UK: Can tradespeople park in a &quot;permit holders only&quot; residential area? I am looking for a &quot;buy to let&quot; property in Nottingham. Most of the places I look at have &quot;permit holders only&quot; signs on the road. I am wondering how I am supposed to get tradespeople in to work on the property if they cannot park nearby.
As these are &quot;on the road&quot; restrictions, I assume they fall within Nottingham City Council's Parking Permit scheme which states: Anyone who can prove they are a resident within a scheme area and are in an eligible property can apply for a Residents Permit. ... The maximum allocation of permits per household is 3 and this is made up of any combination of residents or visitors permits. ... Vehicle specific Resident Permits require: A copy of the Motor Insurance Certificate (not required for visitor permits) Residents living in a flat (i.e. a house converted into separate properties) will also be required to provide a water rates bill. So, in answer to &quot;Can tradespeople park in a &quot;permit holders only&quot; residential area?&quot;: Yes, the solution is to have one or two visitors permits ready for use by tradespeople so they can park nearby (and not forgetting to get them back once the work is done as they cost £25 to replace). Edit to add the following: Nottingham also run a Business Parking Permit scheme, and one would assume that Nottingham-based tradespeople would be aware of this and apply for their own permits. Also, following @richardb's comment observing that the landlord may not be resident in the scheme's area so they won't be eligible for a Residents Permit, and assuming that the buy-to-let is run as a business (most are) then the Business Permit should be a viable option if they pay the fees and provide the following: A copy of recent business rates or utility bill dated within the last 3 months containing the business name and address printed on them Vehicle specific permits will also require a copy of the motor insurance certificate
Possibly In most contracts, the parties sign in their capacity as people (or agents for other people). However, some contracts are signed in the capacity as the owner of a piece of land and the contract transfers with the land. The liability rests with the current owner and, if unpaid, creates a lien over the property. These are particularly common in contracts with utilities or where the contract involves the a structure on the land. Surprise, surprise, the situation you describe involves both. You need to refer back to your contract for the land as these types of contracts are usually disclosed (unless they are a function of local law because everyone just knows - I don't know anything about Pa. law on this) and the original contract with the gas company. Your settlement may have also involved you paying a figure to purchase the gas in the tank as at the date of settlement. For example, in new-south-wales, council rates and water rates attach to the land as a matter of law and the vendor pays the purchaser for any amount they have paid in advance (or vice-versa if they are in arrears). Electricity and piped gas don't; the vendor ends their account on or before settlement and the buyer opens a new account on or after settlement and each pays for their own use. Propane for portable bottles doesn't but for fixed installations does as a matter of contract with the gas company.
I do not know the particular legal environment in France, but in general the shop is private property and the owner decides who may enter and who may not. You have no right as such to enter somebody else's property against their will. Doing so would at least be classified as trespassing, possibly more serious considering you mention using force to enter the premise.
40km/h There is no ambiguity. The speed limit on the through road is clear and the speed limit on the side road is irrelevant. The fact that Bob may be legitimately unaware that this is the speed limit doesn’t matter either. If you want to ask if Bob has a defence if issued with an infringement notice, please feel free to post a new question.
Because the ordinance does not say &quot;and from each entrance&quot;, it cannot be interpreted to mean that the signs must both be visible and readable anywhere in the area as well as being visible and readable from the entrance. The use of distinct prepositions in the conjuncts means that the notice requirement can be satisfied by different signs: it's not that a sign has to have both properties.
You are allowed to sublet the whole of the premises but not part of it (VIII a); if you do you must create the agreement mentioned, pay to have it stamped by the government and pay £10 + VAT to the landlord. You must only use the premises as a domicile for one family; better make sure you rent those rooms to your cousins.
See Brindley Twist Tafft &amp; James LLP, &quot;Focus on the Mortgage Repossession (Protection of Tenants Act etc.) 2010 [sic]&quot;. If the tenancy was an authorized tenancy under the terms of the mortgage: The Bank may still take possession of the property but they may have to do so subject to your occupation. The practical effect of this is that you would be allowed to remain living in the property subject to the terms of your tenancy agreement but you would see a change in the identity of the Landlord. It is possible for the tenancy to be brought to an end but in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement. If the tenancy was not authorized: Under the Mortgage Repossession (Protection of Tenants Act etc) 2010 [sic] (the “Act”) an unauthorised residential tenant is however entitled to request that possession be delayed for up to two months during which time they should try to find alternative accommodation.
States can, and some states do, have "mini-Sherman" anti-trust laws of their own. Whether a city could have such a law would depend on whether the state had delegated that power to cities. I haven't heard of a city that has such a law, but I haven't really looked. Or if a state has a "mini-Sherman" law, a city could perhaps bring action under such a law, depending on its exact terms. Or a city could impose a licensing scheme on a specific industry that also prevented a monopoly, similar to the requirements that many cities and towns place on taxicabs, or on bars. Both of those typically limit the number of units that a single entity may own. So perhaps it could be done for parking.