Author Topic: Parked in a special enforcenment area adjacent to... - code 27 - Southwark  (Read 102 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I am back, yet again.

JK19870457

CU18HND




My mother says she was parked behind the dropped curb at first, but moved forward to "make room" for another vehicle behind, and upon exiting the vehicle, didn't realise was over the dropped curb blocking the gate.

It's been 2 weeks now and I don't want to lose the discount option really, but just thought I would run it passed here to see if there's any hope potentially.

I noticed that the colour of the car is wrong on the PCN, but I don't think that matters, does it?

Thanks and all the help is well appreicated

Edit:
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps. · maps.app.goo.gl
« Last Edit: June 28, 2026, 07:14:43 pm by ILoveCats123 »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Cplour of car is irrelevant, but we need to see the CEO photos. Only if the vehicle intrudes into the dropped area is a PCN valid. The sloping kerbstones don't count even if councils think they do.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2026, 07:31:24 pm by Incandescent »

This looks hopeless but the gate doesn't look wide enough or has been in use for vehicular access but that is unlikely to wash with Southwark.




+1
I can't see a win here other than a 'technical' appeal that would only be dealt with at London Tribunals with the full PCN penalty in play.

I assume the driver is a BB holder, as the vehicle is on double-yellow lines.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2026, 07:34:46 pm by Incandescent »

Yes, BB holder. Had time clock and BB displayed as seen in pics to park on the double yellow lines, but then had inched forward.

Any comments on the "sloping kerbstone" now that the CEO pics can be seen?

Yes, BB holder. Had time clock and BB displayed as seen in pics to park on the double yellow lines, but then had inched forward.

Any comments on the "sloping kerbstone" now that the CEO pics can be seen?
The car is well into the dropped area, so no appeal mileage there, I'm afraid.

Ah, yes, but

you said

“ The sloping kerbstones don't count even if councils think they do.”

I thought this was maybe something to do with the dropped curb and how it’s designed

Ah, yes, but

you said

“ The sloping kerbstones don't count even if councils think they do.”

I thought this was maybe something to do with the dropped curb and how it’s designed
Basically, the law is that the dropped length of kerb must not be blocked. So if one's car is adjacent only to the sloping kerbstone, no contravention has been committed, because it is obviously not droppped, but councils still force their CEOs to serve PCNs for such cases. In many cases this is because a resident has complained, so they keep them quiet by serving a PCN.

Of course some dropped sections don't have "transition" (sloping) kerbstones, but a 90degree kerb section. In these instances, one is either by the raised kerb or not, no argument.

Ah, yes, but

you said

“ The sloping kerbstones don't count even if councils think they do.”

I thought this was maybe something to do with the dropped curb and how it’s designed
Basically, the law is that the dropped length of kerb must not be blocked. So if one's car is adjacent only to the sloping kerbstone, no contravention has been committed, because it is obviously not droppped, but councils still force their CEOs to serve PCNs for such cases. In many cases this is because a resident has complained, so they keep them quiet by serving a PCN.

Of course some dropped sections don't have "transition" (sloping) kerbstones, but a 90degree kerb section. In these instances, one is either by the raised kerb or not, no argument.

Okay yes I see what you are saying now, thanks for explaining.

I'll still submit a challenge though and pay upon rejection. Make them do some work for "their" money, as you say  ;)

I would put them to the test that the footway is lowered for one of the three statutory purposes for enforcement:

(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or

(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or

Clearly it is only (iii) that could apply but the narrowness of the gate and the Maps view history does not support this purpose.

Plus BB and move of car reason.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

I already submitted a challenge last night basically just explaining what I explained in my initial post, asking them to cancel the PCN, obviously not holding any expectation that they will.

Are you suggesting I should take it further?

All you can do is wait for their reply.

IMO, if the registered keeper(to whom any Notice to Owner would be sent) wants to continue then I suggest they say what to me is obvious i.e. why has the council chosen to place DYL at this location, which might encourage a BB holder to park when, according to them, there is a more onerous and unsigned prohibition in place against which a BB does not provide an exemption. The driver was aware of the Highway Code's references, but these are incomplete because they do not refer to (possibly because regulators do not anticipate) DYL and dropped footways being placed together.

It might make them think, if nothing else!

In hindsight I should have waited so I could have at least put some substance into the reps, but never mind.