general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? | Motoring discussion | Back Room Forum

What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks

Sat 2 Oct 2010 14:59

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - isisalar

Parked my car last Saturday morning in a service road outside a newsagents,on the A5 in Colindale NW9.It's one way,double yellow lines on the right(offside) no lines on the left,where I was parked. Having left the location and on my way to work I was astonished to see a parking ticket on my windscreen. When I read the parking ticket it read:- Contravention: 27 Parked adjacent to a dropped footway. Time 08.30-08.31(I thought at least 5 mins had to elapse) I returned to the 'scene of the crime' later to have a look. The crossing is not marked in any way at all,no markings across the service road,no white lines ,no yellow lines,no signs.There is a dropped kerb made of those bobbly yellowish stones on the nearside,but not on the offside.The colour difference is so slight as to be barely noticeable. I spoke with the newsagent and this is a common problem.He had put up a sign to warn people but the council made him remove it! I was aware the crossing was there when I parked and made sure I wasn't obstructing it. Anyone got any advice on appealing this appalling rip off? Incidentally the unmarked crossing continues across a raised tarmaced area to the kerbside proper.The tarmaced area is itself a very steep downhill slope and the dropped kerb at the roadside is an even steeper slope I would estimate 45 degrees.Surely this can't be legal? It's certainly very dangerous to any wheelchair user attempting to use it in my opinion. Are there any regulations regarding such things. Kind regards Paul

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sat 2 Oct 2010 15:48

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Dwight Van Driver

Houslow saves me a load of researh.

http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/transport_and_streets/parking/street_parking.htm

If there was a dropped kerb and you parked adjacent then it seems its game set and match to them.

dvd

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sat 2 Oct 2010 19:14

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - daveyjp

BUT - it has been proved time and time again on Pepipoo - if you know the law you can fight most tickets. Many have mistakes in the wording on the ticket and this is enough to get them Council's to back down once they realise you mean business.

Whether you want the fight for the sake of the cost of a parking ticket is up to you.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 3 Oct 2010 02:26

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - brum

This article published today may be of interest to you.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 3 Oct 2010 07:35

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - LucyBC

The person quoted in the above mentioned article may be an "expert" and there are certain cases such as where lines are so worn that they cannot be seen or have been tarmaced over when the case will be won on appeal. Similarly the case will be won if there is a defect in the Traffic Regulation Order.

But while no T-Bars and some of the other technical defects are contrary to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) if you park on a double yellow line the adjudicators will apply "de minimis not curat lex" principles (the law does not concern itself with trifles) on the basis that everyone knows you should not park on a double yellow line and will find for the issuing authority.

We have had a few cases posted to Ask Lucy where people clearly knew they should not have parked there before they parked but did so on the basis that the line was not endcapped (or there was some other trivial defect) as some sort of "dare" or challenge and then write in outraged - quoting this or that piece of TSRGD - when they get a ticket and have lost on appeal to the council and the adjudicator.

The system for appealing parking tickets issued by councils is very fair and reasonable and makes much more sense than using the courts to resolve them.

Edited by LucyBC on 03/10/2010 at 07:44

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 3 Oct 2010 08:22

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Dwight Van Driver

All very well ex Met Traffic expert but do dropped kerbs have to be signed?????

dvd

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 3 Oct 2010 09:17

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - LucyBC

No signage needed.

During 2008 the Department for Transport undertook a consultation exercise as
to whether restrictions on parking at dropped kerbs and double parking should
be indicated with traffic signs and road markings. The response to the
consultation indicated clear overall support that traffic signs and road markings
should not be required.

As a result, regulations have been amended to allow enforcement authorities to enforce prohibitions of parking at dropped kerbs and double parking without the need for Traffic Regulation Orders, traffic signs and road markings to be provided.

Exemptions to the contravention of parking at dropped kerbs are:
• vehicles used by the fire, ambulance or police services;
• where loading or unloading is taking place;
• vehicles used for waste collection, building works or road works;
• vehicles parked outside a driveway to residential premises with
the occupier’s consent;
• vehicles the course of setting down and actively alighting from a vehicle
• vehicles parked outside a shared driveway to residential premises
by, or with the consent of, residents at those premises.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 3 Oct 2010 15:05

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - isisalar

was digging around today and found the following on the D.O.T. siteRoad markings to Diagram 1026.1 (Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions -TSRGD) should be applied near inset uncontrolled crossing points to prevent them being blocked by parked cars.

If I could put up a link I would. The said diagram is almost exactly matches the scene of my 'crime'.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 3 Oct 2010 13:16

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Berisford

It's become one of those 'fashionable nicks', easy money for the authorities. I'm not saying it's wrong to give you a ticket, after all the law is the law, even if common sense says dropping the kerb one side but not the other is questionable. We've got an example in our town, no warnings/markings at all, just sitting there waiting for a victim!

Another couple of 'fashionable nicks' in play these days is ticketing Panel Vans (Transit size) for exceeding their speed limit (10mph less than their camper/minibus brothers and sisters) on A roads and dual carriageways. Along with nicking lorries for exceeding their 40mph limit on A roads, the fact that it was accepted for decades that lorries doing 50-56 on a roads were doing us all a favour by keeping the traffic flowing nicely means nothing to the 'safety' brigade!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 3 Oct 2010 13:38

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - LucyBC

It's not a "fashionable nick" - it's so blind people have access to cross the highway in a form they understand in the supposedly certain knowledge that they are not going to spreadeagle themselves across the bonnet of a car because some dimwit parked across it.

That's why the knobbly pavement is there.

Edited by LucyBC on 03/10/2010 at 13:39

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 3 Oct 2010 15:16

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - isisalar

the D.O.T. obviously think it,s a good idea to mark the crossing/no parking area with a white line so motorists don't park there,and blind people can cross easily,the council would obviously rather collect money and let the blind people spreadeagle themselves across car bonnets as that dosn't cost them anything.

Local paper headline 'Council puts paking ticket revenue before D.O.T. safety guidelines'

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 3 Oct 2010 16:19

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - LucyBC

You parked in front of a dropped kerb which is there to facilitate blind people crossing a road. To do so is an offence and hence you were ticketed for it.

It wasn't entrapment and it wasn't it unfair.

Do everybody a favour and shut up and pay up.

You won't win on this.

Edited by LucyBC on 03/10/2010 at 16:21

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 3 Oct 2010 16:19

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Dwight Van Driver

>>>>>No signage needed. <<<<<

Precisely my point Lucy.

Section 86 Traffic Management Act 2004 brings the offence in under a" special enforcement area (SEA)", which I understand applies to the whole of London and which I understand from Schedule 10 Traffic Management Act 2004 does need an Order to give it authority for civil enforcement as if an Order made under S 1 RTRA 1984

As far as I can see there does not seem to be a sign under TSGD 2002 to show a SEA area and it would impractical to white line every dropped kerb.

In fact under The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales)(Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/1116)

"4. Nothing in this regulation requires the placing of any traffic sign on or near a road, or the maintenance of such signs, in a special enforcement area in England for the purpose of providing information to road users as to the effect of section 85 or 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 in that area".

dvd

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 3 Oct 2010 20:40

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - LucyBC

I don't see the need to comment further on either alleged entrapment or dimwits.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 4 Oct 2010 00:53

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - isisalar

Lucy BC
If you had read the original post you would know that I conciously didn't park across the crossing,apparantly I parked near it.
If you had taken the trouble to read the relevant D'O'T' guidelines and studied the diagrams you would see that they recommend that the no parking areas are white lined so 'motorists don't park there'.Which is the whole idea of the regulation,so that blind and otherwise disabled people can cross the road safely.
The area in question is an ugly mess of single and double yellow lines, various other parking restriction signs, times,length of times,length of time before you can return,etc etc.
Surely if you find a space without any restricting lines or signs and showing due common sense consideration to other road users you should be able to park without fear of prosecution.
Did you not read that the newsagent who tried to warn people about the scam was forced to take his notice down by the council.
D.O.T recommend white lines.
Council don't paint white lines.
Council forbid warning signs.
Sounds like entrapment to me.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 4 Oct 2010 02:18

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - FP

Seems to me you are making a big meal out of this.

What does "I consciously didn't park across the crossing, apparently I parked near it" mean? Either you parked "adjacent" to the crossing, or you did not.

If you did, guidelines/recommendations to paint lines mean little, as there is no legal requirement for them.

If you did not, file an appeal.

I don't see how entrapment comes into it. The actions of the newsagent and the council regarding unofficial warning notices are irrelevant.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 4 Oct 2010 19:02

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - isisalar

I said in my original post 'I was aware the crossing was there when I parked and made sure I wasn't obstructing it.'
I parked in the space next to the crossing (indeed adjacent to)so as not to cause any obstruction.
Without any lines or signs how is one to know where one can or can't park?
How close is adjacent?(lying near,next to- Oxford dictionary)100mm,1 metre,10 metres,100 metres?
I did ask for advice on appealing this in my original post.
I believe it's entrapment because every inch of roadside in the area has some sort of line painted,except where you can park.If the lines as D.O.T. specify where there I would not have got a ticket

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 4 Oct 2010 19:43

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Berisford

I hear you isisalar, don't let the bone go, I have to say I'm surprised by the dismissive attitude on here.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 4 Oct 2010 20:17

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - FP

As an ex-English teacher I am interested in words and their meaning. However, I am not sure that isisalar is using words in their generally accepted way.

"I parked in the space next to the crossing (indeed adjacent to)..."

"Next to" means just that - not some way off. (If you put your car adjacent to another car the two of them are side-by-side.)

"...so as not to cause any obstruction."

So you parked next to the crossing. Most people would understand from this that your car therefore obstructed the crossing. I think you are supposed to realise that this would be a bad place to park.

(I have to say that at this point I am still unclear where isisalar is claiming to have parked his car, relative to the crossing. If he didn't obstruct the crossing he can appeal - won't there be some photos to prove the point?)

"If the lines as D.O.T. specify where there I would not have got a ticket". According to our legal expert, lines are not specified.

Edited by ChrisPeugeot on 04/10/2010 at 20:20

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 5 Oct 2010 01:18

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - LucyBC

As everyone has told you there is no need for a line if the kerb is dropped and hence you have no chance of winning on appeal if the circumstances were as outlined.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 5 Oct 2010 11:00

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - bathtub tom

The OP obviously feels very strongly about this.

I'd suggest they direct their energies towards appealing the penalty rather than venting their spleen here.

Please let us know the outcome.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 5 Oct 2010 14:34

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Leif

I don't see the need to comment further on either alleged entrapment or dimwits.

That's a pretty offensive way to 'talk' to the other person. And your previous post was offensive too.

I wonder how many people are aware of the dropped kerbed law, or when it was introduced?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 5 Oct 2010 19:09

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Berisford

That's a pretty offensive way to 'talk' to the other person. And your previous post was offensive too.

I wonder how many people are aware of the dropped kerbed law, or when it was introduced?

My thoughts too.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 6 Oct 2010 03:18

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Bilboman

If there weren't so many so-called, alleged, "dimwits" around, certain groups of people, such as lawyers, paralegals and those involved in the whole legal business would be seriously short of work, methinks. In my ever so humble opinion, it is the right of every plaintiff and defendant to plead their case and where applicable, appeal, argue the points of law and fight a case they feel has been wrongly decided. If the system works properly, trivial and far fetched cases would fall at the first hurdle - in which case, no harm done, now we know. I would personally be loath to cast the word "dimwit" in the general direction of any potential client in a public forum like this one; people have been sacked for less...

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 6 Oct 2010 10:11

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - s.v.u.

It would seem that at last we see LucyBC in her true colours, not as a qualified practitioner of law but a rather ignorant undergraduate who is obviously reading law!

I base this conclusion upon the fact that no qualified lawyer would ever refer to another person in a public forum as a "dimwit" ! If nothing else I would only say, your dragging up is starting to show !

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sat 9 Oct 2010 06:30

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - LucyBC

Quoting SVU: "It would seem that at last we see LucyBC in her true colours, not as a qualified practitioner of law but a rather ignorant undergraduate who is obviously reading law! I base this conclusion upon the fact that no qualified lawyer would ever refer to another person in a public forum as a "dimwit" ! If nothing else I would only say, your dragging up is starting to show"

I was going to report this post as ignorant and offensive but I decided to answer it instead.

The OP had the legal situation and the appeals process outlined in great detail and was told by others and me - correctly and several times also in great detail - that he would not win and why.

The basis on which the adjudicators settle cases was clearly outlined in earlier posts.

Parking over a dropped kerb aimed to facilitate blind people is not only an offence, it is ignorant.

But ignorance of the law is no defence and if -- sufficiently egged on by others unqualified to provide good advice -- he decides to appeal it then that is up to him.

The adjudicator will give him a fair hearing but he will lose if the facts were as he outlined them. He will then face a greater financial penalty.

On my own position I an not an "undergraduate studying law" but a 35 year old commercial lawyer who has specialised in motoring matters since I obtained my doctorate.

I head a motor legal insurance and helpdesk department which comprises more than 60 staff comprising lawyers, chartered insurers, accident investigators and loss adjusters.

On any day we will be dealing with more than 100 cases variously dealing with motoring offences, accidents and motor consumer disputes. We will handle many more legal helpdesk calls

Were we to "base our conclusions" on similar grounds to those outlined by SVU or run our cases or provide advice on the lines proposed by Beresford and Leif we would be neither professional nor would we continue to enjoy our current extremely high success rate.

FWIW many of our clients and helpdesk callers acted dimwittedly and the best and most intelligent of them will admit it.

Edited by LucyBC on 09/10/2010 at 06:44

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sat 9 Oct 2010 09:00

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Armstrong Sid

I head a motor legal insurance and helpdesk department which comprises more than 60 staff comprising lawyers, chartered insurers, accident investigators and loss adjusters.

The problem is that this forum - like many others - includes contributors who reckon they are experts on a subject because they know a bloke in the pub who told them about it

Edited by Armstrong Sid on 09/10/2010 at 09:07

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sat 9 Oct 2010 10:40

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Dutchie

I can understand the op is ubset but if in doubt don't park there.The dropped kerb is there for a reason put there by the council for disable people.Take it on the chin and pay the fine.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sat 9 Oct 2010 11:49

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - isisalar

I have to conclude there are quite a few 'dimwits'on this forum.To claim to be some sort of legal expert and make disparaging comments without reading the original post seems to me to be extremely 'dimwitted'.
Pardon me for shouting.I DID NOT OBSTRUCT THE CROSSING.
Does the law define how close adjacent is precisely, ie in feet or inches?
I really would appreciate some advice on appealing this.
I have written asking for the photographic evidence.
Thanks
Paul

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sat 9 Oct 2010 14:48

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Dutchie

I have read your post a few times now,and to be frank its a bit double dutch to me.You parked near or is it adjacent which i mean to understand is next to in the english language.You where aware of the dropped curb.To one dimwit to another cheers.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sat 9 Oct 2010 16:26

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - LucyBC

In your original post you indicated you parked across the dropped kerb but did not obstruct it. Then we were told that you did not park there long enough (the concept of the 5 minute rule is a myth) then that there was no sign or line. Then that the newsagent had been asked to take his warning down.

I cannot comment re the newsagent but if they hung or displayed the sign on their own property I would be surprised if the council told them (or could require them) to remove it. If they hung a sign on council property (such as a lamp post) that would be a different matter. I cannot comment without more information but I am currently quite sceptical as to the version of events re the sign.

On the parking issue if you parked adjacent (or next to) or across a dropped kerb (partially or completely) then you committed an offence. We have already established that there does not need to be a line or signage or a traffic regulation order. The legislation cited by Dwight is enough and I gave you the view the adjudicator takes in these cases. It's pretty much unequivocal and every sensible post has told you will lose.

I thought it might make some sense to provide some details regarding this type of crossing:

The reason they only put this type of crossing on one side of the road is practical and well-thought-out but not immediately obvious:

Blind or partially sighted people feel the dimples with their feet so they know they have a slope to the road which is supposed to be clear of a hazard - such as a person parking their vehicle there.

At the other side of the road (which will usually have double yellow lines) the blind or partially sighted person *actually wants there to be a kerb* so they can locate it with their white stick and step up it. You will almost certainly find that there is a mirror of the crossing point further along where the dropped kerb and dimples are on the other side and the "step-up" on your side.

But if there isn't that will also not negate your ticket. :-)

This is not the case when there is a pelican crossing with a tone and there are dimples both ends - but these are considerably more costly to install.

Please be aware that there is no requirement to supply photographic evidence if you get a parking ticket - although it always should be requested and is usually supplied.

As I and many others have explained to you Paul you have very little prospect of avoiding the penalty.

By all means appeal to the council (which is free of additional risk) but if they reject your appeal as I would expect - you probably have a zero to 0.05% chance of winning this if the circumstances are as you outlined and you proceed to take it to the adjudicator.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sat 9 Oct 2010 19:39

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - FP

OK - so now we've got it, Paul. You did not obstruct the crossing. You didn't park next to, adjacent to, or overlap the crossing or dropped kerb in any way. Not even by a little bit.

The ticket is completely wrong. So make an appeal - there's no way you can lose.

Edited by ChrisPeugeot on 09/10/2010 at 19:41

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 10 Oct 2010 21:26

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Leif

Quoting SVU: "It would seem that at last we see LucyBC in her true colours, not as a qualified practitioner of law but a rather ignorant undergraduate who is obviously reading law! I base this conclusion upon the fact that no qualified lawyer would ever refer to another person in a public forum as a "dimwit" ! If nothing else I would only say, your dragging up is starting to show" I was going to report this post as ignorant and offensive but I decided to answer it instead.

I have read through this thread again, and although your first few posts are polite and informative, you suddenly get short tempered and horrendously rude. You come across as very arrogant. I noticed that on another thread. You write as if on a pedestal looking down at the ignorant masses. From what you say in your post, I think you are used to telling people what to do, and having them comply without argument.

I do not question the accuracy of your explanations. But I never knew a dropped kerb was there for the blind. I assumed they were there for various reasons including wheelchairs and mobility scooters. I suspect very few people know the reason, and that signage should be present. This could be one of those cases where new markings are introduced and those that learnt to drive before are unware of the new laws. And the council probably do not care as they are happy to get the parking fine revenues. There is no penalty on them for inconvenience to the blind and others. Whether or not this is entrapment (and I doubt anyone in the council does think that way) it might seem like it to the hapless motorist faced with Lord knows how many traffic laws and regulations.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 11 Oct 2010 21:12

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - LucyBC

Hi Leif,

My role here is to provide fast and accurate legal advice as to how questioners can best improve their position or limit the damage they may suffer.

In terms of dropped kerbs and the questions asked our main problem is getting the police/council to enforce the offence.

I get letters from people every day because others are making it impossible to use their legitimate access. The usual scenario is that we have a pensioner, or a blind or otherwise disabled person who has others parking in front of the kerb they need to use.

Others are in contravention and nobody will do anything. Some big bully - or more usually a family of big bullies are determined to cause them as many problems as possible.

The second scenario - more relevant in this case - is that people park without thought or worry - or ignorance about the consequences of their doing so.

As I said in my earlier post ignorance is no defence and if the circumstances were outlined correctly as from the top the OP has little/no chance of winning it.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 11 Oct 2010 22:25

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Leif

Hello LucyBC, I don't doubt what you say. Unfortunately we still don't really know exactly how the OP parked in relation to the dropped kerb.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 11 Oct 2010 09:36

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Leif

Were we to "base our conclusions" on similar grounds to those outlined by SVU or run our cases or provide advice on the lines proposed by Beresford and Leif we would be neither professional nor would we continue to enjoy our current extremely high success rate.

I've just noticed the above. In my earlier post I drew no conclusions, I simply made an observation, something that is permitted on this forum.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sat 9 Oct 2010 22:10

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Avant

Like Chris, I'm a little muddled by this. It seems to hinge on the meaning of 'adjacent'.

Logic would dictate that if you park ALONGSIDE the dropped kerb - i.e. so that a blind person stepping off it would bump into your car - that should be an offence. But if you park in a space NEXT to it - leaving the dropped kerb unobstructed - that should be OK.

Is that what the by-laws are saying? Isisalar, perhaps you'd tell us which of these applies to you?

By the way, this is a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion and should not involve any insults. Keep it polite, or out comes the virtual blue pencil.

Edited by Avant on 10/10/2010 at 00:25

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sat 9 Oct 2010 23:13

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - isisalar

Lucy bc

If you could show me in my OP where I said I obstructed the crossing I would be very grateful.

Thank you Avant ,indeed I parked next to (adjacent) to the crossing,not obstructing it.

Can someone please give a legal definition of adjacent?

Acording to Lucy bc she's legal expert perhaps she can help?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 10 Oct 2010 11:36

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - FP

Paul - this thread is going round in circles because you seem to be hung up on the meaning of "adjacent".

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there's no specifically legal definition of the word.

If you parked adjacent to the dropped kerb of the crossing, even by a little bit (meaning part or all of your car was overhanging or covering the part of the road that is next to the dropped kerb), that counts as obstruction.

If you only parked near the crossing (i.e. up or down the road from it), then you were not adjacent to it.

I can't put it clearer than that.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 10 Oct 2010 15:14

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Dwight Van Driver

REQUEST TO A MODERATOR.

Please kill this thread it has run its course.

dvd

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 10 Oct 2010 15:52

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Avant

DVD - I agree that it's going round in circles but I'll keep the thread going until someone - maybe you or Lucy - can give us a definitive answer to what is quite an important point. Thanks for the link to the Hounslow by-laws - but (and maybe I'm a 'dimwit') I'm still not sure what they mean by 'adjacent'.

I repeat my question:

Is that what the by-laws are saying? I accept that in the eyes of the law, one wheel aligning with the dropped kerb is enough to constitute an offence.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 10 Oct 2010 16:58

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Dwight Van Driver

Without a precedent from High Court on the word you state then I would surmise that

a Judge would refer to the Oxford English Dictionary:

adjacent Pronunciation:/?'d?e?s(?)nt/ adjective

next to or adjoining something else

or place his own interpretation on it.

You have now had a precis on how you stand at law in relation to dropped kerbs.

You and only you know where you parked. You feel that you have not broken the law.

No body on this Forum can agree with you because they have not actually seen where you parked.

Your recourse is to appeal the PCN, firstly to the LA issuing and then, if they reject your submission, then on to the Parking Adjudicator.

If that doesn't satisify try for a Judicial Review to High Court which will cost you a hell of a lot more than the ticket you received many times over.

As stated other than the appeal route there is NOTHING MORE this Forum or thread can achieve.

LET IT REST

dvd

Edited by Dwight Van Driver on 10/10/2010 at 16:59

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 10 Oct 2010 18:05

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - isisalar

I have been further researching this today.

The only guidelines are from the D.O.T who state that it should be an offence to park ALONGSIDE a dropped kerb.They also provide a diagram showing how crossings should be signed so that 'motorists don't park there'. They also state these guidelines are worthless and the council can basically do what they like.

So I can be fined on the whim of the council for being parked adjacent to a dropped kerb but no one can say how close is adjacent.The D.O.T diagram does make it clear but without the lines painted and no signs it is impossible for anyone to know.

This is what has made me so upset.

That and the name calling when people havn't even read my post properly

Kind regards

Paul

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 10 Oct 2010 21:29

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Leif

This is what has made me so upset.
That and the name calling when people havn't even read my post properly

Kind regards

Paul

Paul, I'm not sure your post was mis-read, although someone was rude. I think you have to pay up. You made a mistake we could all make. The only consolation is that you educated some other people who will not fall foul of the same law or regulation.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 10 Oct 2010 21:59

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Avant

I think Paul's (Isisalar) point is that he believes that his car was Car 1 or Car 3 (as so excellently described by Silverback), and the warden who issued the ticket thinks it - or any part of it - was Car 2.

Paul can appeal but will need to prove that no part of his car was in the Car 2 position. It's worth finding out whether this is financially worthwhile.

This is not, repeat NOT, a cause for anyone to be rude or dismissive. Some of us, at least Paul, Silverback and I, would like to know the answer to the question in respect of Cars 1 and 3.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 11 Oct 2010 09:41

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Leif

I think Paul's (Isisalar) point is that he believes that his car was Car 1 or Car 3 (as so excellently described by Silverback), and the warden who issued the ticket thinks it - or any part of it - was Car 2.

Who is 'Silverback'? I tried to find what car1 to 3 are and failed. Did I miss a link?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 11 Oct 2010 12:52

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - FP

I don't think we can usefully say anything further to help to Paul until we have definitively established exactly where he was parked relative to the dropped kerb/crossing.

If I may say so, he seems somewhat reluctant to be completely explicit about this, which is perhaps why people have been - at best - trying to guess the position of his car, or - at worst - jumping to conclusions.

Come on, Paul, get to grips with this. Some of us would actually like to help.

Unless we get this sort of clarification I think the thread has run its course.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 11 Oct 2010 13:11

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - silverback

I think Paul's (Isisalar) point is that he believes that his car was Car 1 or Car 3 (as so excellently described by Silverback), and the warden who issued the ticket thinks it - or any part of it - was Car 2.

Who is 'Silverback'? I tried to find what car1 to 3 are and failed. Did I miss a link?

My post has gone missing as has another post by LucyBC. I'm glad someone saw it before it went.

I reported a website problem

A shortened version

On the line drawing below

<-------------------------ROAD ------------->

== CAR1 == ==CAR2== ==CAR3==

xxxxxxxxxxxxx.....................xxxxxxxxxxxxx

where x is the normal kerb and ......... is the dropped kerb

CAR 2 is causing an obstruction, Cars 1 and 3 are not

Adjacent (to me) for the purposes of an offence would mean CAR2 but in casual English CAR1 and CAR3 could be considered adjacent. I think this is where the confusion arises. The OP says the crossing was not obstructed. I think he is saying his car was in position 1 or position 3 not 2 so there should be no offence (if common sense is anything to go by)

to quote wictionary

adjacent

Lying next to, close, or contiguous; neighboring; bordering on.
(e.g. Because the conference room is filled, we will have our meeting in the adjacent room)
Just before, after, or facing.
(e.g. The picture is on the adjacent page.)

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 11 Oct 2010 14:20

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Leif

Silverback, thanks. I see what you mean. Perhaps 'parallel to' would be clearer. Cue someone explaining why that is also ambiguous ...

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 11 Oct 2010 17:05

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Dutchie

Hello Peter,you said in one of your postings that the area in question is a ugly mess of single and double yellow lines various other restrictions signs times lenght of times before you can return.And you left your car there whilst going to work?I would use the word evasive instead of ambiguous.Did't you smelled a rat with all these restrictions?Lucy might be right.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 11 Oct 2010 17:52

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - LucyBC

Car 3 would also be an offence as (on my screen at least) it impinges on the crossing.

I have to point out that the original question raised in this post was whether there needed to be a line or signage. We established that there doesn't. We also established there was no 5 minute grace period and the council had the right to ticket. The OP also said he did not obstruct the crossing but he did not say whether he partially obstructed it.

Generally speaking when people did not commit an offence I find they and unequivocal. They say "I was not using my mobile phone" or in this case would have said "I did not park adjcent to a dropped kerb".

We never got that.

In this case we have had to first deal with whether there needs to be a line (no), then whether he has to be committing the offence for more than five minutes or more (no), then the meaning of "adjacent".

In fact the position in which he parks comes up well down the thread when all other avenues had been exhausted and all the sensible people were running out of patience.

In Silverback's version if you were parked in Car 1 position you win, Car 2 position you lose and Car 3 position you probably lose.

You may get away with a minor overhang in Car 3 but not a major one and certainly not if your tyre was parallel to the area where the kerb is dropped.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 11 Oct 2010 20:11

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Brit_in_Germany

The Hounslow link given above differentiates between dropped kerbs for crossings and driveways. For the latter the test is adjacent or not and for the former, the broader term is obstructing including obstructing the vision of other traffic. Parking slightly away from the dropped kerb down the road can still obstruct the crossing.

Edited by Brit_in_Germany on 11/10/2010 at 20:18

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 12 Oct 2010 19:28

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - isisalar

To clarify a few points

I was aware the crossing was there when I parked and made sure I wasn't obstructing it.

Having left the location and on my way to work I was astonished to see a parking ticket on my windscreen.I was only having(a very expensive)breakfast.

The 5 minute issue was merely a question. The ticket had already been issued.

I believe I was parked in position 1 or 3. Lucy bc I'm sure you know what the diagram poster intended .

I'm awaiting the photo evidence.

I park in this borough on a daily basis in the course of my work and I thought I was aware of all the 'strokes' they could pull.

In fact the position in which he parks comes up well down the thread when all other avenues had been exhausted and all the sensible people were running out of patience.Lucy bc I find this offensive,sorry I didn,t put the information in your preferred order.How much plainer can I make the position I was parked other than the above,from the OP.

In another part of the borough today there were 4 similar crossings within 500 yards,all yellow lined as per D.O.T. guidelines!

Kind regards

Paul

Edited by isisalar on 12/10/2010 at 19:30

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 12 Oct 2010 19:52

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - isisalar

Sorry to post again,but I am not a fast typer and I keep getting timed out.
Lucybc
The OP also said he did not obstruct the crossing but he did not say whether he partially obstructed it. If I didn't obstruct the crossing I obviously didn't partially obstruct it. English innit.
Generally speaking when people did not commit an offence I find they and unequivocal. They say "I was not using my mobile phone" or in this case would have said "I did not park adjcent to a dropped kerb Lucybc this does not make sense could you please explain what you mean?
In this case I would have said 'I was parked adjacent to the dropped kerb'ie position 1 or 3.
Incidentaly I have discovered that there is no 'obstructing a dropped kerb' offence,only 'parking adjacent to'
Thanks to everyone for keeping the thread going
Kind regards
Paul

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 12 Oct 2010 23:02

general - Parking ticket .Entrapment? - Avant

Paul - I'm not sure that any of us can add very much at this stage to what has been said already.

You need the photographic evidence: in my opinion for what it's worth, you should have a case to appeal if you can prove that NO part of your car was alongside the dropped kerb - i.e. in the positions of Car 1 and Car 3 as admirably described above by Silverback.

Let us know how you get on.

Edited by Avant on 12/10/2010 at 23:03

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Ask Honest John

Sell Your Car

Real MPG

Fuel Calculator