Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3663 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I do have the Contract....all three ringbinders of them!!

 

The Contract is simply dreadful and allows Philips to charge fees that are NOT as laid doen by Parliament.

 

The MOST worrying part of the Contract is the part that deals with "pre-debt" recovery of a PCN. This is where Philips will pursue the "debt" BEFORE Westminster have applied for a Warrant of Execution. If payment is secured from the debtor this will SAVE Westminster the £5 "court registration fee" payable to TEC.

 

Without a Warrant, Philips of course are prohibited from charging ANY FEES at all.

 

However...if a person is contacted by Philips to demand payment of (for instance ) £500, how is that person to know whether or not Philips have a Warrant of Execution. What I can say... is that we have come across TOO MANY CASES where it has been established that NO warrant existed and they charged £500. Such cases have been brought to the attention of Westminster.

 

A question that needs to be asked is this:

 

If Philips were successful in getting the PCN;s paid without a warrant at "pre debt" stage and as they are prohibited from charging any fee.....HOW CAN THEY MAKE ANY MONEY ??

Tom Tubby am i on the understanding that under the Administration of Justice Act 1970 that philips cannot do this any way or any debt collecting companies. Or does this cover something else and I am reading this wrong.

Part V Miscellaneous Provisions

 

40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors

 

(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—

(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b)falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

©falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

(2)A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

(3)Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose—

(a)of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(b)of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40© would not apply because Philips are acting under contract of Westminster to collect parking tickets under its authority.


The next generation Nintendo Wii - the Nintendo Puu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40© would not apply because Philips are acting under contract of Westminster to collect parking tickets under its authority.

:) thanks NP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep looking, because if you find any legislation that sticks, that would make you my best friend forever!

 

Steak & Chips all on me!!


The next generation Nintendo Wii - the Nintendo Puu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do have the Contract....all three ringbinders of them!!

 

The Contract is simply dreadful and allows Philips to charge fees that are NOT as laid doen by Parliament.

 

The MOST worrying part of the Contract is the part that deals with "pre-debt" recovery of a PCN. This is where Philips will pursue the "debt" BEFORE Westminster have applied for a Warrant of Execution. If payment is secured from the debtor this will SAVE Westminster the £5 "court registration fee" payable to TEC.

 

Without a Warrant, Philips of course are prohibited from charging ANY FEES at all.

 

However...if a person is contacted by Philips to demand payment of (for instance ) £500, how is that person to know whether or not Philips have a Warrant of Execution. What I can say... is that we have come across TOO MANY CASES where it has been established that NO warrant existed and they charged £500. Such cases have been brought to the attention of Westminster.

 

A question that needs to be asked is this:

 

If Philips were successful in getting the PCN;s paid without a warrant at "pre debt" stage and as they are prohibited from charging any fee.....HOW CAN THEY MAKE ANY MONEY ??

 

That's where the risk/reward model comes in !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...