Credit Card Debt of 20p generates debtor letter

boo_star

billbennett wrote: »

What's the issue here?

Person owes money, person doesn't pay money, person gets letter asking them to pay money.

I'll bet they'd be more upset if they DIDN'T get a letter, then got a £12 missed payment fee, and interest, and a couple more missed payments, and dings on their credit file, and a visit from a debt collector, and a trip to debtor's jail, and eventual execution at the hands of the Sheriff of Nottingham, while their family is hauled off to the workhouse for all eternity, and their firstborn sold to a cult in Azerbaijan.

That seems a little excessive for 20p. The "selling off their firstborn" part I mean.

Trentenders

boo_star wrote: »

That seems a little excessive for 20p. The "selling off their firstborn" part I mean.

That's why they send the letters - to avoid that sort of thing.

What a random thing to get worked up about lol. To the OP, if you PM your Paypal address, I'll give you 20p.

molerat

amsquared wrote: »

Sometimes it is easy and cheap to tweak an IT system. The company I worked with could filter the output of a mailing by running a query on the mail system and extract items of mail which met certain conditions within the letter. These letters would then be sent for investigation/follow-up by a person who could apply the rules sensibly before the mail was posted.

amsquared wrote: »

The minimum cost for sending the letter would be approximately 50p for bulk mail plus the material cost of 4 pages of A4 and 2 envelopes plus IT system and print machine time to create the mailing - possible of the order of 70p per mailing. The company will not recover the cost of the process by recovering small debts of this type.

Which option will cost less do you think ?

amsquared

krisdorey wrote: »

From memory (don't have ago if its slightly wrong)

CONC 7.18 and CCA 1974 87(1)

Thanks I will have a look

amsquared

molerat wrote: »

Which option will cost less do you think ?

Hi Molerat

The blanket letter approach may be cheaper but the company loses customers.

The personal approach by phone is more expensive but probably retains the customer.

blenz101

amsquared wrote: »

The blanket letter approach may be cheaper but the company loses customers.
The personal approach by phone is more expensive but probably retains the customer.

I don't think you can substantiate that argument.

If HSBC set up a team of people in their contact centres and trained them to contact sub-£1 debts from credit card customers by telephone I can imagine it upsetting far more customers than you first imagine. These customers would have their numbers put into an automatic dialler system and would have the potential for multiple missed calls / voicemails and when the team got through to the customer they would then have to complete data protection (always tricky on an outbound call where the bank can't disclose the reason for the call until they know they have the customer on the line) would then need to explain to said customer they are chasing up a payment of a few pence. Most would find this ridiculous and I suspect it would generate much more ill-will towards the bank than what everyone else would perceive as automated letter and proportional.

In the event the call centre couldn't contact the customer the same letter as the current system would need to go in any event.

The argument that some tact when contacting should be used is obviously compelling from your perspective but the bank exists to maximise profit for it's shareholders (the directors must do this by law) and providing a counselling service for little old ladies who ignore their credit card statements just because the payment amount is small is not an area they will be looking to target anytime soon.

Furthermore for those who have worked in the industry will likely be aware that the letters sent to consumers are developed by internal and external legal counsel to ensure full compliance - the bank will be discharging all its responsibilities in this communication and those don't vary depending on the amount owed.

amsquared

CONC 7.2 Clear effective and appropriate arrears policies and procedures

Arrears policies

CONC 7.2.1

A firm must establish and implement clear, effective and appropriate policies and procedures for:
(1) dealing with customers whose accounts fall into arrears;
(2) the fair and appropriate treatment of customers, who the firm understands or reasonably suspects to be particularly vulnerable.

So the Company should establish appropriate policies and procedures and should treat customers fairly if they are particularly vulnerable

Is it appropriate to to pursue a debt of 20p from a person aged over 85. Or does the term vulnerable only apply to - "Customers who have mental health difficulties or mental capacity limitations may fall into the category of particularly vulnerable customers."

CONC 7.4 Information on status of debts

CONC 7.4.1

A firm must provide the customer or another person acting on behalf of the customer with information on the amount of any arrears and the balance owing.

stclair

A vulnerable person is someone in receipt of or may be in need of community care services by reason of mental or other disability, age or illness and who is or may be unable to take care of him or herself. If the person falls into this category their is form the lender can send you for the the customers GP to complete and sign cant think of the name of the form off the top of my head.

xHannahx

amsquared wrote: »

A firm must provide the customer or another person acting on behalf of the customer with information on the amount of anyarrears and the balance owing.

i note how you don't bold "any" to highlight it as you have other wording.

20p arrears counts as any arrears so notification is required.

Being old is no longer a vulnerable classification alone. It used to be but no longer is the case. They would need a condition to go along with being old.

The company I formerly worked for used to mark over 70 as vulnerable, and then about 3-4 years ago a change in requirements meant we had to go through removing the vulnerable marker unless they had an illness or condition.

I suspect age discrimination was behind it. Why is a 70 year old any more vulnerable than someone slightly younger.

My husbands grandparents being prime example. His grandad is in mid 70s and is a fit and healthy bloke, does 40-50 mile cycles a couple of times a week and other days walks 20 miles in a day a couple of times a week.
His gran is 63, and frail and without a doubt considerably more vulnerable than his grandad.

amsquared

blenz101 wrote: »

Most would find this ridiculous ...

The argument that some tact when contacting should be used is obviously compelling from your perspective but the bank exists to maximise profit for it's shareholders...

More or just as ridiculous as sending a two page letter regarding a debt of 20p.

While the bank exists to maximise profit for its shareholders - it also has to conform to The FCAs Principles for Businesses - Principle 6 - Customers' interests - A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.

Hounding an elderly person for 20p - I assume you think that is treating them fairly.