Council photos do not show any contravention:
(https://i.imgur.com/NBYKFeq.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/CCDLCIf.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/dV6hOrn.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZdlKkt5.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/b4KX1iU.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/zUGNBBT.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8VyCSBE.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/bM0jsJw.jpeg)
@gge12 you can use the same draft I prepared for the other thread (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/27-parked-in-a-special-enforcement-area-adjacent-to-a-footway-lowered-streatham/):
Dear London Borough of Lambeth,
It is only a contravention to park adjacent to a dropped kerb if the kerb has been lowered for one of the statutory purposes listed in section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. It is obvious from the Google Street View history that this particular dropped kerb was originally installed as a bin access ramp for the bins stored in Stanedge Court, see the image from July 2008 at https://maps.app.goo.gl/TSeQBmMtahEK7yreA
It might have been arguable that the lowered kerb could also be used by cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, and there is nothing to suggest that a "dual purpose" lowered kerb could not be enforced under section 86.
However by September 2020 access to this lowered kerb from Stanedge Court had been blocked off by the installation of a permanent fence, as shown by the image at https://maps.app.goo.gl/xt9in4vkLXkPxhxs6
That fence was present at the time of the alleged contravention and as far as I am aware, is still there.
As such the kerb no longer fulfills any of the statutory purposes at section 86 of the TMA 2004, even if one accepts that the kerb was ever lowered for the purposes of the statute.
I refer you to the case of Abigail Mendy v London Borough of Enfield (2160476330, 4 January 2017) and while I know councils love the mantra that first-instance cases are not binding, there is simply no reason to suppose the tribunal would reach a different conclusion in this instance.
In light of the above the alleged contravention did not occur, and the penalty charge must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Submit this online and please make sure to keep a screenshot of the confirmation page. It seems likely the council will reject, but as with the other thread it's hard to see how the council could win this at the tribunal.