Schools not exempt from School keep clear markings

From the PCN tribunal

Note that like double yellow lines the restriction is generally held by adjudicators to extend to the middle of the road.

Note also that schools don't 'own' the keep clear markings outside their school (even though some like to put illegal extra signs on the road) and so can't give themselves or anyone else permission to stop on the zig zags.

Note that a council doesn't care who pays, they'll happily shift money out of the education budget into the parking one.

End.

School keep clear - out of term time enforcement

In 2014 new map based Traffic Management Orders ('TMO') which established the parking restrictions were introduced which replaced the former schedule based ones seemingly without changes to the rules, but was that true?

This is from the new TMO:

Mr Mustard happens to be fighting a PCN given out on the school keep clear markings (the yellow zig zags) on 6 January 2020 which was an inset day, in Goodwyn Avenue, the location of St Martin's School. There were no children in school that day so effectively term started on 7 January 2020. The entire keep clear marking was parked up and after being politely challenged the traffic warden, having issued a PCN to one car and taken advice from a more senior colleague by radio, walked on and left all the other cars alone. Barnet Council still want their penalty of £110 paid though (rather oddly it would have been £130 if done by cctv, a matter which Mr Mustard will consider on another day).

Mr Mustard found the original TMO from 1996. It said that the school keep clear markings are only enforced during term times (hard to put on the signs as actual dates would be needed)

The replacement TMO says this:

Thus the rules apply every Monday - Friday regardless of whether the school is in term or outside of it. Whilst the traffic wardens walked past schools without issuing PCns from 1 to 5 January 2020 (they may have not been working on 1 January) the remote enforcement by camera continued as normal on those days as if there was some traffic management problem to solve or a bank account to fill. Mr Mustard thinks that the general mood of the public is that enforcing outside schools on New Year's Day is profoundly unfair.

At East Barnet School (to take a random example) term started on 6 January so were any PCNs issued by camera in 2020 before that date? Oh yes, three of them, which got 2020 off to a bad start for three people and will have sullied their view of Barnet Council and rightly so.

Mr Mustard then thought to check something, the council's website on which a lot of people, including Mr Mustard, rely to check the rules of bank holiday enforcement.

There are therefore two examples of how Barnet Council say one thing and do something different. They changed the TMO from term time to all year without advertising the fact and secondly they say they won't enforce school keep clear markings on bank holidays (when schools as well as banks are closed) but they are sending out PCNs by post (traffic wardens generally walk past closed schools so it is only the schools with cameras which get enforced).

Was the issue of PCNs on New Year's Day a one off error? No!

Mr Mustard will be writing to the parking manager asking him to refund those bank holiday school keep clear PCNs. What do you want to bet that the answer will be a polite no thank you?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

School zig zags - don't stop there

East Barnet School

Mr Mustard was consulted by a motorist who had been caught on the school keep clear markings as he stopped on them briefly in order to reverse past them into a parking space, the car in question is the one to the right of the word 'clear'.

In order to move from forward motion to reverse it is necessary to stop for a short while during which time you have to change gear and the laws of physics require that you are stationary for an instant. The computer decided the lack of motion should be considered for a PCN and a human being pressed the button to confirm the computer selection. How much time they spent thinking about this we do not know.

The contravention on school keep clear markings is of 'stopping' and a millisecond may well be long enough to make out a contravention but context is key. In this case Mr Mustard did not think a penalty was deserved and so he wrote to the parking manager:

In this case 'T' stops fleetingly in order to reverse into a space which would otherwise not be accessible. To my mind he doesn't deserve to be sent a PCN because this was a trivial period of stopping for good reason, although presumably a team member thought he did & technically yes he did stop.

I was wondering if you might think the same? If so, please cancel the PCN & save us all from extra paperwork.

It turned out that the manager did agree and the PCN was cancelled accordingly:

This is sensible as there wasn't any intent to do anything dangerous which would endanger the life of a child and none are in the picture that early afternoon.

Notwithstanding that Mr Mustard has put this PCN to bed he suggests you don't park in this way but go up the road past the zig zags, turn around where safe and then return and enter the parking space head on such that you don't have to stop on the entrance markings.

Mr Mustard has seen a PCN lost at the tribunal because the motorist pulled up on the zig zags in order to execute a 3 point turn. Mr Mustard agrees with that decision. Outside a school is not the place to be turning around.

The other problem he sees is when the keep clear zig zag lines are placed outside fire and ambulance stations. Those probably won't have a time plate as they apply 24 hours a day. He saw a PCN lost at Hartley Close around the corner from Mill Hill Fire station for this reason.

One further problem he has seen is when you have to stop on or alongside the keep clear markings because the road is only wide enough to let one car through and you obligingly waited for the other car. If you have your dash cam running that recording will help you overturn a PCN for stopping, as it was to avoid an accident, which amounts to an exemption.

Mr Mustard hopes that his advice keeps you out of trouble.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Not on - again

This is the second case this week of a PCN being issued at this location when a contravention did not occur. Note the complete absence of any pedestrians, school age or older, so what is the point of such a PCN? Revenue raising.

Mr Mustard's challenge reads like this:

Diagram 1027.1 is described in TSRGD 2016 as being 'Part of the carriageway outside an entrance, where…vehicles should, or must not, stop'.

1. The vehicle is not on the carriageway in Queens Avenue but on Orchard Avenue.

2. The vehicle is not on the markings which denote the extent of the restricted area.

3. There is no provision within TSRGD2016 for placing zig zag markings across a road junction.

(TSRGD is the 500 page Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 which Mr Mustard likes to have the occasional read of. Diagram 1027.1 is the yellow zig zag marking).

Any bets as to whether Barnet Council reject the challenge and he ends up talking to an adjudicator?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

What is the point of PCN?

What is the point of issuing Penalty Charge Notices? It is to try and force behavioural change by exacting a penalty for wrongdoing so that you learn not to do it again. 

We must also look at the purposive nature of the restriction and not penalise anyone who innocently gets in the way because rules is rules (and because councils are addicted to the revenue).

In this case white van man (actually a highly skilled tradesman; Mr Mustard has seen some of his excellent work) lives in the private road which is behind him. At the closed end of the private road there is an entrance to the back of the school which the kids use. Thus the school keep clear markings are aimed at ensuring parents don't drop their kids off at the school 'entrance' except it isn't really an entrance to the school as the road is private and no vehicles may access the school by that route. The residents have had to chain their road off as that is the only way to keep out parents in cars. Each time the residents go in and out they have to unlock/lock the chain.

On the day in question the van stopped slightly further forward than normal and the driver has just put the wheels on the markings. The council computer or an 'officer' (member of staff) saw fit to issue a PCN (the footage is supposedly checked before the decision is made to issue a PCN, Mr Mustard doubts the common sense of the person who signed this PCN off in these circumstances) which was challenged by the driver / vehicle owner (one and the same).

The vehicle is registered to an address in the private road, the circumstances were clearly explained and cancellation was anticipated. Oh no, the council maintain that a contravention has occurred. Well it has but that doesn't meet the purposive nature of the keep clear markings. Part of what they said was:

The CCTV footage shows your vehicle stopped on the marked restriction.

The circumstances do not warrant an exemption to the contravention: vehicles' (sic) must not stop on the markings. The yellow road markings are in place to keep entrances clear and safe for children coming in and out of schools. I would advise that you park off the markings to exit or enter the road.

Question. Are the children safer if the van stops 0.5m short of where it did? 

Answer. No.

Question 2. Are the children safer if the van moved forward 5m and stopped in the road?

Answer. No, and the traffic will be disrupted.

Question 3. Is the marking aimed at residents of the private road?

Answer. No, of course not.

Question 4. Is the council addicted to raising revenue from motorists.

Answer. Oh, yes.

The PCN is now going to the tribunal where an independent adjudicator will rule on the matter. Mr Mustard has now taken over, whizzed up a skeleton argument and will attend the hearing in due course.

Technically the motorist is in the wrong but this is a situation that was crying out for a warning PCN for £0.00 but the council don't make any money out of those. Although they send warning PCNs for the first 4 weeks of any new location being enforced by camera clearly white van man didn't overshoot during that time (or the enforcement may have started when the schools were closed during which time school zig zags are not enforced although the policy says they are).

This is the sort of bureaucratic pettifogging revenue raising pointless PCN which does the council's reputation no good at all.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Coach driver #2 - needs coaching

Just like buses Mr Mustard found reports of a second coach related PCN right behind the first one. Here is the adjudicator's (correct) decision:

The children at this school are aged up to 11 hence the wish for the coach to be as near as possible to the entrance although it has no chance of getting all the way along Richmond Rd which is tight to navigate even in a large car.

One solution to the problem is to park the coach in Gloucester Rd but the kids would have to be supervised crossing the busy road or, cynically, to add a £65 'parking charge' to the quote for transport to cover the cost of the PCN and just pay it on arrival.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard