Notice to keeper - MNPR

[No ideas for a name]

Not a typo... 'Manual Number Plate Recognition'.

First I will say, I understand the car parking company has been contracted by the landowner and is there to enforce the rules.
Asking a question on behalf of my son - who is good at many things, but not so much legal and paperwork stuff.

He has received a notice to keeper from i-Park Services Ltd, for an alleged parking infringement on a retail park.
The notice looks very amatuerish, almost to the point of a scam. However, I believe it to be genuine - just poor.
The restriction appears to be for the surrounding internal roadways, and applies even if the driver has visited, and bought goods from one of the retail units.

I am just trying to determine if the Notice to keeper is compliant.
I have never heard of manual numberplate recognition. I assume that this is via CCTV, and a person noting the VRM 'manually'. Otherwise, if it was manual as in, in person, then a ticket should have been issued to the driver. (The NTK would then be invalid as it was sent two days after the alleged contravention - and needs to be at least 28 days later).

As I read the rules - it is necessary for the NTK to include the time the vehicle was parked. In this case, it states the date and time of the event (not a range) - so would seem not to be compliant on that point.

Also, for comedy value - the driver has actually stopped right next to one of the 'controlled land' signs. I believe that a reasonable time is to be allowed for the driver to read the sign and decide if they agree with the terms and conditions - and if not, they can move away without penalty. (I can't find a case example or this in the legislation though).

The sign contains print so small that it can't actually be read from a vehicle.

I understand the driver stopped for around 2-3 minutes.

You may think this is just a case of couldn't be bothered to park properly, so just stopped on the roadway, however, as additional information - the driver has a medical condition that sometimes requires immediate injection (diabetes) and was in sole control of two young children that had just been released from hospital. Stopping temporarily was therefore necessary.

Just checking for views on this before I help draft something as a reply to i-Park.

[OutInTheShed]

Manual numberplate recognition sounds like someone groping the old style of plate with thick plastic letters riveted on?

What they mean is, they have a human witness. Who might or might not have taken a photo or two.

[Sebring440]

The sign is very clear, without needing to read the small print: no parking.

However, your (or your son's) mitigation is a medical emergency, which he will be able to prove.

[Pica-Pica]

I would worry more about the insulin dependent diabetes.
Has the DVLA been informed? (£1000 fine possible if not informed)
Was a glucose check made within 2 hours of starting driving, and was another check made after 2 hours of driving?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d8...

[No ideas for a name]

Pica-Pica said:

I would worry more about the insulin dependent diabetes.
Has the DVLA been informed? (£1000 fine possible if not informed)
Was a glucose check made within 2 hours of starting driving, and was another check made after 2 hours of driving?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d8...

Yes, the driver is fully aware of the rules... I believe he has to apply for his licence every three years, subject to input from his doctor.
The driver is on a continuous monitor - rather clever and linked to his phone which works as the display, so he gets real time alert of the measurement.

It is a reason, and not an excuse. I am just not sure if i-park will be interested.
Very much easier if the NTK is not compliant to go down that route.

[119]

No ideas for a name said:

Pica-Pica said:

I would worry more about the insulin dependent diabetes.
Has the DVLA been informed? (£1000 fine possible if not informed)
Was a glucose check made within 2 hours of starting driving, and was another check made after 2 hours of driving?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d8...

Yes, the driver is fully aware of the rules... I believe he has to apply for his licence every three years, subject to input from his doctor.
The driver is on a continuous monitor - rather clever and linked to his phone which works as the display, so he gets real time alert of the measurement.

It is a reason, and not an excuse. I am just not sure if i-park will be interested.
Very much easier if the NTK is not compliant to go down that route.

Kinda off topic, but unless his glucose levels were falling though the floor, there was no need at all to stop and pump insulin the second he had the alert, and could have driven on for a few minutes, or even got home before giving himself insulin.

Good luck though!

[Sebring440]

No ideas for a name said:

Very much easier if the NTK is not compliant to go down that route.

You're backing off from the medical emergency bit now? Hmmm.

The medical emergency is a slam-dunk. Why waste your time trying to sort out "compliance" when you've got such a straightforward and easy to prove mitigation?

[QuickQuack]

119 said:

No ideas for a name said:

Pica-Pica said:

I would worry more about the insulin dependent diabetes.
Has the DVLA been informed? (£1000 fine possible if not informed)
Was a glucose check made within 2 hours of starting driving, and was another check made after 2 hours of driving?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d8...

Yes, the driver is fully aware of the rules... I believe he has to apply for his licence every three years, subject to input from his doctor.
The driver is on a continuous monitor - rather clever and linked to his phone which works as the display, so he gets real time alert of the measurement.

It is a reason, and not an excuse. I am just not sure if i-park will be interested.
Very much easier if the NTK is not compliant to go down that route.

Kinda off topic, but unless his glucose levels were falling though the floor, there was no need at all to stop and pump insulin the second he had the alert, and could have driven on for a few minutes, or even got home before giving himself insulin.

Good luck though!

Errr, it's the other way round. Insulin lowers blood glucose, give somebody whose glucose levels are falling through the floor and you'll kill them, they would need a high sugar snack or a shot of glucagon. Insulin is to lower high blood glucose levels, which can also put you into a coma, but for different reasons and through a different physiological mechanism than no glucose going to your brain.

[No ideas for a name]

Sebring440 said:

No ideas for a name said:

Very much easier if the NTK is not compliant to go down that route.

You're backing off from the medical emergency bit now? Hmmm.

The medical emergency is a slam-dunk. Why waste your time trying to sort out "compliance" when you've got such a straightforward and easy to prove mitigation?

I just think that the parking company won't care about the medical situation. And of course, to run that as a defence requires the driver to be named.
That then kills the non-compliant notice to keeper angle.

The medical situation is real - and easily provable. The driver was also about 20 miles from home so couldn't just carry on for a few minutes more.

I don't see that in law, a private parking company HAS to make allowance for a medical situation - but one would hope that they would do. They don't have a reputation for being particularly fair.

I suppose the reply could be to cite the medical emergancy, and then reveal the driver and associated evidence if the parking company agree to cancel the penalty in that situation.

[Mandat]

Another approach to consider is whether they have any evidence of the alleged parking infringement?

Simply stopping at the side of the road to deal with a medical emergency (or any other issue) should not constitute parking.

Did your son walk away from the car, leaving it "parked" or did he just stop to deal with whatever emergency he had to attend to, before driving away again?

[Mrr T]

No ideas for a name said:

Not a typo... 'Manual Number Plate Recognition'.

First I will say, I understand the car parking company has been contracted by the landowner and is there to enforce the rules.
Asking a question on behalf of my son - who is good at many things, but not so much legal and paperwork stuff.

He has received a notice to keeper from i-Park Services Ltd, for an alleged parking infringement on a retail park.
The notice looks very amatuerish, almost to the point of a scam. However, I believe it to be genuine - just poor.
The restriction appears to be for the surrounding internal roadways, and applies even if the driver has visited, and bought goods from one of the retail units.

I am just trying to determine if the Notice to keeper is compliant.
I have never heard of manual numberplate recognition. I assume that this is via CCTV, and a person noting the VRM 'manually'. Otherwise, if it was manual as in, in person, then a ticket should have been issued to the driver. (The NTK would then be invalid as it was sent two days after the alleged contravention - and needs to be at least 28 days later).

As I read the rules - it is necessary for the NTK to include the time the vehicle was parked. In this case, it states the date and time of the event (not a range) - so would seem not to be compliant on that point.

Also, for comedy value - the driver has actually stopped right next to one of the 'controlled land' signs. I believe that a reasonable time is to be allowed for the driver to read the sign and decide if they agree with the terms and conditions - and if not, they can move away without penalty. (I can't find a case example or this in the legislation though).

The sign contains print so small that it can't actually be read from a vehicle.

I understand the driver stopped for around 2-3 minutes.

You may think this is just a case of couldn't be bothered to park properly, so just stopped on the roadway, however, as additional information - the driver has a medical condition that sometimes requires immediate injection (diabetes) and was in sole control of two young children that had just been released from hospital. Stopping temporarily was therefore necessary.

Just checking for views on this before I help draft something as a reply to i-Park.

The sign is unenforceable. Parking charges are based on law of contract. A contract requires offer and acceptance. Since the sign says "No Parking" there is no offer so no acceptance so no contract. Guess the small print may make an offer but it's small and likely too small to be read without leaving the car.

Also if he stopped only to make an injection likely that would not be deemed to have parked.

You might choose to pay to save time but highly likely you do not need to.

You say the PCN is very amateur so likely does not meet the requirements to create keeper liability. Appeal on all those grounds. Likely rejected so then to the trade appeal system.

[No ideas for a name]

Mandat said:

Another approach to consider is whether they have any evidence of the alleged parking infringement?

Simply stopping at the side of the road to deal with a medical emergency (or any other issue) should not constitute parking.

Did your son walk away from the car, leaving it "parked" or did he just stop to deal with whatever emergency he had to attend to, before driving away again?

No one left the vehicle... it was stopped for probably 2-3 minutes.

The evidence appears to be a very poor photo of the vehicle. I suspect it was taken from a still from a CCTV camera. There is no dispute that the vehicle was present, and to be fair to the parking company they are not aware that there was a situation that required a short stop.

[Terminator X]

Never pay a private company also do not ignore though. Letters on line to get off.

TX.

[K4sper]

QuickQuack said:

119 said:

No ideas for a name said:

Pica-Pica said:

I would worry more about the insulin dependent diabetes.
Has the DVLA been informed? (£1000 fine possible if not informed)
Was a glucose check made within 2 hours of starting driving, and was another check made after 2 hours of driving?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d8...

Yes, the driver is fully aware of the rules... I believe he has to apply for his licence every three years, subject to input from his doctor.
The driver is on a continuous monitor - rather clever and linked to his phone which works as the display, so he gets real time alert of the measurement.

It is a reason, and not an excuse. I am just not sure if i-park will be interested.
Very much easier if the NTK is not compliant to go down that route.

Kinda off topic, but unless his glucose levels were falling though the floor, there was no need at all to stop and pump insulin the second he had the alert, and could have driven on for a few minutes, or even got home before giving himself insulin.

Good luck though!

Errr, it's the other way round. Insulin lowers blood glucose, give somebody whose glucose levels are falling through the floor and you'll kill them, they would need a high sugar snack or a shot of glucagon. Insulin is to lower high blood glucose levels, which can also put you into a coma, but for different reasons and through a different physiological mechanism than no glucose going to your brain.

Fully agreed with 119, that glucose spike rarely such an emergency that you need to pull the car over immediately and start injecting insulin. Unless it has gone stratospherically high and the driver is at risk of diabetic ketoacidosis, in which case he shouldn't have driven again until his sugars had properly stabilised (let only with kids in the car ffs...)

Also agreed with QuackQuack for good order

Edited by K4sper on Wednesday 15th May 18:04

[Cyberprog]

Assuming the NTK was received within 14 days of the alleged incident, and is compliant (which it sounds like it largely is) then you could use the appeals process both internally and with POPLA to appeal it. I'd say that 2-3mins while reading the sign was reasonable, especially if it's a small font.

Does the NTK allow you to name the driver?

[spikyone]

Mrr T said:

The sign is unenforceable. Parking charges are based on law of contract. A contract requires offer and acceptance. Since the sign says "No Parking" there is no offer so no acceptance so no contract. Guess the small print may make an offer but it's small and likely too small to be read without leaving the car.

Also if he stopped only to make an injection likely that would not be deemed to have parked.

You might choose to pay to save time but highly likely you do not need to.

You say the PCN is very amateur so likely does not meet the requirements to create keeper liability. Appeal on all those grounds. Likely rejected so then to the trade appeal system.

Absolutely this - the sign is prohibitive and there is no contract, therefore no breach that would lead to the requirement to pay any parking charge.

---

Additionally, the parking company are supposed to be members of a relevant trade association to obtain keeper details from the DVLA. I believe it's still the case that there are two of these, and both require parking companies to allow a grace period to allow the driver to read the signage and decide whether to accept the contract.

I don't see that by providing a single time for the parking event they are failing to comply with POFA 2012 as it would depend on the individual circumstances - and arguably an image of a parked car fulfills the requirements better than the usual ANPR cameras that only show entry and exit. However coupled with the fact that the driver was there for only a couple of minutes, I think that the lack of an observation period does become a relevant factor.

I also don't think that manual observation requires a ticket to be given at the time, it's just that there are different rules/timings depending on whether a ticket is given at the time.

You wouldn't have to identify the driver in any appeal - no need to say "I had a medical issue", saying "the driver did x,y,z" is perfectly adequate. And you definitely should not name the driver, in case it needs to go to POPLA and the NtK was deficient for some reason.

But I'd leave those arguments to one side for now - initial appeal saying "no contract as parking is prohibited by the sign, so no breach. Alternatively if that's not accepted, the driver was parked for a period of 3 minutes, which is within the required grace period". For the grace period, state which trade association they're part of and find their code of practice on line so you can state the clause. If that's not accepted then go to moneysavingexpert or Pepipoo for better advice than you'll get from most on PH.

[119]

QuickQuack said:

119 said:

No ideas for a name said:

Pica-Pica said:

I would worry more about the insulin dependent diabetes.
Has the DVLA been informed? (£1000 fine possible if not informed)
Was a glucose check made within 2 hours of starting driving, and was another check made after 2 hours of driving?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d8...

Yes, the driver is fully aware of the rules... I believe he has to apply for his licence every three years, subject to input from his doctor.
The driver is on a continuous monitor - rather clever and linked to his phone which works as the display, so he gets real time alert of the measurement.

It is a reason, and not an excuse. I am just not sure if i-park will be interested.
Very much easier if the NTK is not compliant to go down that route.

Kinda off topic, but unless his glucose levels were falling though the floor, there was no need at all to stop and pump insulin the second he had the alert, and could have driven on for a few minutes, or even got home before giving himself insulin.

Good luck though!

Errr, it's the other way round. Insulin lowers blood glucose, give somebody whose glucose levels are falling through the floor and you'll kill them, they would need a high sugar snack or a shot of glucagon. Insulin is to lower high blood glucose levels, which can also put you into a coma, but for different reasons and through a different physiological mechanism than no glucose going to your brain.

Read what I posted again.


After being a T1 diabetic for over 40 years, I kinda got a rough idea how it works.

[VSKeith]

No ideas for a name said:

I just think that the parking company won't care about the medical situation. And of course, to run that as a defence requires the driver to be named.
That then kills the non-compliant notice to keeper angle.

The medical situation is real - and easily provable. The driver was also about 20 miles from home so couldn't just carry on for a few minutes more.

I don't see that in law, a private parking company HAS to make allowance for a medical situation - but one would hope that they would do. They don't have a reputation for being particularly fair.

I suppose the reply could be to cite the medical emergancy, and then reveal the driver and associated evidence if the parking company agree to cancel the penalty in that situation.

Sorry OP, it's been pointed out above a few times, taking insulin for a high blood glucose reading is not a medical emergency.

Low blood sugar while driving is urgent if low enough, but with modern continuous monitoring it shouldn't get to that point. People with type 1 diabetes do (or should) carry sweets to hand so that when the alarm goes off on the phone they just grab a few (like I do). If the alarm is set for above hypo level, no need to stop.

This doesn't mean it's not worth a try as I'm sure they won't ask for a readout of his levels though

Back on topic, I don't see why stopping for a few minutes for any reason should be chargeable and looks like there are so many holes in the communication that following advice on Pepipoo etc should get you a result IMHO.

Good luck

Edited by VSKeith on Wednesday 15th May 14:02

[QuickQuack]

119 said:

QuickQuack said:

119 said:

No ideas for a name said:

Pica-Pica said:

I would worry more about the insulin dependent diabetes.
Has the DVLA been informed? (£1000 fine possible if not informed)
Was a glucose check made within 2 hours of starting driving, and was another check made after 2 hours of driving?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d8...

Yes, the driver is fully aware of the rules... I believe he has to apply for his licence every three years, subject to input from his doctor.
The driver is on a continuous monitor - rather clever and linked to his phone which works as the display, so he gets real time alert of the measurement.

It is a reason, and not an excuse. I am just not sure if i-park will be interested.
Very much easier if the NTK is not compliant to go down that route.

Kinda off topic, but unless his glucose levels were falling though the floor, there was no need at all to stop and pump insulin the second he had the alert, and could have driven on for a few minutes, or even got home before giving himself insulin.

Good luck though!

Errr, it's the other way round. Insulin lowers blood glucose, give somebody whose glucose levels are falling through the floor and you'll kill them, they would need a high sugar snack or a shot of glucagon. Insulin is to lower high blood glucose levels, which can also put you into a coma, but for different reasons and through a different physiological mechanism than no glucose going to your brain.

Read what I posted again.


After being a T1 diabetic for over 40 years, I kinda got a rough idea how it works.

I have read what you posted. This is what you said:

119 said:

Kinda off topic, but unless his glucose levels were falling though the floor, there was no need at all to stop and pump insulin the second he had the alert, and could have driven on for a few minutes, or even got home before giving himself insulin.

Maybe you meant to say unless his glucose levels were going through the roof because that's the only way that sentence would make physiological sense as your original sentence suggests giving insulin to somebody with falling blood glucose levels. It's an easy slip up with the thought process.

You may have been a T1 diabetic for 40 years, but I started medical school only a few years after your diagnosis and have prescribed insulin to hundreds of patients. Let's not get into an argument about who knows more for something written when you might've needed a bar of chocolate...

[VSKeith]

QuickQuack said:

Maybe you meant to say unless his glucose levels were going through the roof because that's the only way that sentence would make physiological sense as your original sentence suggests giving insulin to somebody with falling blood glucose levels. It's an easy slip up with the thought process.

You may have been a T1 diabetic for 40 years, but I started medical school only a few years after your diagnosis and have prescribed insulin to hundreds of patients. Let's not get into an argument about who knows more for something written when you might've needed a bar of chocolate...

To be fair I don't think it was the thought process, just the way it was written.

And if we're being pedantic, giving insulin to a hypoglycaemic T1 won't definitely kill them, but it might