What is "parked adjacent to a dropped footway"

Barny1979

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.

You can submit evidence through FOAM now to TPT, so no need for attendance via Phone, in person or webcam at times.

Jenni_D

Grumpy_chap said:

Either way, a 4.7 m long car cannot fit in front of a 3.9 m long space as the photos would appear to suggest.

So, one of the following has to be true:

• Photos is mis-leading and the length of highway between the top of the kerb ramps is >3.9 m?
• Car was moved between front and rear photo?
• Car is not a BMW 2/3/4-series convertible after all, or is one following a proper "cut-n-shut" job?

There's also another option you've missed ... you've got your calculations wrong and there's been no doctoring at all of the photos or movement of vehicle between photos.

Grumpy_chap

Jenni_D said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Either way, a 4.7 m long car cannot fit in front of a 3.9 m long space as the photos would appear to suggest.

So, one of the following has to be true:

• Photos is mis-leading and the length of highway between the top of the kerb ramps is >3.9 m?
• Car was moved between front and rear photo?
• Car is not a BMW 2/3/4-series convertible after all, or is one following a proper "cut-n-shut" job?

There's also another option you've missed ... you've got your calculations wrong and there's been no doctoring at all of the photos or movement of vehicle between photos.

Thanks Jenni,

I set out my calculations clearly, so please feel free to correct them.

I also did not say there had been any doctoring of the photos - simply that the photos could be mis-leading.  The OP has since confirmed that to be the case:

Jonathan_Powell said:

Regarding the photos, what I showed initially is correct. 

Jenni_D

I can't see how what the OP posted in any way states that they agree that the photos were mis-leading? (I apologise for using the term "doctoring"). I and others looking at the OP's first photos take the opinion that the vehicle is not encroaching on the dropped part of either kerb - the vehicle is barely even encroaching on the start of either drop, even accounting for any perspective misalignment.

I have no desire or intent to try my own calculations - I merely posited that your calculations may be incorrect.

PS - what size are those paving slabs? 600 x 300?

Grumpy_chap

Jenni_D said:

I can't see how what the OP posted in any way states that they agree that the photos were mis-leading? (I apologise for using the term "doctoring"). I and others looking at the OP's first photos take the opinion that the vehicle is not encroaching on the dropped part of either kerb - the vehicle is barely even encroaching on the start of either drop, even accounting for any perspective misalignment.

I have no desire or intent to try my own calculations - I merely posited that your calculations may be incorrect.

PS - what size are those paving slabs? 600 x 300?

Sorry, I can so how my last post was incorrectly read as the OP's confirmation relates to the first half of the sentance, but could easily have been read as linked to the second half.  So:
"I also did not say there had been any doctoring of the photos"
confirmed by "Regarding the photos, what I showed initially is correct. "

Slabs look like 600 mm wide in the photo.

Would still help if the OP share either the Council photo with the ticket, or a photo showing the whole car at once in the position.

Barny1979

They won't have the Council Photo as it appears the PCN was issued 2 days ago, so they will only have the PCN, not the Notice to Owner yet.

born_again

Barny1979 said:

They won't have the Council Photo as it appears the PCN was issued 2 days ago, so they will only have the PCN, not the Notice to Owner yet.

Op has already said.
>>I could post the council photos but I would want to then crop out the photos to hide licence plates (not just my car) and between work and children, simply can't be bothered.<<

Barny1979

Hadn't spotted that, had read their first post.

justworriedabit

Jenni_D said:

I can't see how what the OP posted in any way states that they agree that the photos were mis-leading? (I apologise for using the term "doctoring"). I and others looking at the OP's first photos take the opinion that the vehicle is not encroaching on the dropped part of either kerb - the vehicle is barely even encroaching on the start of either drop, even accounting for any perspective misalignment.

I have no desire or intent to try my own calculations - I merely posited that your calculations may be incorrect.

PS - what size are those paving slabs? 600 x 300?

Great post I just wished I could put it into words like that.
The OP has posted like millions to seek help.  So help if you can in a good way.

justworriedabit

Jenni_D said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Either way, a 4.7 m long car cannot fit in front of a 3.9 m long space as the photos would appear to suggest.

So, one of the following has to be true:

• Photos is mis-leading and the length of highway between the top of the kerb ramps is >3.9 m?
• Car was moved between front and rear photo?
• Car is not a BMW 2/3/4-series convertible after all, or is one following a proper "cut-n-shut" job?

There's also another option you've missed ... you've got your calculations wrong and there's been no doctoring at all of the photos or movement of vehicle between photos.

Not only do you have the ability to write well but a good eye for detail.
If I may say so, you are now my fav poster here and reading you posts would want me to post questions on a site like this, so thank you.
As I said a moment ago, IMHO, the coucil got it wrong and I hope the OP does not have to wait too long to get the outcome he desreves.