Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all - I got this ticket... On a yellow line, in front of own driveway, outside of controlled hours.

PCN photo

Car relative to driveway

More context showing position on street

They are arguing contravention code 28.

Should I pay it ? They already rejected informal challenge but their response made no sense as they rejected because I was parked in front of a dropped kerb (which is a different contravention code).

Council Photo 1
Council Photo 2
Council Photo 3
Council Photo 4
Council Photo 5

Google Maps

I don't have a copy of my challenge, but their rejection letter is here.

Their letter makes no sense as it is template for a code 27 lowered footway, whereas the contravention you have is for code 28, where the carriageway has been raised to footway level.

There are two likely reasons for the PCN.

There is a table at the junction there and they consider the whole table is a pedestrian crossing.

Your car was blocking a driveway - that's OK if it's yours alone but it's a contravention if the driveway is shared.

There are no signs for dropped/raised footway crossings but you often see dropped kerbs at the corner of roads and obviously some have tactile paving.

But we have seen these entire junction tables upheld as a big pedestrian crossing area at the tribunal.

I would go on with this not least because their rejection is daft although we don't know what your challenge was. We don't know why the PCN was issued (see law below).

Are you the registered keeper and has the logbook gor the correct name and address.

---------

The law

86 Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.

(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—

(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—

(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

(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.

This is subject to the following exceptions.

(2)The first exception is where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised.

A “designated parking place” means a parking place designated by order under section 6, 9, 32(1)(b) or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).

(3)The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.

This exception does not apply in the case of a shared driveway.

Anyone have any thoughts based on the above ? Thank you in advance !

Totally confused.
Why do you continue to obscure essential details, preventing us looking for ourselves and understanding the bigger picture?

The supposed raised carriageway appears to be a standard speed hump? The rejection is nonsense as has been said.
But how can we help you make a case if we don't understand the situation?

Maps is out of date - it seems there were recent works?

Take pics of the extent of the raised carriageway and any obvious crossing points.

For formal reps I would just go with parked outside your own drive-in, which is an exemption.

So there is a longstanding junction table there. Just some repainting.

I spy tactile crossing points so presumably you were well clear of these.



I would wait for the NTO. If they are going after the whole table as a crossing rather than blocking your drive-in you'll find out then. They will probably reoffer the discount especially as they sent a nonsense initial rejection.

You keep coming back to your argument but without answering what IMO are key questions:

Does the raised footway extend beyond your crossover;
Was any part of your vehicle parked OTHER THAN adjacent to your crossover?

IMO, if it does and if you did, by more than a de minimis degree, and if it would be accepted by an adjudicator as a raised carriageway for the purposes of s86(b), then you have a problem.