£250 penalty charge for 'parking on a dropped kerb'

Just playing devils advocate here - is there any reason why the council couldn't have booked you for parking over the line under the front of the car? Is the front house your house?
 
Just playing devils advocate here - is there any reason why the council couldn't have booked you for parking over the line under the front of the car? Is the front house your house?
Click to expand...

thats what im thinking to and why didnt they do the rav4 or whatever it is in front on the white line to the front of the vw?
 
Blatantly obvious to me that the morons who took the pics (and the car!) thought the offense was related to the property "in front" of the car, in which case I think you've got an open and shut case against them.
 
emailiscrap said:
I'm sorry to say that I don't have a vast amount of sympathy for the OP.
For several years I lived in a road that had very limited parking despite everyone having driveways. I paid nearly a grand to have the council drop the curb and a damn sight more to have a driveway built. It was a frequent occurance that people would block me in, from those just a few inches over the dropped curb, to parking completely across the drive.
At first I let it go as long as I could get out, but as time went on those people parking inches across got more and more complacent and would increase the amount they parked across until they were preventing me from getting in or out of the drive.

I'll happily admit that I complained to the police and the council on a few occasions, and unfortunately never really had anything done about it.

You might only see it as a very minor indiscretion, but look at it from your neighbours point of view, who has had to put up with this on a frequent basis.
It just displays a lack of respect, that someone would willingly encroach on the property of another person, regardless of how innocent you may feel it was.
Click to expand...

I understand your POV, but I really don't think it's applicable to the situation. As I explained to the neighbour in question, I don't go out of my way to annoy people day by day. I parked where I did in quite an exceptional circumstance and made every effort to ensure the drive way still free to access. I don't think there was any willing encroachment taking place at all!

emailiscrap said:
See that white line? That is the boundary of the driveway access area. Granted, it extends far beyond what might potentially cause an obstruction for the householder, but the fact remains that the line is there and the OP parked their car over that line.
Click to expand...

Yes there is a white line. It extends about 5 meters either side of a speed hump to the rear of my car. This can be seen in the last image. There is no 'advisory line' anywhere in sight. And even by the council's own definition, it holds no legal significance.

timbob said:
Just playing devils advocate here - is there any reason why the council couldn't have booked you for parking over the line under the front of the car? Is the front house your house?
Click to expand...

Yes there is. Firstly the house to the front of the car does not correspond to the house number on the PCN. Secondly, yes, it's my house!!! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Ok, another update here!

I've just finished preparing my case for the independant adjudicator. If you're up for a bit of a read, here it is. If not, there are some pretty pictures below! :)

Parking and Traffic Appeals Service
PO Box 279
Chertsey
Surrey
KT16 6BU

PCN: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxx

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to appeal against the notice of rejection I received from Haringey Council on October 24th regarding the above stated PCN. My vehicle, a silver Volkswagen Polo, with the above registration, was removed from xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx(xxx xxx) by Haringey Council’s contractors at approximately 08:20am on 27/09/08 and taken to Haringey Car Pound. The reason stated on the PCN was that the vehicle was ‘parked adjacent to dropped kerb’.

Having questioned the council’s decision initially, and having now reviewed the evidence they have and have not provided to support the alleged contravention, I am now under the firm belief that Haringey Council have acted wholly unreasonably in applying the PCN, removing my vehicle and subsequently rejecting my initial appeal.

My grounds for appeal are that the contravention did not occur and that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority.

Before I continue, I would like to briefly explain the layout of the documents I have provided. Following this letter, I have enclosed all evidence which I feel is relevant to the appeal. Firstly, I have attached copies of all documents exchanged between Haringey Council and I. These include my initial appeal letter, the notice of rejection, the PCN itself, and the removal receipt. Following these are copies of ALL photographs taken by Haringey Council’s civil enforcement officer at the time of removal. Lastly, I have included four photographs taken by myself recently, as evidence, to support my appeal. I must apologise for the poor quality of the prints – I do not have immediate access to a printer of much use. If they are not of satisfactory quality, I have included numbered digital copies on the enclosed CDROM.

To start with, I would first like to assert the exact position of my vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention with reference to house number 23 – the driveway outside which the contravention is alleged to have occurred. Looking at picture (7) from the council’s own photographic evidence, it is quite clear that my vehicle is parked between two properties. However, house number 23 is the property with the white door. Referring to my own photos; pictures (1) and (2) show this fact very clearly. It is therefore very safe to say that the contravention is alleged to have occurred to the rear of the vehicle.

Looking once again at Haringey Council’s own photographic evidence, the only photo which shows the vehicle from this perspective is number (6). Now in my mind, this shows beyond any reasonable doubt that, with respect to house number 23, the vehicle is parked completely legally as the vehicle’s rear bumper is at least 50cm from the beginning of the dropped kerb. It is certainly not adjacent to it. The contravention did not occur.

Haringey Council’s reason for rejection was that I was parked on a ‘white advisory line’, purchased by the resident of number 23, marking the entrance to their driveway. Now, unfortunately I am not totally aware of the legislation regarding these markings. However, it strikes me that an ‘advisory line’, by its very name, should hold no legal significance. Furthermore, I strongly deny that I was parked on any such line. I acknowledge that there was a white marking trailing from the front and rear of my vehicle, as documented by the council’s photographs. However, pictures (3), (4), and (11) show very explicitly that this line was merely the roadside marking from a speed hump to the rear of my vehicle. As I understand, this line holds no significance in terms of parking. There are most certainly no markings that can be said to resemble a ‘white advisory line’. If one existed, I would have expected a white line running along the entire length of the driveway in question, at equal distance from the kerb, with terminators at each end. No such line exists, or existed on the date of the alleged contravention.

I feel that the information and evidence given above more than satisfies the criteria needed to justify the ground for appeal that the contravention did not occur.

Further to this, I would like to further justify my appeal on the ground that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of Haringey Council. Section 14 subsection (3) of the Transport for London Act details the legislation which my vehicle is alleged to have contravened. However, subsection (4) states that ‘the relevant borough council or Transport for London, as the case may be, may not issue a penalty charge notice in respect of any breach of the prohibition under subsection (3) above unless requested to do so by the occupier of the premises’.

So, whether or not subsection (3) had allegedly been breached, Haringey Council should not have enforced the legislation and removed my vehicle unless the actions detailed in subsection (4) had actually taken place. That is, the occupier of the premises to which the driveway was attached (number 23) signified to Haringey Council that my vehicle (VX03***) was in breach of the prohibition under subsection (3).

Having been in contact with the house owner of number 23, I am under the firm impression that no contact was made with Haringey Council at any point with regard to my vehicle. Unfortunately, the individual in question was unwilling to provide a statement to this effect. Nevertheless, as detailed in my original appeal, I have asked Haringey Council to provide evidence that contact was made. They have refused this request.

I very much hope that the evidence I have provided, together with Haringey Council’s lack of substantiation, is adequate to justify my grounds for appeal. Thank you for considering my case - your time is much appreciated. I hope to hear from you soon.

Yours faithfully,

Tim
Click to expand...

(1)
1.jpg


(2)
2.jpg


(3)
3.jpg


(4)
4.jpg


(6)
CIMG2857.JPG
 
Last edited:
The fact that the people next door wont sign a statement saying they didnt contact the council makes me think they did and are just too ashamed to admit it.

I agree that from your photo evidence you were certainly not blocking or overhanging the dropped curb anyway. If they say you were they they are blind as well as stupid.

I mean its clearly obvious that the dropped curb starts where the paving stones change into the small brown brick type effect. The photo THEY took clearly shows you are a complete paving stone away from it. Clowns.

I still think they have "done" you for the front end of your car, which was blocking your own drive. But they have the numbers messed up and when looking at the evidence are just looking at the front end of the car and nothing else.
 
Last edited:
Yup keep fighting it, very good letter. And if im not being silly if they have mixed it up and its front of your drive they are saying you crossed then as per their guidlines you didnt phone them, and its your own drive so either way they cant get you.
 
tim80bwi said:
Yes there is. Firstly the house to the front of the car does not correspond to the house number on the PCN. Secondly, yes, it's my house!!! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ahhh, all becomes clear. In that case, it looks like you have an open and shut case - the traffic warden's ticketed you for blocking your own driveway.

Good letter by the way, hope it all gets dropped.
 
[TW]Fox;12868040 said:
It would be really funny if they cancelled it and then booked you for parking on the pavement :D
Click to expand...

they have to park on the pavement or they block the road lol...
 
So was the OPs wheel alongside the drop kerb?

I ask this as I have recently found myself on the opposite side of this argument. My neighbour has bought a new car and the rear of his van blocks the drop kerb. His rear wheel is next the full length kerb.

My problem is that the road is quite narrow and its harder to get my Jeep on to my drive. I have to move back and for in order to get it to fit and still allow my wifes car onto the drive. I paid to have the drive fitted because it was such a PITA with the parking in the street.

I don't really get on with the neighbour because we have had arguments over his music being too loud late at night and it work my daughter - wouldn't normally have bothered but it woke my daughter and the child protection button got switched on and we fell out good and proper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom