What is "parked adjacent to a dropped footway"

Aretnap

Jonathan_Powell said:

Aretnap said:

Jonathan_Powell said:

I'm going to call them tomorrow. Through just asking or a FOI request, should they tell me whether or not someone complained? And as they on punish so called unfriendly parking, is it only the occupants of the house I'm parking near can make a complaint? 

They're unlikely to tell you whether they had a complaint, and certainly won't tell you who made it if there was one. The Freedom of Information Act doesn't require them to give you fine details of specific cases, and certainly doesn't apply to personal information.

There's no actual requirement for them to have had a complaint to give you a ticket anyway. The law makes it illegal to park "adjacent to" a dropped kerb, and if you want to take advantage of an exception it's down to you to prove that the exception applies - which you could do by pointing out that you owned the property, or by providing a letter from the owner saying that you had his permission. No evidence of permission from the owner means it's a valid ticket. In theory there's nothing to stop the council ticketing every car on the street which is adjacent to a dropped kerb, and letting the drivers who's parked with a resident's permission appeal and provide evidence. The reason they don't do this is practical rather than legal - it would mean a lot of wasted time and effort for drivers, residents and the council themselves.

So your argument is that you were not "adjacent to" the dropped kerb. I have no idea where the figure of 1.5m that has been quoted comes from. The law itself says that "a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway... where the footway,.. has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway". I think that the natural reading is that adjacent to means adjacent to the dropped kerb itself; a broad reading might mean close enough to it to obstruct access to the driveway, but there's no mention of a specific figure like 1.5m. The Highway Code also simply says don't stop or park in front of an entrance to a property - it doesn't specify a distance either side of that entrance where you shouldn't stop or park either. So where does 1.5m come from? If it's just something that one particular council has adopted as its own policy then it has no particular legal force - ultimately it would be for an adjudicator to interpret what "adjacent to" means, not the council.

Thanks. But doesn't a carriage way differ from a typical street? Also, would the highway code trump something the council has put together and seemingly know what they're talking about? 

Carriageway means the part of the street set aside for carriages - the bit that you drive on. As opposed to the footway (pavement to you and me) or the verge. 

Ultimately the legislation trumps both the highway code and the council's website - only one of those three things is the law. But yes I would say that the highway code carries more weight than the council's leaflet; it's a national document approved by Parliament which all drivers are required to study and are tested on before they are allowed to drive. As opposed to a leaflet prepared by one person working for one council out of several hundred in the country and quite possibly read by nobody at all until you started this thread.

Parking restrictions are set by national law. Councils enforce them, and decide which set of rules apply to which street (eg when they decide where to put double yellow lines) but they don't get to create completely new rules out of thin air. And while they might exercise their judgement on how close to the dropped kerb is "adjacent" to it, those judgements are valid only to the extent that an independent parking adjudicator agrees with them. 

Ditzy_Mitzy

Are we sure the situation isn't more akin to something like this?  The OP's car is the blue box, the red bit is a dropped kerb, the grey perpendicular lines are a drive, and the purple cloud indicates restriction to turning and access.  Sorry for the rubbish diagram!  
How narrow is the road, OP?  And is there a dropped kerb opposite where you have parked?  

NBLondon

It does sound like the local council has added their own interpretation of adjacent - which you only find out if you are ticketed or go hunting for it.   In my borough; there is usually a white line across the dropped kerb with end marks and I've always worked on the basis that you must be clear of the end marks.  In the case of the dropped kerb nearest me (two doors away) the end marks are about a half-meter past the point where the kerb returns to normal.  Which seems reasonable to allow an average sized vehicle in and out of the garage involved.

AdrianC

Jonathan_Powell said:

AdrianC said:

Those two photos don't look to me to add up. That is, I presume, the same window and grey wallbox in both pics? If so, I'm either not understanding the perspective AT ALL, or the car is not in the same position in the two pics.

Can you please confirm that this is my error, perhaps with a wider photo to show the full situation in one pic?

Manxman_in_exile said:

justworriedabit said:

I have no reason to doubt the validity of the OP's pictures so whay are you asking please? What appears not to be right for you, please share.

I think AdrianC is saying that those two photos appear to suggest a very short BMW, or that the car has been moved, or that the two photos are not taken strictly perpendicular to the building line, and so distort the images somewhat.

FWIW I suspect it's a fourth option and that the images are foreshortened a bit and the building line is more distant than it looks.

Exactly that. It just looks off to me. There's a fairly narrow bit of grass, a couple of paving slabs, then a shallow piece of concrete. If I had to guess, I'd say it was probably no more than 2.5m from kerb to wall. Which is why the perspective looks very off to me if the car has not been moved between pics.

Like I said - I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

JamoLew

any chance the OP can post a GSV ?

Grumpy_chap

Can the OP clarify the dimensions of the car / gap between the dropped kerbs as the perspective is unclear from the photos.

Alternatively, can the OP show the photos of the offence provided by the Council when the ticket was issued?  

Manxman_in_exile

If the OP parked as per his photos and the council's photos support that, then he is NOT parked adjacent to a dropped kerb - despite what Havering and other councils might think.  (And of course they all have an interest in misrepresenting what the law says in order to maximise the cash take from parking charges).

According to the OP's photos he is not even parked adjacent to the sloping part of the kerb, let alone the dropped bit.  Despite what Havering imply in their "guidance" it's perfectly ok to park within 1.5m of a dropped kerb, or within 0.5m of it, or even adjacent to the sloping part of the kerb, so long as you don't park "adjacent" (ie right next to or exactly level with) the bit of the footpath actually dropped to road level.

[EDIT:  Just to clarify - by "right next to or exactly level with" I mean parked with any part of the car overlapping that part of the kerb dropped to road level.  If there is no overlap there is no contravention - in my view.  This may seem a bit confusing because another poster gave a completely misleading definition of "adjacent" at the outset of this thread]

I would argue there is no contravention and I wouldn't be paying it unless I lost at adjudication.

The OP has to look at the council photos and see what they show.  If they don't show his car level with any part of the footpath dropped to road level there is no contravention in my view.

He should go to Pepipoo for their opinion.

Manxman_in_exile

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Are we sure the situation isn't more akin to something like this?  The OP's car is the blue box, the red bit is a dropped kerb, the grey perpendicular lines are a drive, and the purple cloud indicates restriction to turning and access.  Sorry for the rubbish diagram!  
How narrow is the road, OP?  And is there a dropped kerb opposite where you have parked?  

I know what you mean but I don't think so.  If he's parked "opposite" he is by definition not parked "adjacent" to a dropped kerb.

I think the only time being "opposite" would come into play is if the footpath was lowered for the purpose of creating somewhere for pedestrians to cross the road.  But that would require an equivalent arrangement on the side of the road the OP is parked on, and there is no evidence (eg tactile footpath surface) of that in the OP's photos.

Anyway - the OP's photos appear to clearly show that he is parked between two separate dropped kerbs, not adjacent to one.  So unless there is a third dropped kerb that the middle of the OP's car is obscuring in the photos - and it doesn't look to me from the houses in the background that that would be possible! - there is no contravention.

He needs to check what the photos taken by the council's enforcement officer show and he needs to show those photos and his PCN on Pepipoo.

The OP has already said he's moved his car so as not to get another ticket (unnecessarily in my view) and I'm concerned he may also decide to pay the ticket when I don't think he needs to.  He needs advice from the council ticket experts on Pepipoo.  (Even the private parking ticket experts on the parking board here advise posters to go to Pepipoo for council tickets).

Car_54

Jonathan_Powell said:

Your bit in bold, that's what you're probably wrong about and everyone is surprised. I was even surprised to learn that you're not supposed to park your car facing traffic (as in the picture, parking the car on the right hand side of the road). Guess every now and again you come across these little known rules.

That's not a little-known rule, it's in the HC which every driver is supposed to know. (Rule 239).

Manxman_in_exile

Car_54 said:

Jonathan_Powell said:

Your bit in bold, that's what you're probably wrong about and everyone is surprised. I was even surprised to learn that you're not supposed to park your car facing traffic (as in the picture, parking the car on the right hand side of the road). Guess every now and again you come across these little known rules.

That's not a little-known rule, it's in the HC which every driver is supposed to know. (Rule 239).

He also seems to think I am "probably wrong" to say that Havering are not correct in implying that you cannot park within 1.5m of a dropped kerb.  Money-grabbing councils rely on gullible motorists like this to keep paying invalid parking tickets...