Tickets for parking across unused driveways

[edanna]

This morning I came out my house to find a traffic warden giving tickets to cars parked across dropped kerbs leading to old gates behind shops. There is no yellow line across the dropped kerb. In the 14 years I have lived here, no-one has ever taken a vehicle in or out and it would be impossible to do so because there is so much junk behind the gates. In those 14 years I have never known anyone to get a ticket for parking across them and so people park there all the time, causing no disruption for anyone. Being just off Northcross Rd there is already massive parking pressure.

The traffic warden said she was doing what Southwark told her - to ticket vehicles parking across driveways - and that she can't tell if they are in use or not, which I suppose is fair enough. But this appears to be an overnight change in policy with no warning. And it's adding to the considerable parking stress, benefiting no-one apart from Southwark's finances.

I will contact Southwark but I'm not sure what kind of response I'll get. James Barber, if you're reading this, I'd be interested in your view.

[Roundabout]

e-mail Mr Barber - [email protected]

[Jeremy]

I thought parking across dropped kerbs had always been forbidden... unfortunately trying to appeal to some sort of common sense is completely pointless.

[Abe_froeman]

Southwark love gouging their residents for cash.

[Growlybear]

As Jeremy said, parking across a dropped kerb has always been an offence. I know many people who have been issued with tickets for parking across dropped kerbs, in various areas, and it's very clear in the Highway Code that local authorities can enforce this type of contravention.

[edanna]

I think it's a bit more complicated. Southwark's policy on dropped kerbs is here http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/3069/dropped_kerbs_and_driveways/3

It states that for driveways leading to a single property:

'Providing there is no enforceable yellow line, you and your visitors may park close to this type of driveway without penalty. For this reason, we only enforce upon specific request of the property occupier.'

It says 'close', not 'across' I know, but in this instance the person who theoretically could gain access would not have complained bearing in mind they don't use the entrance.

If a kerb is dropped does this rule remain enforceable forever, even if not used? No-one is going to pay to undrop a kerb.

[Cardelia]

Growlybear Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As Jeremy said, parking across a dropped kerb has

> always been an offence. I know many people who

> have been issued with tickets for parking across

> dropped kerbs, in various areas, and it's very

> clear in the Highway Code that local authorities

> can enforce this type of contravention.

Strictly speaking this is not true. Parking across a dropped kerb is not automatically an offence. However, there are many technicalities and regulations surrounding the whole issue, and it's generally difficult to tell which ones are in operation and which ones aren't, so drivers are generally told not to do it.

To give you an example of the confusing regulations, it is illegal to block someone's lawful access to the public highway. So, if a car is in a driveway with a dropped kerb and someone blocks them in, that's illegal. Interestingly, the converse is not automatically true: if a resident comes home to find someone blocking access to their driveway then they may not have any recourse to force the driver to move their car. However, if a local authority has applied for a Special Enforcement Area then they have a lot more power to ticket drivers. Assuming Southwark have done this then they are within their rights to ticket anyone who parks in front of a dropped kerb, provided the following is true (S86 of the 2004 Traffic Management Act, for anyone interested):

(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.

Part (iii) is the relevant bit and it's not obvious whether this is still applicable if the dropped kerb no longer serves its intended purpose. For example, I get to my flat through a rear garden which once upon a time was designed for vehicle access, complete with dropped kerb. The access point has long since been gated up with metal bars so only pedestrians can get in, but the dropped kerb remains. My car is currently parked across that dropped kerb (not blocking any other driveways or access points) and so far nobody has ticketed it.

For the scenario in the OP, it is really difficult to tell whether part (iii) still applies. It's possible, though unlikely after 14 years of inaction, that the landowner wants to clear all the junk from behind the gates and needs access to the driveway. Although common sense would suggest that the first thing to do is put up some signs warning people about this. It's definitely worth an appeal if you were ticketed.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, merely someone who has previously won an appeal against a ticket for this (hence the knowledge).

[apbremer]

My son got a ticket in Barnet for parking across his OWN driveway!! Little Hitlers everywhere with nothing useful to do. Sack the lot of them please.

[Cardelia]

I hope he appealed. He would have won because you're allowed to block your own driveway, although the wardens wouldn't necessarily have known that this was what he was doing which is why he was issued a ticket.

[nunhead_man]

Interesting - I let our contractors park across our dropped kerb - are they at risk?

And can I really not take action on someone else who parks?

TIA all!

[LondonMix]

I'm glad. My friend has repeatedly been blocked in to her house by people parking across the dropped curb. Whenever she asks them to move so she can leave people have verbally abused her. Last time she had to call the police (her father recorded the incident) as the person was so aggressive.

Regular ticketing I imagine would avoid this happening to her (its been twice in the last few months).

[edanna]

But parking across a driveway when a car is in it is different to parking across a gateway that you know is never used.

[LondonMix]

Yes, but how is a traffic warden supposed to know a gate is never used. Being blocked out of your drive is also not on, though obviously less problematic.

[Penguin68]

But parking across a driveway when a car is in it is different to parking across a gateway that you know is never used.

I don't think this is so - if it was possible to prove that it was completely unusable (a wall had been built behind it), perhaps - but otherwise the authorities cannot assume that certain knowledge - even if it had not been used up to that point, you would not be able to assert it would thus never be used. Only if you had authority to park across a gateway from the owner or occupant of the property whose gateway it was could you have some defense in law. You have said that there was junk inside the gates, but on that very day that you parked, a vehicle could have been scheduled to arrive to move that junk (OK, extremely unlikely, but you are not to know, for certain, that might not have been planned).

Either parking over a dropped kerb is illegal, or it isn't. Authority (from the property owner) to do so is a point to be argued in mitigation.

[edanna]

You may well be right Penguin68 but why is it being enforced now when it hasn't been for at least 14 years?

[Jeremy]

Yep, can't really expect them to try to distinguish between drives which are used or not. Sorry to hear people have been caught out when they knew no harm was being done, but this isn't an argument they can win. Best to put this one down to experience, I think.

[Penguin68]

You may well be right Penguin68 but why is it being enforced now when it hasn't been for at least 14 years?

Good (or at least understandable) point - if you could prove you have been using it regularly without enforcement it is possible that you could argue for custom and practice (particularly as there were no road markings, which were common 14 years ago). On the other hand, failure to enforce a law in the past, doesn't obviate it. I would guess it's being enforced now as part of a general crack-down on non-legal parking - I refer you to the recent thread on the parking of unexpected coaches on junctions. Once you start to enforce parking laws, you cannot make exceptions without that in itself becoming suspect.

[Abe_froeman]

I can't really believe it's within the 'authority' of members of the public to deicde whether or not a parking viloation is being committed on a public road.

[Jeremy]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't really believe it's within the 'authority'

> of members of the public to deicde whether or not

> a parking viloation is being committed on a public road.

I think residents should be able to make the decision if it's in front of their own house..

[Abe_froeman]

If that is the case shouldn't all residents decide who parks in front of their house, dropped curb or no?

[Abe_froeman]

A real life example: we have a neighbour with a dropped curb and two cars. That means they take up two spaces on the road at all times. Sometimes they park a car outside my house but I can't park in front of theirs under your rules. How is that fair?

[Seabag]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A real life example: we have a neighbour with a

> dropped curb and two cars. That means they take up

> two spaces on the road at all times. Sometimes

> they park a car outside my house but I can't park

> in front of theirs under your rules. How is that

> fair?

I have a neighbor who has three cars and a double drop kerb. He permanently parks one car in a space and a third past his driveway, so his wife doesn't crash their nice car into the wall when parking/leaving. And he then parks his silly dog walking car up past the second drop kerb space, leaving about a third again to keep his drive and his neighbors exit nice and clear.

But I often think it's his only joy, his wife's quite challenging and he's in the house most of the day

And all that misery at 52, poor sod. It's his only pleasure, apart from hunting out the wine bottles his wife buries in the recycle bin at 3pm

Sad sad lives people can end up living

[sandyman]

Hang on - am I being a bit dense or does that mean if someone has two cars and parks car A in their drive and car B in front of their drive across their dropped kerb a warden could ticket car B because they wouldn't know whose car it was? (advance excuse, I've had a long day).

[ianr]

"Special enforcement area", which appears above and within the full wording of PCN contravention code 27, "Parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a dropped footway". seems to be just the latest name for any area where parking enforcement is the responsibility of the local authority rather than the police. So no argument with that.

The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, s.14(4) vetoes the issuing of PCNs for parking adjacent to a dropped footway that provides access to a single residential driveway "unless requested to do so by the occupier of the premises". I've not found anything suggesting it's not still in force, and a Merton guidance note suggests that it is: "A vehicle parked outside a residential premises with its own drive requires a complaint before issuing with a penalty charge. All other drop kerbs: shared, business, crossings etc do not." Do the gates mentioned in the OP give access to a residence?

The Explanatory Note to s.86 of TMA2004 begins "Dropping the level of a footway, cycle track or verge to the level of the carriageway assists pedestrians crossing a road, cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway and vehicles crossing a footway, cycle track or verge in order to access off-road parking." Might it be argued that the dropped kerb mentioned in the original post isn't providing any of those functions, and that enforcement is not helping it to do so?

[Jeremy]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A real life example: we have a neighbour with a

> dropped curb and two cars. That means they take up

> two spaces on the road at all times.

Well if they didn't have the driveway, then they'd be taking up two spaces anyway. Besides, I'd suggest that two-car households in London are quite rare, so this seems a fairly unusual case.

A more typical scenario - a household has a driveway and one car. Allowing visitors and tradespeople to park across their driveway is better for everyone.

> Sometimes they park a car outside my house but I can't park in front of theirs under your rules.

That's not "my rules", it's the law! If you're against off-street parking and dropped kerbs then fine, but that's a different conversation...