OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

[EXC]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

I genuinely think you should as you'd be good at it.

At the very least it would save Ame having to run it through a spell checker wouldn't it?

Go on, do it for your father.

[Crispybacon]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

Please Crispy, yes I would like to do a formal response so any thoughts very welcome. Will be fine toothcombing over the weekend to get a starting point to work from so will post once have done that xx

Happy to provide some feedback from my own experiences. I won't be able to look at it over the weekend because of work commitments but I will have some time in the evenings next week to look at this in detail so will post my feedback here when I do!

Cheers
Crispy

[Amy]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

Since it's you then...

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

Yes, I think Amys input would be very useful, particularly on the home visit areas of this Thanks.


Have been through it a little more thoroughly and made some notes on my first thoughts.BIG improvement to the 2006 version - the examples make things much clearer and as usual with recent OFT documents it is in plain English which makes it so much more accessible to debtors.

So some bits I think need looking at. ( I havent posted all the bits referred to so you'll need the consultation doc open http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/con.../oft664con.pdf)


How can debtors complain that 664 is being breached ? Does that need specifying in the document ?

******

Para 1.5 - in OFT329 there is an additional paragraph stating '' There is no need for the OFT to demonstrate that individual consumers
have been harmed when taking these key issues into account. Showing
that there is a real risk to consumers is enough''
Should that also be included in 664 in section 1 ?
******

Para 1.10 - (even if in reality they are not) - okay plain english and understand what they are saying but seems an odd way to word it.
******
Para 1.13 - particularly OFT969 (ie add the specifics)
******
Para 1.15 - I like this - making clear that a business collecing non consumer credit debts will be adjudged on their collection methods when trying to obtain a licence to move in to the consumer credit field...which MIGHT make unregulated collections better - or push companies to set up seperate trading companies for that new purpose - possibly add in 'behaviour of businesses or linked businesses' ?
******
Para 2.2 forbearance - not a good word, I don't think Mr Average would know what it means and if you go and look it up it has numerous meanings so is unclear - I like consideration but forebearance doesn't feel right.
******
Para 2.3 - not entirely sure but MBNA or Mint pretend they are acting under US law and UK law isnt relevant....should something about that be included.

******
Para 3 - ''
c. those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who they work
for, what their role is and what the purpose of the contact is''

At the BEGINNING / IMMEDIATELY on contact once identity is established. Tricky because of the DPA issues, They have to check you are the right person to be speaking to, yet we don't want to be rung up and asked for personal information (DOB etc) before knowing who we are speaking to.
******

PARA 3.2 (d) more examples (parcel delivery / telogram / special offer to f&f debt when it isn't ) ?
******
Para 3.2 (i) examples - CRA reporting / selling to another DCA for remaining balance etc - also could be used as a threat to obtain larger settlements so negative affect ?
******
Para 3.2 (j) I think this needs referencing to the Ofcom guidance ref when unreasonable time is.
******
Para 3.2 (l) 'special rate' telephone numbers could infer 0800 or 0845 - I know they mean 0870 and other premium rate type numbers but any number that isn't a standard uk dialling code could be deemed special rate and have a detrimental effect (eg removing local rate call numbers and freephone numbers) They can't specify particular numbers as they are always changing so is there a better way to word it (higher than standard call rate ) ?
******

Para 3.4 examples - '' • claiming a right of entry when no court order to this effect has been
granted
• attempting to take, or taking, possession of goods without specific
authorisation of a court''

******
Para 3.6 (c) using more than one debt collection business at the same time resulting in
repetitive and/or frequent contact by different parties

I like that
******


Para 3.6 (j) excellent to see the CFS fully formalised in this
******
Para 3.6 (l) does this need referencing to the ''breathing space'' regs ?
******
Para 3.6 (s) this needs a reference - last resort repo etc.

******
Para 3.10 a and b - BRILLIANT - does it need expanding though as I believe Restons, now they have been sussed over their collectioncharge - are pretending a similar amount is interest and legal costs (bull)....I think that needs looking at more.
******

3.14b statute barred debt - this part

• If a creditor has been in regular contact with a debtor before
the debt is statute barred, then we do not consider it unfair
to continue to attempt to recover the debt

should be able to be construed as 'we sent them letters once a month hence regular contact' it needs to be both ways ??
******


Annex A - Valid Grounds - I mentioned in a previous post - does this need clarifying where a debtor is only disputing PART of a debt. Can the rest be collected/chased for or does a query on part of a debt make the entire debt in dispute.

******
Annex B4 - I particularly like this

B.4 We consider visiting or threatening to visit a debtor, following receipt of
an unacceptable repayment offer, may constitute an unfair or improper
40 The OFT would have particular concerns under such circumstances if the initial offer made by
the debtor was the maximum that he could afford at that time given his financial circumstances.
OFT664con | 50
practice if the business cannot subsequently demonstrate to our
satisfaction why the offer was unreasonable when assessed against the
Common Financial Statement (or equivalent document) guideline
expenditure figures.

******

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

There is no reference to CPUTR 2008 in this guidance, should there be ?

[Nibbler]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

There is no reference to CPUTR 2008 in this guidance, should there be ?

I remember it mentioning it in several places?

Off to check...

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

lol, wouldn't surprise me actually my heads gone fuzzy.

Its in the list of legislation at the bottom and one reference on harrassment.

[Nibbler]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

Referenced in footnotes to sections 3.10, 3.14, 5.11, at least?

I take the point though that it doesn't really refer to the regulations in any of the main body as one of the governing pieces of legislation.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

Yes, referencing it doesn't seem to give it any specific weight, should it be mentioned in the introduction maybe ?

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

I was just having a quick look back at the mental capacity guidance consultation and that, in the introduction, is very specific about statute breaches ignoring the guidance might result in. This actually picks up the same point It does this by making clear how the fitness
test under section 25 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) will be applied
in respect of debt collection and recovery activities.

but should it mention CPUTR there.

I don't know as I don't really understand the correllation between CPUTR and the enterprise act etc xxx

[leclerc]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

Amethyst not sure if the Durkin case can be used as an example when the write up of this submission is done or whether you want to rely on examples from people here.

[leclerc]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/con...it/oft1299.pdf

This was produced last month and was on their website from this month. Not sure if right place to put it but can be moved if not.

[Tools]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

Interesting read to accompany the consultation

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...bt-letters.pdf

covers some aspects we need to get into our consultation response.

[Tools]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/con...it/oft1299.pdf

This was produced last month and was on their website from this month. Not sure if right place to put it but can be moved if not.

Nice one Nattie, I think we should ask for that leaflet to be included as standard with ALL DCA letters to the debtor.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation

Any one have any other comments on this extremely relevant consultation?

Any examples of good or bad practice that may have been missed in the review ?

Any comments on some of the bits I picked up on Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - View Single Post - OFT 664 Debt collection guidance review consultation ?