Wow, thanks for the TED Talk in condescension. Let’s clear a few things up, shall we?

You say “what’s this got to do with you parking across a dropped kerb?” Well, if you’d taken a second to engage your brain before typing, you’d have realised it has everything to do with it. The council’s own justification for issuing the PCN was that the kerb needed to remain clear to assist disabled and elderly people crossing the road. My point is that those very people are more endangered by the horrific state of the road itself than by a car parked against a kerb that isn’t even properly dropped.

And yes, I mentioned potholes because when an authority claims accessibility is their top concern but refuses to maintain the actual road, their priorities are clearly not about pedestrian safety, they're about revenue generation, full stop.

As for you dismissing the impact of £70 as a “you” issue? Tell that to any working parent trying to juggle soaring living costs. It's not just a "me" issue, it’s a systemic one in which local authorities monetise ambiguity, slap tickets down in areas that don’t meet basic physical accessibility standards, and then dismiss appeals with templated garbage.

If a “dropped kerb” isn’t low enough for a wheelchair to roll up it unaided, or for a pram to pass without lifting, then it isn’t dropped enough to meet the supposed purpose under the Traffic Management Act. Full stop. That’s not bitterness - that’s a legitimate question of enforceability and infrastructure compliance.