Thanks, not looking good. What a waste of time uploading all those pics were. cheers anyway

We took our kids to Winter Wonderland on the 2nd January Bank Holiday and parked about 730pm with hundreds of other cars - that were not ticketed at the time - but parked in double lines down the centre aisle of South Carriage Drive. We couldn't see any signs saying you shouldn't park there and no one else had a ticket. After driving around for a bit someone pulled out and we manged to get into a section that was only one car in thickness (honestly there were hundreds parked up and down that section). We went and enjoyed ourselves, came back about twenty past ten to find hardly any cars left and all the ones that were there did have tickets. I've had a look through a few of the forums and can't see anyone else kicking up a fuss yet. It was obviously issued by a PC does that mean it's a criminal offence - I've never had one of these before. Where do you begin? Here's all the info I have on it. Many thanks in advance for any suggestions/help, it will be gratefully received. Regards I would put all the links and images here but the forum won't let me. Any ideas how I can give you the IMG's of the car, the location of the site and the images of the parking tickets without uploading links and images?

Good point. I thought 10 meters was a bit excessive - can you imagine? Everybody would be ticketed all the time in london! Thanks. I'll add that to my additional evidence. Cheeky council posted me their evidence a day after the last date I was allowed to submit new evidence! (But it's ok, there's a 20 week back log - surprise surprise) so I have time. It's that hatching that freaks me out. It looks like a blatant lie. I'm sure it's showing the council have adopted that corner for another reason. What I really don't know. I think the CATV cover is something to do with a BT/Virgin/ cable station.

Hi, I know I got no response, here's the next letter after the above was rejected: Further to my letter dated xxx Please accept this letter as further notice of appeal. I wish the following to be taken into account: The contravention did not occur There have been several procedural improprieties The Traffic Order allegedly contravened is invalid 1) The dropped kerb was most probably for the purposes of a private drive way – I did ask that the Council send me proof if it was anything otherwise – they chose to ignore this formal request. 2) There is no reciprocal dropped kerb opposite (see Fig 1) nor are there any apparatus such as a pelican crossing or traffic lights to assist pedestrians etc to cross to the other side. 3) There is no cycle track at this location so it is not for the purposes of assisting cyclists on or off the road. 4) Our vehicle was not parked across the part of the kerb that is lowered to meet the carriage way so in any event the contravention, should the council be entitled to enforce here, has not occurred 5) Procedural impropriety: the photos in the original NTO (Fig 2) are of such poor quality that they would be inadmissible in any court room if this was in a criminalised enforcement area or at a PATAS tribunal. 6) Procedural impropriety: the arrowed photo in the notice of rejection of representation (Fig 3) which apparently shows where our car was ''most likely parked '' is inadmissible because there is an assumption of where we were parked and not actual proof as it doesn’t not clearly show that we weren’t parked adjacent to the slopes which does not count as part of the dropped kerb. (See attached tribunal for this Fig 4) 7) In my view the council have contradicted themselves in the rejection. First they claim this dropped kerb is for the purposes of assisting pedestrians with prams, wheelchair users etc onto the road to wander aimlessly along the carriageway as they have no other way of getting onto the pavement on the other side. On the next sentence they claim it is for crossing the road, but unfortunately one cannot get to the other side because there isn’t a reciprocal kerb adjacent. 8) Procedural impropriety. Ealing Council have not provided us with any proof that this is a council kerb by way of engineers layouts or drawings ETC as per the request in our formal appeal. 9) Procedural impropriety: As they have not provided proof in any way whatsoever that this dropped kerb is council, then it is assumed to be a private kerb for which they are not entitled to enforce a PCN in this location without the permission of the owner unless the owner is taking payment from someone else and they have specifically asked the council to do so. Which they are not because we asked the owners of the associated property and as far as they are concerned if it transpires to be an old private dropped kerb we have permission to park there (Fig 5). Please also note that in the letter from the owners they also note another disused dropped kerb adjacent to their property (Fig 5a) that likewise does not have a reciprocal dropped footway. (9a) The exemption would then be secured under the following (see Fig 6) 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; 10) Regarding the alleged amendment, made last year, about signage of dropped kerbs, please see the below: Council areas within Greater London that were awarded Special Parking Area status under section 76 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 are now considered, due to paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 1 within the TMA 2004, to be Special Enforcement Areas. However, such council areas are not considered as Special Enforcement Areas where Statutory Instrument 2009/1116 is concerned. Paragraph 2(5) of S.I. 2009/1116 does not include paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 10 within the TMA 2004, in its definition of Special Enforcement Areas. (5)In paragraph (4) a “special enforcement area” means an area designated as a special enforcement area by means of— (a) an order made under paragraph 1(1) or 3(1) of Schedule 10 to the Traffic Management Act 2004; or (b)an order which, by virtue of paragraph 2(5) or 3(5) of that Schedule, has effect as if it were an order so made." Since S.I. 2009/1116 does not include those councils within Greater London that were granted Special Parking Area status under the 1991 Act, it means that those councils do not qualify as being exempt from having to place traffic signs 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 their area. As the prohibition was not signed and no exemption from placing traffic signs has been granted. This latter point being made in my original appeal to the NTO (see Fig 7) along with the accompanying Drawings on Traffic Signs (Fig 8), Tactile Paving (Fig 9), TMA 2004 (Fig 10) and LAFO Regulations 2009 (Fig 11). yours sincerely, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The above letter went to PATAS and last Sat I got the documentation from the council for my appeal this Thursday 20th. Having waded through all the rubbish (reams of print outs of case status reports that appear to mean *** all) - their 'good stuff' is utter rot! For a start, their Google map is a cheat and makes it look like there is an opposing drop kerb when there isn't. However they then shoot themselves in the foot by enclosing proof that the drop kerb I was allegedly obstructing is in fact adopted by the council - but DOES NOT show their alleged opposing footway equally adopted (ho ho ho). To be honest their 'proof' it's adopted doesn't look entirely adequate to me - not that I'm an expert but it does not state where or when or why it was adopted. I'm going to go down and take proper photos of the 'alleged opposing footway' and measure the area every foot or so to prove it does not become flat at any point. Hopefully i can submit this before Thurs. But would appreciate any comments or pointers you have at your earliest possible convenience. I have posted this elsewhere too (as I didn't get a reply here) but in the spirit the more the merrier - I'm hoping someone else might come up with something great here: Regards and best wishes. EF Council Single Adopted Corner - [think they're actually depicting the CATV drain cover here] Council (misleading) Google Maps Council response to PATAS P1 Council response to PATAS P2 Council response to PATAS P3 Council response to PATAS P4

Hi, I've been gathering evidence on a PCN I received for a Section27 parked in an SEA adjacent to a dropped kerb, I have rewritten it several times but I'm unsure if the header I've put on section 3 is technically correct - could anyone have a quick look? I have to send it today. Many thanks. Really hope someones' got time. I realise it's Monday morning! --------------------------------------------------- Dear Sir or Madam Please accept this letter as my formal appeal to the above dated Notice to Owner as follows. I would first like to point out that your ‘making representations’ section on the NTO has an unfair procedural impropriety by suggesting that you may only appeal on one of the grounds listed - ‘if you think one of the grounds below applies’. One may, of course, appeal on as many grounds as are appropriate and ours are set out below: 1) Procedural impropriety. With reference the PCN, it appears that the PCN was not properly served. At no point was a ticket served to the driver, placed on the vehicle or sent through the post as per regulation 10 of the TMA 2004. 2) The contravention has not occurred. The pictures provided on the Notice to Owner are of very poor quality and do not show my vehicle parked across any dropped footway. I deny that I parked adjacent to any dropped kerb footway and there is absolutely no supporting evidence of the above contravention whatsoever. If you chose to further enforce this charge could you please supply me with the following documents: a) The pocket book notes made by the CEO and in particular the supporting evidence that the PCN has been properly served. b) Supporting evidence that the above contravention has occurred. c) The council road plans that show the existence of the dropped footway in question. c) The plans that show the reciprocal dropped footway that accompanies the one in question or the plans that show the apparatus to assist pedestrians across the road such as a reciprocal kerb, pedestrian crossing or traffic light, thus indicating this dropped footway is indeed public and not private. Despite the obvious design flaws stated above no discretionary road markings have been applied to emphasise the presence of the "alleged" dropped crossing as permitted by The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (Drawing 1026.1). There is certainly no tactile paving at the crossing point, which would indicate the presence of such. 3) The Traffic Order which is alleged to have been contravened was invalid. In summary, the contravention did not occur as we were not parked adjacent to a dropped “footway” as defined by section 86(7) of the TMA 2004 because the so called footway is not limited to a right of way on foot only as pushchairs, wheelchairs, mobility scooters and vehicles are able to utilise it. In addition there was no signage. Council areas within Greater London that were awarded Special Parking Area status under section 76 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 are now considered, due to paragraph 01(5) of Schedule 10 within the TMA 2004, to be Special Enforcement Areas. 2(5)In paragraph (4) a “special enforcement area” means an area designated as a special enforcement area by means of— (a) an order made under paragraph 1(1) or 3(1) of Schedule 10 to the Traffic Management Act 2004; or (b)an order which, by virtue of paragraph 2(5) or 3(5) of that Schedule, has effect as if it were an order so made." Since S.I. 2009/1116 does not include those councils within Greater London that were granted Special Parking Area status under the 1991 Act, it means that those councils do not qualify as being exempt from having to place traffic signs for the purpose of providing information to road users as to the effect of section 85 (double parking) or 86 (parking adjacent to dropped footways) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 in their area. As the prohibition was not signed and no exemption from placing traffic signs has been granted, I require you to cancel this penalty charge forthwith and to immediately cease enforcing the effects of sections 85 & 86 of the TMA 2004 until the appropriate signage is placed or an exemption is enacted by statute. See (Traffic Management Act 2004 (c. 18) and The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009 (No. 1116). 4) Further grounds as laid out in Section 86 (3) When I telephoned your offices to gain a deeper understanding of why this NTO had been issued one of your operatives stated that the civil enforcement officer had been requested to issue us with a ticket by the owners of the property associated with this alleged dropped footway. However, this is not the case, please find attached a letter from the owners of said property denying this and consenting to anyone positioning their car outside their home. So even if there were an alleged dropped crossing at this point then under Section 86 (3) it should be disregarded: “ 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. I wish to put you on notice, as you have provided absolutely no conclusive supporting evidence of the above contravention whatsoever I will deem further enforcement of this charge to be wholly unreasonable and vexatious. I will therefore make an application for reasonable costs be reimbursed should I be forced to seek the opinion of an adjudicator. Yours sincerely Encs 1. Scanned image of the NTO sheet showing signed declaration. 2. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (Drawing 1026.1). 3. External Environments Fact sheet (5.6 Tactile Paving) 4. Traffic Management Act 2004 (c. 18) 5. The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009 (No. 1116) 6. Letter of permission from the owners of property adjacent to the alleged dropped footway.

I'm reading this all with great interest as am about to fight something similar. What happened in the end? Regards