to a DF. Is there a standard letter of response I can use to reply to them does anyone know?

If you read my other topic, 'Parking adjacent to a dropped footway PCN. Wrong to be issued?', you'll get all the background info on the ticket if you're not familiar with my case.

Thanks guys
roythebus
There's quite a few DFs in my (semi-rural) area with no corresponding DF the other side. These are used by the elderly with their mobility scooters and access to taxis and ambulances.

Mrs. roythebus, being a town councillor, keeps getting complaints that the wrinklys can't get down the kerb with their scooters because someone's parked there. Any further info on the regs generally would be appreciated here too.
Trixie
QUOTE (roythebus @ Wed, 8 Jul 2009 - 17:20) *
There's quite a few DFs in my (semi-rural) area with no corresponding DF the other side. These are used by the elderly with their mobility scooters and access to taxis and ambulances.


Thanks that's interesting. But the DF I got a ticket from is right in the middle of central London. It's not residential, plus - if you have a look at the photos I posted up, it looks like this DF was originally there to serve any cars coming in and out of Adam and Eve Court. There's no longer access to this drive due to bollards. Do you think it's possible that the council applied to change the DF's use? Ie could it once have been for access but has now changed to pedestrian use - lawfully??
clark_kent
QUOTE (Trixie @ Wed, 8 Jul 2009 - 17:26) *
QUOTE (roythebus @ Wed, 8 Jul 2009 - 17:20) *
There's quite a few DFs in my (semi-rural) area with no corresponding DF the other side. These are used by the elderly with their mobility scooters and access to taxis and ambulances.


Thanks that's interesting. But the DF I got a ticket from is right in the middle of central London. It's not residential, plus - if you have a look at the photos I posted up, it looks like this DF was originally there to serve any cars coming in and out of Adam and Eve Court. There's no longer access to this drive due to bollards. Do you think it's possible that the council applied to change the DF's use? Ie could it once have been for access but has now changed to pedestrian use - lawfully??



Some drop kerbs are to allow goods deliveries using a barrow access from the street.
Trixie
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Wed, 8 Jul 2009 - 19:39) *
Some drop kerbs are to allow goods deliveries using a barrow access from the street.


Oh well that's worrying cos there is a stall set up right at the other end of Adam and Eve Court! Surely the stall holder would have to make a complaint though no? How can I find out the original use for this DF?
Trixie
Well it's going to adjudicator so watch this space... Am sending off the form as we speak! I'm really hoping there's a technicality here or the traffic order states this DF wasn't lowered for pedestrian use. Warrington were quite rude in their reply and said 'complete ignorance of the regulations is not grounds for cancellation'! Rude f*ckers!
clark_kent
QUOTE (Trixie @ Thu, 23 Jul 2009 - 17:29) *
Well it's going to adjudicator so watch this space... Am sending off the form as we speak! I'm really hoping there's a technicality here or the traffic order states this DF wasn't lowered for pedestrian use. Warrington were quite rude in their reply and said 'complete ignorance of the regulations is not grounds for cancellation'! Rude f*ckers!



You don't as far as I am aware need a traffic order for a drop kerb.
Trixie
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Thu, 23 Jul 2009 - 17:38) *
You don't as far as I am aware need a traffic order for a drop kerb.


Maybe 'taffic order' was the wrong term then but surely there must be some application process before the council drop the footway no? Do you know what it would be called?
peodude
Although there is seemingly a slope on the left of the picture of the dropped kerb, there is no slope to the right. Along with the irregularities in height, this looks more like a sunken kerb than a dropped kerb.
Trixie
QUOTE (peodude @ Fri, 24 Jul 2009 - 17:05) *
Although there is seemingly a slope on the left of the picture of the dropped kerb, there is no slope to the right. Along with the irregularities in height, this looks more like a sunken kerb than a dropped kerb.


It very well could be. Down the alley on the right is the back entrance to HMV on Oxford Street - they're deliveries come in huge lories. I wouldn't be surprised if over the years (before the bollards were put there of course) that the weight of them made the kerb sink.

Just looked at the pic again and I see what you mean. I could maybe use that in my defense. It's gone to adjudicator now so I'm getting a bit nervous! I'm gonna fight this though... it's legalised theft!!
Stryker
QUOTE (Trixie @ Fri, 24 Jul 2009 - 20:38) *
QUOTE (peodude @ Fri, 24 Jul 2009 - 17:05) *
Although there is seemingly a slope on the left of the picture of the dropped kerb, there is no slope to the right. Along with the irregularities in height, this looks more like a sunken kerb than a dropped kerb.


It very well could be. Down the alley on the right is the back entrance to HMV on Oxford Street - they're deliveries come in huge lories. I wouldn't be surprised if over the years (before the bollards were put there of course) that the weight of them made the kerb sink.

Just looked at the pic again and I see what you mean. I could maybe use that in my defense. It's gone to adjudicator now so I'm getting a bit nervous! I'm gonna fight this though... it's legalised theft!!


I think you may be able to get off this on the premise that the yellow line is there. You could argue that the operational hours of the yellow line determine when parking is authorised:

"(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. "

Technically the single yellow line should be a double yellow if the intention is to prohibit waiting after that single yellow line stops operating, otherwise its confusing.
In the legislation before the TMA 2004 it stated that dropped kerbs can not be enforced in London if adjacent to a single yellow. I don't think the TMA 2004 intended to do away with this.
clark_kent
QUOTE (Stryker @ Fri, 24 Jul 2009 - 22:51) *
QUOTE (Trixie @ Fri, 24 Jul 2009 - 20:38) *
QUOTE (peodude @ Fri, 24 Jul 2009 - 17:05) *
Although there is seemingly a slope on the left of the picture of the dropped kerb, there is no slope to the right. Along with the irregularities in height, this looks more like a sunken kerb than a dropped kerb.


It very well could be. Down the alley on the right is the back entrance to HMV on Oxford Street - they're deliveries come in huge lories. I wouldn't be surprised if over the years (before the bollards were put there of course) that the weight of them made the kerb sink.

Just looked at the pic again and I see what you mean. I could maybe use that in my defense. It's gone to adjudicator now so I'm getting a bit nervous! I'm gonna fight this though... it's legalised theft!!


Hi Trixie
You should be able to get off this ticket on the premise that the carriageway at the point of the dropped footways should not have yellow lines on it.

See London Local Authorities Act 2003 section 14(2)
"(2) But this section shall not apply in respect of any part of the carriageway during any period in which—

(a) an order under section 6 or section 9 of the Act of 1984 (which make provision about road traffic regulation orders) prohibits or permits the waiting of vehicles on it; "

A Section 6 Order of the 1984 Act is one that can prohibit waiting and in your example the yellow line clearly runs adjacent to the dropped footway - therefore the dropped footway is unenforceable IMO.

I reckon the Council have seen that the footway here is a bit dodgy and have decided not to designate that area as a dropped footway, which is why they painted yellow on it.

This is another classic case of a CEO not knowing his sh*t and saw a half chance to issue a ticket.

The majority of CEOs are baffoons - its a dirty job but somebodys got to do it!



Its not just CEOs that appear to be buffoons since a) the lla 2003 is no longer used to enforce drop kerbs, b) even if it were the yellow line was not in force at the time of the PCN therefore it was not 'during any period' that the yellow line order was in force.
Trixie
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Fri, 24 Jul 2009 - 23:23) *
Its not just CEOs that appear to be buffoons since a) the lla 2003 is no longer used to enforce drop kerbs, b) even if it were the yellow line was not in force at the time of the PCN therefore it was not 'during any period' that the yellow line order was in force.


Clark Kent I don't understand what you wrote here sorry.... I thought DFs were irrespective of yellow lines no? I.e. They can paint what lines they like or don't like... either way you can't park adjacent to a DF anyway... so I guess it is entrapment... but that's no illegal is it?
clark_kent
QUOTE (Trixie @ Sat, 25 Jul 2009 - 09:13) *
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Fri, 24 Jul 2009 - 23:23) *
Its not just CEOs that appear to be buffoons since a) the lla 2003 is no longer used to enforce drop kerbs, b) even if it were the yellow line was not in force at the time of the PCN therefore it was not 'during any period' that the yellow line order was in force.


Clark Kent I don't understand what you wrote here sorry.... I thought DFs were irrespective of yellow lines no? I.e. They can paint what lines they like or don't like... either way you can't park adjacent to a DF anyway... so I guess it is entrapment... but that's no illegal is it?



Under the LLA 2003 wording the yellow line took precedent over the drop kerb so during the hours of the SYL you should (under the LLA 2003) have got a SYL PCN. However this wording is not in the TMA 2004 neither was the SYL in force at the time of the PCN so Stryker was wrong and not the CEO.
Trixie
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Sat, 25 Jul 2009 - 09:41) *
Under the LLA 2003 wording the yellow line took precedent over the drop kerb so during the hours of the SYL you should (under the LLA 2003) have got a SYL PCN. However this wording is not in the TMA 2004 neither was the SYL in force at the time of the PCN so Stryker was wrong and not the CEO.


Ah I get it. But anway... am I right in thinking that DFs are enforceable irrespective of yellow lines? I'm starting to worry I don't actually have a case here as DF parking is prohibited. But - WM council said they only enforce DFs used for pedestrians at the mo so that's what I'm hoping will help my case. I'm pretty sure (with a fair bit of hoping) that this DF was not put there for pedestrians. Do you agree looking at the picture? It looks like it was originally put there for the drive. What do you think? Even if it was would they still be able to issue me a ticket even though a)the drive can no longer be used and b)they said they only enforce pedestrian DFs??
clark_kent
QUOTE (Trixie @ Sat, 25 Jul 2009 - 10:11) *
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Sat, 25 Jul 2009 - 09:41) *
Under the LLA 2003 wording the yellow line took precedent over the drop kerb so during the hours of the SYL you should (under the LLA 2003) have got a SYL PCN. However this wording is not in the TMA 2004 neither was the SYL in force at the time of the PCN so Stryker was wrong and not the CEO.


Ah I get it. But anway... am I right in thinking that DFs are enforceable irrespective of yellow lines? I'm starting to worry I don't actually have a case here as DF parking is prohibited. But - WM council said they only enforce DFs used for pedestrians at the mo so that's what I'm hoping will help my case. I'm pretty sure (with a fair bit of hoping) that this DF was not put there for pedestrians. Do you agree looking at the picture? It looks like it was originally put there for the drive. What do you think? Even if it was would they still be able to issue me a ticket even though a)the drive can no longer be used and b)they said they only enforce pedestrian DFs??


The adjudicator cannot rule on Council policy only the law so if it was a vehicle drop kerb they cannot cancel the PCN only suggest the Council cancels it. Drop kerbs are enforceable with or without a yellow line so if you had a blue badge and parked legally on a SYL you could still get a PCN for the drop kerb similar to footway parking which in London the Council can elect to issue either for the yellow line or the adjacent footway neither would be wrong.
Trixie
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Sat, 25 Jul 2009 - 11:13) *
The adjudicator cannot rule on Council policy only the law so if it was a vehicle drop kerb they cannot cancel the PCN only suggest the Council cancels it.

And do you know how exactly I can find out if it's a vehicle DF or a pedestrian one? Also - if the adjudicator suggests they cancel it, could they still say no and make me pay?
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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.