Notice to keeper - MNPR

[OutInTheShed]

Is this a 'roadway' with double yellow lines on it perchance?

If it's clearly not a parking place where the landowner is inviting you to park in return for payment, then a lot the posts above are probably just plain wrong.

[Mrr T]

OutInTheShed said:

Is this a 'roadway' with double yellow lines on it perchance?

If it's clearly not a parking place where the landowner is inviting you to park in return for payment, then a lot the posts above are probably just plain wrong.

Not sure what posts you mean, but if this was an adopted road with yellow limestone PCN would be from the LA.

Yellow lines on an unscripted road have no meaning.

[matchmaker]

VSKeith said:

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

I was told by a retired paramedic that if you come across a T1 diabetic who is lapsing into a coma always treat them with sugar/glucose. If they are hypoglycaemic (low blood sugar) it will help them. If they are hyperglycaemic (high blood sugar) they are already pretty ill and it won't make them much worse! A hypo is far more common than a hyper and can come on very quickly. (I'm the father for 26 years of a T1 diabetic. He now has continuous monitoring of his blood sugar levels via a sensor on his arm connected to his smartphone.)

[Trax]

Sebring440 said:

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?

You actually believe they care about mitigation? The only sure way is batting back with the notice being non compliant, which I believe none ever are.

[OutInTheShed]

Mrr T said:

OutInTheShed said:

Is this a 'roadway' with double yellow lines on it perchance?

If it's clearly not a parking place where the landowner is inviting you to park in return for payment, then a lot the posts above are probably just plain wrong.

Not sure what posts you mean, but if this was an adopted road with yellow limestone PCN would be from the LA.

Yellow lines on an unscripted road have no meaning.

Yellow lines on private land indicate 'you are not invited to park here'.
It's not a 'contract matter'.

It's PLAC.

[Zeeky]

Sebring440 said:

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

There would be a need to read the small print to determine the conditions under which the £100 would be chargeable.

spikyone said:

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.

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.

---

There appears to be a contract creating a primary obligation to pay £100 to park in an area designated as no-parking.

This is as enforceable as a contract allowing free or paid parking for a set time and and creating a secondary obligation to pay a charge for failing to comply.

[Mrr T]

OutInTheShed said:

Mrr T said:

OutInTheShed said:

Is this a 'roadway' with double yellow lines on it perchance?

If it's clearly not a parking place where the landowner is inviting you to park in return for payment, then a lot the posts above are probably just plain wrong.

Not sure what posts you mean, but if this was an adopted road with yellow limestone PCN would be from the LA.

Yellow lines on an unscripted road have no meaning.

Yellow lines on private land indicate 'you are not invited to park here'.
It's not a 'contract matter'.

It's PLAC.

It might indicate you are not invited to park there, but I believe they have no legal standing. No idea what PLAC is.

[Countdown]

Mrr T said:

It might indicate you are not invited to park there, but I believe they have no legal standing. No idea what PLAC is.

Parking Like A .

Translation: Knowing full well you're not meant to park somewhere but doing it anyway because you're a

[Mrr T]

Countdown said:

Mrr T said:

It might indicate you are not invited to park there, but I believe they have no legal standing. No idea what PLAC is.

Parking Like A .

Translation: Knowing full well you're not meant to park somewhere but doing it anyway because you're a

A new acronym to me. While its appropriate unless I am mistaken it has no legal status.

In this case it's unlikely to posters son even met the definition of parking.

[Zeeky]

You are mistaken.

Perhaps you can explain how the 'no-parking' sign, read in conjunction with the £100 charge ought to be construed.

[Mrr T]

Zeeky said:

Sebring440 said:

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

There would be a need to read the small print to determine the conditions under which the £100 would be chargeable.

spikyone said:

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.

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.

---

There appears to be a contract creating a primary obligation to pay £100 to park in an area designated as no-parking.

This is as enforceable as a contract allowing free or paid parking for a set time and and creating a secondary obligation to pay a charge for failing to comply.

While the small print is unreadable in the picture. The large print says no parking, parking charge of £100. So there is no offer, so no acceptance and no contract. If it offered parking at £100 then a contract would be created but it's not.

[Mrr T]

Zeeky said:

You are mistaken.

Perhaps you can explain how the 'no-parking' sign, read in conjunction with the £100 charge ought to be construed.

No knowledge of contract law.