Dropped Kerb issue

[MHP73]

I wonder if anyone can advise.

I parked on my own road last week adjacent to a dropped kerb. I received a ticket.

However, where I parked is adjacent to a solid fence and not the entrance to a property. The kerb is dropped because there was a previous entrance there once upon a time but is no longer there and so I was definitively not blocking anything. The residents of the property I was parked outside reported me, hence the ticket but I have photographic evidence that there was no obstruction at all. Yes my front wheel was covering a dropped kerb but the kerb itself is now redundant. Do I have a case to appeal?

I am willing to fight to the end to clear the ticket. I have made my first appeal which has been rejected, although they have quoted that I should not park 'where a kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users or in front of an entrance to a property' - neither of which apply here.

If I lose this, does anyone know if I petition to get the kerb raised back up as it's taking up space on a crowded road for parking and as I live a door down, do not believe that it should be kept open for no reason at all given it is adjacent to a fence and not an entrance.

Any advice greatly received.

[pt2537]

As far as i can see youre stuffed.

you are not allowed to park on a dropped kerb, there is so much legislation on this that i dont know where to start, there is the Road Traffic Act, The Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations , it seems to me if you parked on a dropped kerb then youre stuck

[ploddertom]

As far as i can see youre stuffed.

you are not allowed to park on a dropped kerb, there is so much legislation on this that i dont know where to start, there is the Road Traffic Act, The Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations , it seems to me if you parked on a dropped kerb then youre stuck

That would be my thought as well.

Get it sorted at discount stage definitely don't let it go to Enforcement.

[pt2537]

That would be my thought as well.

Get it sorted at discount stage definitely don't let it go to Enforcement.

Thanks PT,

[MHP73]

Thanks for the advice. I think I'll have to pursue the kerb being raised instead. Thanks.

[des8]

If the person who reported you is the owner of the fence visible in your picture you might like to complain about the height of his fence which should not be more than 1 metre

[michael]

What's the exact location?. Since the footway has ceased to be lowered for the purpose of assisting vehicular access from the carriage way, the dropped kerb s redundant.

The following case at London Tribunals is very similar to your circumstances:
.
2160476330

The photographs show that the vehicle was parked adjacent to a footway which had been physically lowered. It was also on what is an advisory (only) white line indicating that vehicle should not park – and it may be that it was at least partly for this reason that a complaint was made by a property owner leading to the issue of the PCN.
The Council, however, is required to prove not that the vehicle was on the white line, or that a complaint was made, or even merely that it was adjacent to a lowered footway. It is required to prove that the vehicle was adjacent to a footway which has been lowered “for the purpose of-
(i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway; or
(ii) assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway or
(iii) assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway cycle track or verge”
In the present case it is obviously (i) that is relied on.
The Appellant’s case is in summary that the driveway for which the footway had originally been lowered to access had been blocked off by a brick wall, shown in her photographs. This is plainly so, and it seems clear from a combination those photographs and those taken by the CEO that the vehicle did not protrude beyond the line of the wall so as to be adjacent to the open driveway of either adjacent house. The facts of this case therefore raise the interesting question whether it is the case that a footway which has been lowered for one of the statutory purposes remains lowered for that purpose for all time, no matter what; or whether the purpose can be affected or altered by subsequent physical developments.
A literal reading of the wording of the statute would support the former view. However it seems to me that this could lead to absurd results and that a more purposive interpretation is to be preferred. If the former view is correct it would mean that, for example, the adjacent house could be demolished and replaced by a walled factory but that it would remain unlawful to park whilst the old drop still subsidised although any traffic management purpose for protecting it had long since disappeared. That in my view cannot be right. It seems to me the legislation should be construed to require the purpose of the lowering to be in existence for a contravention to arise.
That is not to say, however that some temporary absence of use of the drop would operate to remove the statutory purpose. It would certainly, in my view, not avail the motorist to say, for example, merely that the driveway has not been used for some time, or that the property owner does not have a car and uses his garage for other purposes. However it seems to me that the facts of the present case go well beyond that type of situation. The property owner has erected a very solid- looking brick wall across a section of the drive, including some planting on the top, adding to the impression it is intended as a permanent feature. In my judgement it cannot sensibly be said that at the time the Appellant’s vehicle parked at this location the footway at that point was lowered to facilitate vehicular access to the adjoining premises which was no longer physically possible.
It might, no doubt, be suggested that if a brick wall can be erected it can equally well be demolished. However it seems me that if this were to occur the drop would resume its statutory purpose and a contravention would occur for parking there. This is a simple enough position for the motorist and a CEO to understand, in basis terms that parking adjacent to an open driveway is a contravention whilst parking adjacent to a brick wall is not.
On the particular facts of this case, and emphasising once again the permanent nature of the blocking off of the part of the driveway, I am not satisfied that the footway at the point where the vehicle was parked can be said to be lowered for one of the statutory purposes and it follows that the vehicle was not in contravention. The Appeal is therefore allowed,