ZZPS

Coupon-mad

llw08 said:

Is it an option to pay and claim back if Starbucks cancel ? My stupidity in not opening her mail doesn’t seem much of a defence in court

Don't be daft.  No.

Do not even go there, that would be stupid and you then have no chance.  Stop thinking you have to pay by a certain deadline to ''stop it going up''.

D_P_Dance

Why pay them a penny when, with a little bit of time and effort, and an excellent learning experience,  you can cost them money.

llw08

If I lose in court is most it will cost £255 and no CCJ

Coupon-mad

You won't be defending this, it's not your PCN.  

She now has threat of CCJ

But if she lost at a hearing, then if it was £100 PCN the most that can be added (as long as she meets all court deadlines and turns up for the phone call, with you as well if you are to speak for her) is £50 court fees and £50 capped 'legal costs'.  £200 max, and no CCJ as long as that was paid in full within 30 days.  No risk at all to her mortgage.

If this is Civil Enforcement we almost never see them win, and usually see them give up and discontinue before the hearing.

beamerguy

llw08 said:

If I lose in court is most it will cost £255 and no CCJ

Who suggested you are going to lose ??   You are involved in a "hustle", a scam
And put ZZPS out of your mind, all part of the scam  and apart from their lies and rubbish they are not good for anything else ...... well they look good in the rubbish bin

D_P_Dance

ZZPS and down market debt collectors.  You need give them little credence. 

llw08

11 wks between date of parking and letter date on PCN. Is this relevant?

Fruitcake

llw08 said:

11 wks between date of parking and letter date on PCN. Is this relevant?

It is relevant if the PCN was the original NTK and not a reminder, AND the keeper was not the driver, OR there is a reasonable possibility that someone else was driving. (Please DO NOT tell us the answer!).
For example, if there is more than one person named on the insurance, or other people in the household have access to the vehicle and could have been driving, then the chances that the keeper was the driver are reduced. The more possible drivers the better. In civil case, it comes down to the balance of probabilities, which must be greater than 50%. Two possible drivers means the balance is 50%, not greater than 50%, so the scammers must prove beyond a 50% probability that the keeper was the driver.
Quite often these are historical cases so it is quite reasonable for the keeper not to remember the event and therefore unsure about the identity of the driver on an unremarkable day in the past.
There is no law in the UK that can force a keeper to name a driver, but if a judge asks and the defendant says they don't want to answer, the judge might think that on the balance of probability, the keeper was the driver.
If the keeper was not the driver then of course they should say so. Again, DO NOT tell us.
Parking scammers read this forum.


A driver is always liable. A keeper can be liable if the scammers have met certain conditions. To do this they must issue a NTK that complies with the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012 (there is a link to it in the NEWBIES, or it can be found using a search engine of your choice).
The NTK must carry specific wording/a warning, AND must be received by the keeper within specific timescales. These timescale differ depending whether a NTD was or wasn't left, but eleven weeks is too late to meet the requirements of either situation.

Like I said, this will depend entirely upon whether the letter is the NTK, and not a reminder.

Meanwhile, and far more important, has the head office or CEO of Starbucks replied to your complaint yet? It's over a week now.

llw08

No response from Starbucks

nosferatu1001

So chase them. Escalate it to the CEO. Plan A is your friend here, dont be passive