OFT requires Wonga to ensure improved debt collection practices

[Latch Key Kid]

Re: OFT requires Wonga to ensure improved debt collection practices

HI

Personally i think the damage has been done, they will now be able to say that they are working with, and by implication accredited by, the (apparently) counties largest debt charity. Your average punter (like me) wont know corporate structure, and frankly wont care.

I think we need to be pushing the CEO for some answers as to how the damage can be repaired.

Peter

Hi

Yes, a few thousand pounds on external funding well spent as far as Wonga are concerned perhaps

Just listen to the BBC interview Peter, I could not believe what I was hearing, probably no edit agreement before it went out, suicide!
.
It will pass though, people have more to worry about, maybe not as quick and simple for Medway though

[Guest]

Re: OFT requires Wonga to ensure improved debt collection practices

HI LKK

I am afraid that i cannot concur with your definition of a charitable donation, perhaps as you say i am a little naive.

I have discussed this now with a few members of the voluntary sector and they seem as disappointed with this "arrangement" as i am.

Still as you say this is just your opinion and i , of course respect it as such, it will be interesting to hear what the CAB hierarchy says.

Peter

[labman]

Re: OFT requires Wonga to ensure improved debt collection practices

You are basically correct, BUT it is a massive over-simplification to say CAB's are independent of each other and leave it at that. A Google search for your own CAB could well take you to, "The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux." Yes, they do exist as independent charities, there is no doubt about that whatsoever. Equally, they do liase with other CAB's, with other people who come under the CAB umbrella and they will use other organisations to act on their behalf over things which really should not concern them. This is taken direct from their website:

Our structure


Citizens Advice Bureaux deliver advice services from over 3,500 community locations in England and Wales, run by 382 individual charities. Citizens Advice itself is also a registered charity, as well as being the membership organisation for bureaux. Together they are the Citizens Advice service.



I am happy to allude to things about which I know to be fact. I am not prepared to go further than this on this forum - it is up to individuals whether or not they believe me, but there are others on LB who could, should they choose to, confirm what I have said as being the truth.

The issue really does now go beyond the one isolated incident. Threads often expand to wider issues as they get discussed. I will repeat again what I have already said quite a few times, a lot of good is done by the CAB - others on here will disagree with that comment.

However, if people are to have faith in CAB 'corporate' it may help if they understand the various funding streams which help the CAB to continue. These streams, like the finances of any charity, should be totally transparent and open. There is nothing wrong with the public wanting to know if certain funding streams have targets attached to them, or other conditions attached to them. There is nothing wrong with the public wanting to know if these targets relate to pulling in a certain amount of business. There is nothing wrong with the public wanting to know that the organisation in which they are being 'forced' to have significant confidence re things like complaints to Trading Standards being sifted etc... are absolutely transparent and open. Most information could be gained by FOI requests anyway.

I'm glad you've listened to this over again, and drawn the same conclusions as the rest of us. Whether or not it is rolled out to other CAB's remains to be seen, though I suspect it will not. It is to my mind though, impossible to separate out this one bureau from NACAB. They are part and parcel of it, while also independent. It is exactly this point I have been banging on about for ages now.

The good practice of some needs disseminating to all. The poor practice which does exist beyond the Medway needs eradicating. I also believe there are other areas which are to say the least questionable in terms of good practice.

We need to work together to ensure the advice sector is squeaky clean, manned by people committed and passionate about the area in which they work or volunteer, and that the absolute maximum benefit from ALL advice agencies reaches the public they are there to serve and help.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: OFT requires Wonga to ensure improved debt collection practices

Personally.. and its a bit off topic...

Am i the only one that finds it ironic that Wonga is advertised by muppets? (literally)

I think that people that need the help from the CAB, and that want impartial advice, will be put off by this little arrangement. It's a really bad lapse of judgement, and if like Labman I hadn't seen the pettiness of the internal systems of the CAB, I would think 3 times before asking.. so maybe we need to buy more teabags, milk and sugar cos I can see more members on the horizon after this one.

[Guest]

Re: OFT requires Wonga to ensure improved debt collection practices



HI

They have no place being involved in project of this nature. If this research is to make a truly valuable contribution, it must be funded by alternate means. Otherwise, Wonga’s involvement risks delegitimising the whole project and undermining the validity of the research findings.“Perhaps our three local MP’s could make approaches to have this funded independently by the Government’s Business, Innovation and Skills department, rather than by an organisation with a clear commercial interest in the outcomes.”

It would seem that some agree that it does matter who donates the money.

To me i don't really care about the matter of the rolling out of this, the fact that it has been done is enough, it needs to be highlighted, there are plenty of other questionable agencies out there that would love to give their brand the gleam of respectability by giving a few quid to a publicly accredited charity like CAB.
I cannot believe that it is right to accept donations from these people under any circumstances.

Peter

[Latch Key Kid]

Re: OFT requires Wonga to ensure improved debt collection practices

You are basically correct, BUT it is a massive over-simplification to say CAB's are independent of each other and leave it at that. A Google search for your own CAB could well take you to, "The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux." Yes, they do exist as independent charities, there is no doubt about that whatsoever. Equally, they do liase with other CAB's, with other people who come under the CAB umbrella and they will use other organisations to act on their behalf over things which really should not concern them. This is taken direct from their website:

Our structure


Citizens Advice Bureaux deliver advice services from over 3,500 community locations in England and Wales, run by 382 individual charities. Citizens Advice itself is also a registered charity, as well as being the membership organisation for bureaux. Together they are the Citizens Advice service.



I am happy to allude to things about which I know to be fact. I am not prepared to go further than this on this forum - it is up to individuals whether or not they believe me, but there are others on LB who could, should they choose to, confirm what I have said as being the truth.

The issue really does now go beyond the one isolated incident. Threads often expand to wider issues as they get discussed. I will repeat again what I have already said quite a few times, a lot of good is done by the CAB - others on here will disagree with that comment.

However, if people are to have faith in CAB 'corporate' it may help if they understand the various funding streams which help the CAB to continue. These streams, like the finances of any charity, should be totally transparent and open. There is nothing wrong with the public wanting to know if certain funding streams have targets attached to them, or other conditions attached to them. There is nothing wrong with the public wanting to know if these targets relate to pulling in a certain amount of business. There is nothing wrong with the public wanting to know that the organisation in which they are being 'forced' to have significant confidence re things like complaints to Trading Standards being sifted etc... are absolutely transparent and open. Most information could be gained by FOI requests anyway.

I'm glad you've listened to this over again, and drawn the same conclusions as the rest of us. Whether or not it is rolled out to other CAB's remains to be seen, though I suspect it will not. It is to my mind though, impossible to separate out this one bureau from NACAB. They are part and parcel of it, while also independent. It is exactly this point I have been banging on about for ages now.

The good practice of some needs disseminating to all. The poor practice which does exist beyond the Medway needs eradicating. I also believe there are other areas which are to say the least questionable in terms of good practice.

We need to work together to ensure the advice sector is squeaky clean, manned by people committed and passionate about the area in which they work or volunteer, and that the absolute maximum benefit from ALL advice agencies reaches the public they are there to serve and help.

Hi

As I have said all funders require results, more so than ever now as in the economy as a whole

Agencies do have targets or their funding can be witheld in some circumstances

Why just single out the CAB?

Im all for transparancy, but not selective wise

My position is dont make accusations if you cannot evidence them or prove them or allude to others that 'you say' could when scrutinised further, let them speak for themselves (if they exist) it starts to look a little suspicious after a while in my opinion.

Still no proof that there was ever any intention to roll this out amongst other CABs that you clearly stated was the case, prove it

Why is it impossible to seperate this bureau from NACAB - your words again - evidence it, prove it

Tell us what funding streams you are talking about, what targets and what transparncy do you allude to?

Let us in on the facts you mention, so far you have not evidenced or proved anything.

[Latch Key Kid]

Re: OFT requires Wonga to ensure improved debt collection practices

HI LKK

I am afraid that i cannot concur with your definition of a charitable donation, perhaps as you say i am a little naive.

I have discussed this now with a few members of the voluntary sector and they seem as disappointed with this "arrangement" as i am.

Still as you say this is just your opinion and i , of course respect it as such, it will be interesting to hear what the CAB hierarchy says.

Peter

Hi

Where did I mention charitable donation, or say you are a little naive?

I am disappointed in this to say the least, like I did say, the only winners are Wonga in my opinion, they will probably feel it is a few thousand external funding well spent.

It is quite unbelievable to be honest

My opinions

[Latch Key Kid]

Re: OFT requires Wonga to ensure improved debt collection practices

Personally.. and its a bit off topic...

Am i the only one that finds it ironic that Wonga is advertised by muppets? (literally)

I think that people that need the help from the CAB, and that want impartial advice, will be put off by this little arrangement. It's a really bad lapse of judgement, and if like Labman I hadn't seen the pettiness of the internal systems of the CAB, I would think 3 times before asking.. so maybe we need to buy more teabags, milk and sugar cos I can see more members on the horizon after this one.

Hi

Got to give you points for this one

Tell me about it.

[Guest]

Re: OFT requires Wonga to ensure improved debt collection practices

HI
Sorry i suppose i misunderstood, you say funders require results, presumably you mean that Wonga would require their money to have a positive effect on their business.

I find this difficult to reconcile, this is what i meant by being naive.

As far as my experiences show, Wonga's business has the by-product of creating financial misery, and placing a furtter burden on the debt charities.

I know that you are saying that you agree that this was an error on CABs part, but you seem also to be saying that it is legitimate for CAB to gain funding from any source, and as a consequence is obliged to provide whatever service the provider requires in recompense, i cannot agree.

Again i apologize in advance if I have misunderstood.

Peter

[labman]

Re: OFT requires Wonga to ensure improved debt collection practices

Hi LKK!

It's easier to address the points in your response, so excuse the red, it's only to separate the two.

Hi

As I have said all funders require results, more so than ever now as in the economy as a whole Agreed

Agencies do have targets or their funding can be witheld in some circumstances These are what I would like to know more about.

Why just single out the CAB? The CAB are only being singled out as they are the subject of this post.

Im all for transparancy, but not selective wise See comment above.

My position is dont make accusations if you cannot evidence them or prove them or allude to others that 'you say' could when scrutinised further, let them speak for themselves (if they exist) it starts to look a little suspicious after a while in my opinion. You are fully entitled to your opinion. I'll let people judge me by my words, actions and what they know of me as to whether they think they can believe what I say or not over this issue. I do not have to prove myself to anyone, nor on demand as you ask me to below several times. If people believe me they believe me (and I could substantiate if I chose to, I am choosing not to). Similarly if people don't believe me, that is their entitlement. Enough people who post regularly on the site know me well enough now to make that judgement.

Still no proof that there was ever any intention to roll this out amongst other CABs that you clearly stated was the case, prove it This came from someone who works in a senior paid capacity in a CAB, that is all I will say.

Why is it impossible to seperate this bureau from NACAB - your words again - evidence it, prove it The funding process for all CAB's must be governed in some way. You say as much when you mention above targets have to be met or funding could be withdrawn. Given this is the case, and we are discussing funding, this bureau and the way it is funded shares commonalities with other CAB's. It cannot therefore be separated if one is looking at the wider picture of CAB funding. It could, of course, be argued it could be separated over this specific issue, and I'm sure NACAB would wish it to be so.

Tell us what funding streams you are talking about, what targets and what transparncy do you allude to? These were my original words on this - they ask questions about funding streams and targets. They don't make statements other than there are many funding streams. I don't know exactly what they are, that's why I would like the transparency, "CAB corporate needs to explain, with total transparency, their funding streams of which there are many. They need to explain with total transparency how these funding streams are selected, by whom and within what guidelines. They need to explain whether they put pressure on the individual units to meet targets for self funding, or indeed for 'getting bums on seats.' In other words for generating business. Are their funding streams target driven? If so, which ones?"

Let us in on the facts you mention, so far you have not evidenced or proved anything.

This may or may not satisfy you, but it is all I'm saying. As I said earlier in the post, enough people on here know me now to judge whether or not my word can be trusted. There are, as also mentioned previously, others on LB who know things I have stated are factually correct. They could confirm this, but I don't ask them to. Again, people can make their own judgement on whether or not that statement is true or not.

[Latch Key Kid]

Re: OFT requires Wonga to ensure improved debt collection practices

HI
Sorry i suppose i misunderstood, you say funders require results, presumably you mean that Wonga would require their money to have a positive effect on their business.

I find this difficult to reconcile, this is what i meant by being naive.

As far as my experiences show, Wonga's business has the by-product of creating financial misery, and placing a furtter burden on the debt charities.

I know that you are saying that you agree that this was an error on CABs part, but you seem also to be saying that it is legitimate for CAB to gain funding from any source, and as a consequence is obliged to provide whatever service the provider requires in recompense, i cannot agree.

Again i apologize in advance if I have misunderstood.

Peter

Hi Peter

No, not talking about Wonga & the like, if I put up on here what I really thought about this type of company, I would be probably be arrested.

I was talking about recognised funders such as Legal Services, FIF, MAS, Lottery, LAs, RBL, GP Surgerys (soon to change) & MacMillan Cancer & others.

Looks like we do indeed have our wires crossed a little here, probably as a result in the drift from the original theme of the thread in other posts

My apologies for the misunderstanding also

[Latch Key Kid]

Re: OFT requires Wonga to ensure improved debt collection practices

Hi LKK!

It's easier to address the points in your response, so excuse the red, it's only to separate the two.



This may or may not satisfy you, but it is all I'm saying. As I said earlier in the post, enough people on here know me now to judge whether or not my word can be trusted. There are, as also mentioned previously, others on LB who know things I have stated are factually correct. They could confirm this, but I don't ask them to. Again, people can make their own judgement on whether or not that statement is true or not.

Hi Labman

Thanks for the reply.

We seem to be repeating a little now and in my opinion still nothing to back up your claims.

From reading your posts you seem to have issues with the CAB other than the Medway / Wonga debate in my opinion and Ive gone as far as I can with these

Not a good advert for the CAB, this Wonga thing and we shall have to wait and see I suppose.

Good debate and I think I have been fair and not ducked the issue and stick by my posts and opinions.

Everything considered I shall now leave it there for the time being.

[labman]

Re: OFT requires Wonga to ensure improved debt collection practices

I don't think any of us have ducked anything. We all agree it was a ridiculous action.

You are right to assume I have had issues with CAB, both positive and less so. Inevitably the less positive experiences lead to things being revealed that a 'normal person' would not see. This is for the best.

perhaps you will allow me to conclude the discussion with a sentence I used a way back in the thread, but still remains very true:

"Most importantly, the good practice of CAB's where this exists should be shared asap among all the others for the benefit of the public and the advice sector as a whole."

There are a good few out there - let's see the good practice disseminated throughout all CAB.