What is "parked adjacent to a dropped footway"

Jonathan_Powell

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. 

JamoLew

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

justworriedabit

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

Hmmmmm.  how would the highlighted bit help you decide? IMO, you can only estimate the distances between the dropped kerb. The OP has already stated that there is no pedestrian kerb behind the car.
He is not being "evasive" IMO and has answered enough relevant questions.

All in all, OP like millions has seeked help/advice and IMO has done more than enough and I for one wish him good luck. 

Many thanks in advance.

JamoLew

Because it would enable people to judge whether the photos he has shown are being "distorted" by perspective

Lets put it another way - if those were the council photos , then any defence by the OP would dispute them on exactly the same grounds

IMO - all of the questions asked are relevant to helping the OP form a defence

If he choses not to answer them, then peoples ability to help are reduced/diminished/zero

There is a vast wealth of knowledge and experience on here (and PePiPoo) and people generally know the angles to use in forming a defence - hence the questions asked. Whilst YOU don't see them as relevant, someone else does

The reluctance to post the council photos "because its too much effort to blur out details" and to link a GSV are prime examples - which may lead people to the correct (or incorrect) conclusion that there is something "damning" in that info

At the end of the day, its up to the OP what info they want to share, but not sharing will affect the help received

justworriedabit

JamoLew said:

Because it would enable people to judge whether the photos he has shown are being "distorted" by perspective

Lets put it another way - if those were the council photos , then any defence by the OP would dispute them on exactly the same grounds

IMO - all of the questions asked are relevant to helping the OP form a defence

If he choses not to answer them, then peoples ability to help are reduced/diminished/zero

There is a vast wealth of knowledge and experience on here (and PePiPoo) and people generally know the angles to use in forming a defence - hence the questions asked. Whilst YOU don't see them as relevant, someone else does

The reluctance to post the council photos "because its too much effort to blur out details" and to link a GSV are prime examples - which may lead people to the correct (or incorrect) conclusion that there is something "damning" in that info

At the end of the day, its up to the OP what info they want to share, but not sharing will affect the help received

Thank you . Would you agree with me that comments strongly suggesting he'd doctored the pictures may not have helped hence the reluctance to post more pictures here?
I find this thread interesting and worrying that you could be booked for paring near the edge of a dropped curb wwithout encroaching it and too would like to know the answers. However, IMHO, the OP has supplied enough for me to him to take it up with those that booked hi. IMO, the council made a mistake.

Grumpy_chap

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?

JamoLew

justworriedabit said:

JamoLew said:

Because it would enable people to judge whether the photos he has shown are being "distorted" by perspective

Lets put it another way - if those were the council photos , then any defence by the OP would dispute them on exactly the same grounds

IMO - all of the questions asked are relevant to helping the OP form a defence

If he choses not to answer them, then peoples ability to help are reduced/diminished/zero

There is a vast wealth of knowledge and experience on here (and PePiPoo) and people generally know the angles to use in forming a defence - hence the questions asked. Whilst YOU don't see them as relevant, someone else does

The reluctance to post the council photos "because its too much effort to blur out details" and to link a GSV are prime examples - which may lead people to the correct (or incorrect) conclusion that there is something "damning" in that info

At the end of the day, its up to the OP what info they want to share, but not sharing will affect the help received

Thank you . Would you agree with me that comments strongly suggesting he'd doctored the pictures may not have helped hence the reluctance to post more pictures here?
I find this thread interesting and worrying that you could be booked for paring near the edge of a dropped curb wwithout encroaching it and too would like to know the answers. However, IMHO, the OP has supplied enough for me to him to take it up with those that booked hi. IMO, the council made a mistake.

Possibly yes - but a simple task from the OP would stop that discussion point dead in the tracks

Usually someone looking to defend themselves when they believe they are correct is to well - defend themselves not ignore/avoid/evade

justworriedabit

JamoLew said:

justworriedabit said:

JamoLew said:

Because it would enable people to judge whether the photos he has shown are being "distorted" by perspective

Lets put it another way - if those were the council photos , then any defence by the OP would dispute them on exactly the same grounds

IMO - all of the questions asked are relevant to helping the OP form a defence

If he choses not to answer them, then peoples ability to help are reduced/diminished/zero

There is a vast wealth of knowledge and experience on here (and PePiPoo) and people generally know the angles to use in forming a defence - hence the questions asked. Whilst YOU don't see them as relevant, someone else does

The reluctance to post the council photos "because its too much effort to blur out details" and to link a GSV are prime examples - which may lead people to the correct (or incorrect) conclusion that there is something "damning" in that info

At the end of the day, its up to the OP what info they want to share, but not sharing will affect the help received

Thank you . Would you agree with me that comments strongly suggesting he'd doctored the pictures may not have helped hence the reluctance to post more pictures here?
I find this thread interesting and worrying that you could be booked for paring near the edge of a dropped curb wwithout encroaching it and too would like to know the answers. However, IMHO, the OP has supplied enough for me to him to take it up with those that booked hi. IMO, the council made a mistake.

Possibly yes - but a simple task from the OP would stop that discussion point dead in the tracks

Usually someone looking to defend themselves when they believe they are correct is to well - defend themselves not ignore/avoid/evade

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.

born_again

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.

born_again

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.