What is "parked adjacent to a dropped footway"

Manxman_in_exile

born_again said:

Grumpy_chap said:

OP - I am a little confused.  On 10th March, you posted:

Jonathan_Powell said:

Just got a PCN on a road outside my house that I've been parking on for years. The charge was "parked adjacent to a dropped footway".  

Now, 13th March, you state:

Jonathan_Powell said:

Going to a hearing. Same council, gave me a ticket for parking on a yellow line which was barely visible in normal circumstances (literally specs of paint). Half a day holiday from work and had to travel into Central London. 

So, is this not about the money but a point of principal?
The time-scales seem odd to me as the normal process is to appeal the ticket first and then an actual hearing is the last step in the appeal route.  Either way, the hassle of going to appeal and attending the hearing plus the monetary value of your time (not recognised by the Council, but real enough for you) makes it more expensive than simply paying (which is probably why so few people go to that length).
If you are appealing and taking this right through to a hearing, then please do take counsel from the people at PePiPoo.  Also, you will need more appropriate photos than those in the thread as any adjudicator is more than likely to ask exactly the questions that have been asked here about photos that show only part of the car at any one time.

If you can share more, then people here (or in PePiPoo) will be able to give advice, but that is difficult to give more advice based on what is in this thread so far.

Have you put a thread up in PePiPoo?

OP had previous said that they had appealed a previous ticket and I think this is what the "Yellow line" part is about. NOT what this thread is about.

I think that is correct - the OP was talking there about a previous parking case.  (Although I'm a bit surprised that if they've been to a traffic tribunal in London before that they seem not to know more about dropped kerbs and what is in the Highway Code - like which side of the road you should park on)

Manxman_in_exile

born_again said:

justworriedabit said:

Fair enough but I would never have put it like that ie the other poster.
I think we will agree to disagree re the "evade" bit as IMO he has said, given enough info and there
is no point in the OP not telling us the truth.
I do appreciate your response and it has been good interacting with you.
Thank you.

Sadly there are many thread that just drip feed information. Which when it finally comes out is not what was said in the 1st place.
Not saying the OP is not telling the truth, but a rule of thumb is when pertinent questions go unanswered, makes you doubt what you are being told.

Quite.

I may be mistaken but nothing on Pepipoo yet.  (Not sure if there's a time restriction before new members can create a new topic)

Manxman_in_exile

Jonathan_Powell said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Jonathan_Powell said:

I previously got an unjust ticket and appealed it to a point I had to go see an adjudicator/magistrate (?) in person. They didn't even bother show up but the victory didn't taste too sweet as I had to book a half day off and pay transport cost to get there.

Assuming they also do the same thing here, can I reasonably suit for them wasting my time? Especially if they haven't followed the law and don't show up.

The short answer is 'no'.  Your time, such as it is, does not have a monetary value.  Are you talking about going to your local council office to speak to somebody or a proper court hearing?  If it's the latter you might be able to claim travel expenses.  If it's just going to see a member of staff in a council building then nothing applies.  

Going to a hearing. Same council, gave me a ticket for parking on a yellow line which was barely visible in normal circumstances (literally specs of paint). Half a day holiday from work and had to travel into Central London. 

I believe that if the council photos clearly show no infringement, but they still reject both your representations and formal appeal and force you to take it to traffic adjudicator, you can try applying for costs against the council when you win, on the grounds that they have acted unreasonably and frivolously in pursuing the penalty.  But my understanding is that such claims rarely win.  (The council needs to have acted REALLY unreasonably).  But nothing to lose by trying.

You can also formally complain to the council (and your elected councillor) asking why they are pursuing spurious parking charges against innocent council tax payers and politely suggest that their parking enforcement officers be "re-educated" regarding the regulations they are enforcing.  (And if you want to be awkward, after 6 months or so you could try a FOI request asking what "re-education" has been done or is planned)

justworriedabit

born_again said:

justworriedabit said:

Fair enough but I would never have put it like that ie the other poster.
I think we will agree to disagree re the "evade" bit as IMO he has said, given enough info and there
is no point in the OP not telling us the truth.
I do appreciate your response and it has been good interacting with you.
Thank you.

Sadly there are many thread that just drip feed information. Which when it finally comes out is not what was said in the 1st place.
Not saying the OP is not telling the truth, but a rule of thumb is when pertinent questions go unanswered, makes you doubt what you are being told.

Re Drip feed. I think it's more to do with a OP thinks they've included everthting but then asked further questions. It can be hard to inc everything intially IMO and that happens on almost every thread.
IMHO, it is the way you ask the question and not just referring to this thread but all over all forums some can be quite rude and I feel this is not required.
I asked the OP a question as I thought there may be a dropped kerb behind the car but highly unlkiely but possible. OP posted saying there was not one.
It is an interesting scenario and one many would like to learn about the outcome. I've said it before, IMO, the coucil have made a mistake its been an overzealous ceo.
Thank you.

Jonathan_Powell

JamoLew said:

Op - please can you put this "debate" to rest by:
Taking a photo of that space when standing parallel to the kerb from the opposite side of the road with:

a) no cars parked there
b) your car parked there

and/or posting a GSV as asked ages ago

people genuinely WANT to help and are no less harsh than you will find if/when you appeal.

Being evasive to questions and not providing reasonable information when requested does nothing to help your cause

Thanks

Not being evasive. I took a photo of the front of the car and the back. Getting a new photo will require me to park the car back in the same position and take another photo. I have better things to be getting on with. I really don't understand why people care if the photo is genuine or not, if you think it isn't, then ignore the thread. Really unsure what I have to gain by manipulating photos. Furthermore, I already have the help I was looking for. People advised here that there is nothing on the highway code to suggest I parked illegally.

I've appealed the ticket and if the appeal is declined, I'll post more information on that other site people recommend. My cause has already been helped. 

Jonathan_Powell

Grumpy_chap said:

OP - I am a little confused.  On 10th March, you posted:

Jonathan_Powell said:

Just got a PCN on a road outside my house that I've been parking on for years. The charge was "parked adjacent to a dropped footway".  

Now, 13th March, you state:

Jonathan_Powell said:

Going to a hearing. Same council, gave me a ticket for parking on a yellow line which was barely visible in normal circumstances (literally specs of paint). Half a day holiday from work and had to travel into Central London. 

So, is this not about the money but a point of principal?
The time-scales seem odd to me as the normal process is to appeal the ticket first and then an actual hearing is the last step in the appeal route.  Either way, the hassle of going to appeal and attending the hearing plus the monetary value of your time (not recognised by the Council, but real enough for you) makes it more expensive than simply paying (which is probably why so few people go to that length).
If you are appealing and taking this right through to a hearing, then please do take counsel from the people at PePiPoo.  Also, you will need more appropriate photos than those in the thread as any adjudicator is more than likely to ask exactly the questions that have been asked here about photos that show only part of the car at any one time.

If you can share more, then people here (or in PePiPoo) will be able to give advice, but that is difficult to give more advice based on what is in this thread so far.

Have you put a thread up in PePiPoo?

Two different situations. When I said I had to go into London, I was referring to a previous ticket I got a year or two ago. Finished my registration on PePiPoo but appealed before. If the council still insist I parked illegally, I'll post there. 

Supersonos

10 pages of bickering!

Accusations of doctoring photos, discussions about the size of paving slabs and the width of a gate, requests for Street View links to try and prove the OP wrong...  these forums amaze me sometimes!

The poor OP simply wanted some help regarding a ticket he recieved when he thought he parked legally.  OP: for what it's worth, it looks to me like you did nothing wrong, so I'd double check the highway code and then contest the ticket.  My understanding is you can't park blocking the dropped kerb or the "dropping" kerbs, which is looks like you didn't.

JamoLew

FYI - I wasn't trying to prove the OP wrong or right.

Was merely attempting to cover all the possible angles/points that should be raised as part of a defense and could be used to dispute an appeal/defense

I never asked for ANY info that the good folks on PePiPoo wouldn't request before helping as well

Thanks for your (incorrect) judgement though

Supersonos

JamoLew said:

Thanks for your (incorrect) judgement though

You realise you're not the only person who replied in this thread, right?    

forgotmyname

Supersonos said:

10 pages of bickering!

Accusations of doctoring photos, discussions about the size of paving slabs and the width of a gate, requests for Street View links to try and prove the OP wrong...  these forums amaze me sometimes!

The poor OP simply wanted some help regarding a ticket he recieved when he thought he parked legally.  OP: for what it's worth, it looks to me like you did nothing wrong, so I'd double check the highway code and then contest the ticket.  My understanding is you can't park blocking the dropped kerb or the "dropping" kerbs, which is looks like you didn't.

It's amazing what smart people can gather from a photo.

Youtuber posted a selfie picture with a prize for the person who got closest to the location.  He was shocked at how accurate

some people were. Using shadows and angles lots guessed within 100feet.  Something like a dozen people got within 6 feet.

This was a location off the road so no signs or road markings to give the game away.

The winner was within 2.5 feet of the actual spot.  Made him think twice about posting photo's in future.