The plot thickens!! Thanks very much! Well, it's 'D Day' tomorrow so I'd better assemble some words and boot them off!

The thing that this does most for me is that it emphasises the true motivation behind what NPS are doing i.e. it's totally mercenary! Council car park restrictions exist to stop people abusing a 30 minute spot outside a shop and this like - once round the block then back to parking again where you've just been. The total parking in this instance was way under the 'prescribed' 90 minutes so it's quite obviously just a cash-grabbing tactic! EBC planning applications are very accessible and guess what? There aren't any from NPS in any form!! https://www.erewash.gov.uk/index.php/planning/search-planning-decisions/

The learning continues (well I think I'm learning!)... I hadn't noticed that you can view your PCN on NPS' website. Strangely, the one for my other half seems quite different to how I remember it but I'm unreliable! What I DO find interesting is that they're trying to do her for returning within the prohibited period - not overstaying! Apparently she clocked in first at 11:06, out at 11:45 then in again at 12:37 (a whole 8 minutes too early!) and out again at 12:53 - a total of only 55 minutes parking - and clearly nowhere near the allowed 90 minutes. Once again, I'm not sure what - if any - bearing this has on things other than seeming now spectacularly petty and even opportunist! Comments anyone? PCN J.pdf

I've read loads - that's why I'm now so confused!! I've uploaded the letters as per Post 2. I've read the response in the link from the last message - that doesn't fit as NPS (NE) were the Company trading in 2017 so everything related to our cases is under the new company. I know they've had three cases from the same time kicked out by POPLA for non-compliance with the BPA COP but it looks to me as though using newmoses' cases might not work as his were post-April 2017 (up to which NPS can demonstrate compliance - see attached). Consequently, I'm not super-confident right now about what to do! POPLA.pdf

Guys, we have three days left in which to respond to this. While I appreciate all the input we've received, at present we seem to be left with more questions than answers so is anyone in a position to advise what to do next please?

Anthony David McMenamin was MD of NPS and resigned on January 1st, 2014. He then became MD of NPS (NE) Ltd which was incorporated on February 10th, 2014. Not that this has any real bearing on the objectives here - it just shows a clear connection between the companies. Interestingly, NPS were 'Gazetted' on July 30th, 2013 and don't appear to have traded effectively after that and until they were dissolved by compulsory strike-off in January 2016 so although they legally existed at the same time, only NPS (NE) Ltd appears to have been (not surprisingly) actively trading. It's also quite cute the way their logo is remarkably similar to the IPC one! You mentioned 2016 signage. Is 2016 in any way relevant? Our 'incidents' took place in March and April 2017 and the sign from that time (April 2017) definitely shows the BPA logo - as does today's. Again, I don't know what bearing that has? So, we have signage from both occasions. As you mention, the main entrance one makes no mention of anything financial but the blue, rhomboid ones definitely do (file 4) and there are a few of these around the car park. Does that change anything and based on the above, what's the next step?

A few things fall out if this then; As I’ve mentioned, we don’t have either of the original PCN’s. Should we ask for copies? There’s no question over who was driving – we know that in both cases. Northern Parking Ltd ceased trading (presumably when the MD resigned) on January 1st, 2014. The new company is now Northern Parking Services (North East) Ltd which was incorporated on February 10th 2014 so that was the company in existence at the time of the alleged incidents. They ARE connected since they have the same MD though he didn’t (officially) join the new operation until August 2015 (presumably for legal reasons). The car park in question is Cross Street retail park - the one behind KFC which serves Farmfoods et al. We already know that at the time of the alleged incidents, NPS had another claim for the same car park rejected by POPLA due to incorrect procedures though other issues were raised at the same time. I'll have a drive by later and have a close look at the current signage and report back.

I do overthink things - it's basic to my nature! The post above also reminds me of something I've long wanted to explore - the 'contract'. I've often wondered how they establish the basis for a 'contract' where free parking is involved since the basic premise of contract law is 'the consideration' i.e. the exchange of money and where free parking is involved, that consideration does not exist. I think it's largely irrelevant now (since the advent of the Beavis case) and now that I've written it, I also have a vague recollection that a barrister friend of mine once explained to me that 'the consideration' isn't necessarily the exchange of money. Oh well... The question however remains, what is the appropriate response to these letters? Do I just lead with the previously-cited POPLA ruling form May 2017? docs1.pdf

Since posting, I've found another mention of a 2017 Cross St. ticket coming back to life yesterday (11th) and wonder how many more? The more I think about this, the more the whole method seems wrong (and again, I'm inviting comments by doing this). I have no legal qualifications - just a fair bit of contract law experience - but things that stood out to me after I'd posted were as follows: 1. NPS have no kind of 'evidence of service' for their PCN's therefore how can they confidently claim anyone has received one unless the recipient responds to it (which it seems we are largely advised not to do). 2. Surely then the burden of proof falls to them to reproduce their original 'evidence' (i.e. the PCN) and with it, some evidence that the same was actually served/received (which of course they can't do unless they're sent recorded (which they're not). 3. It would seem patently unreasonable (and therefore difficult to prosecute) to present a demand for 'payment within 14 days' for an claim/event which allegedly took place over two years ago and for which they (NPS) cannot demonstrate the above-mentioned evidence of service. Or have I just explained the reasons for not responding in the first place? There's a bit of me that's tempted to ask them for a copy of my partner's PCN as I know this was fundamentally flawed as I've already explained. My daughter's is a different matter. There's more of me that wants to just make it go away though rather than grandstanding for the sake of my own ego! See what you all think?

Apologies if this has already been covered elsewhere but I haven't found a direct answer so here's my question. Both my daughter and my partner have today each received a Letter of Claim from NPS. Both refer to 'incidents' in 2017 - my daughter's in March and my partner's in April. I remember these only vaguely but can't remember what (if any) action we took. I remember my partner's more clearly because in their PCN where they claimed she'd overstayed (Cross Street, Long Eaton) there was something drastically wrong with their 'evidence'. I can't remember exactly but either their stated times contradicted or -and this is more likely from conversation today - they only provided one photo which was of her car leaving but nothing showing her entering the car park. I have a feeling my daughter just chose to ignore hers, based on 'urban myth' from friends. more than two years on - both suddenly receive these letters from NPS with the usual rhetoric. I want to make sure these are both managed appropriately so I'm not sure what to do next and would appreciate any advice. I'm also particularly interested to read elsewhere on this forum that another case from said car park was rejected by POPLA in May 2017 due to insufficient signage and lack of planning permission for the relevant equipment: This being the case, the same would have to apply to both our cases since this rejected case occurred just weeks after both of ours. Not sure how much bearing this may have but I'm hopeful and your advice will be both very welcome and much appreciated.