Changes to Debt Collection Letters

Snakes_Belly

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54433621
There are moves afoot to change some of the format and wording of debt collection letters. Unfortunately this appears to just apply to debts covered by the Consumer Credit Act. The claims from the PPC's are not covered by the act. 

In my opinion debt recovery in regard to PPC claims should not take place until they have been proved in court. They are disputed debts and as such debt recovery should not take place. Unfortunately these claims are not covered by any legislation and the debt collectors are unregulated.

This means also that there are no checks as to whether the recipient is a vulnerable person.

The consultation is a good platform to clean up this grubby business and the cling on's that feed off it.

bargepole

The FCA can't currently regulate parking charges, as they are not a regulated debt, i.e. the Operator doesn’t lend money to the motorist.

I spoke with a senior bod at the FCA, who said that if the PAS 232 becomes legislation, and mandates that parking charges can only be pursued by FCA-regulated debt collectors, the FCA would have to update their handbook to reflect this.

 So it is possible, and I and many other respondents to the consultation have said that the clause stating that only FCA-regulated may be used, should be kept in.

Castle

bargepole said:

The FCA can't currently regulate parking charges, as they are not a regulated debt, i.e. the Operator doesn’t lend money to the motorist.

I spoke with a senior bod at the FCA, who said that if the PAS 232 becomes legislation, and mandates that parking charges can only be pursued by FCA-regulated debt collectors, the FCA would have to update their handbook to reflect this.

 So it is possible, and I and many other respondents to the consultation have said that the clause stating that only FCA-regulated may be used, should be kept in.

Same here and I went further by recommending that the term "debt collectors" shall include any 3rd party so engaged in debt collecting activities, which would include Solicitors and connected companies for example.

Snakes_Belly

"I spoke with a senior bod at the FCA, who said that if the PAS 232 becomes legislation, and mandates that parking charges can only be pursued by FCA-regulated debt collectors, the FCA would have to update their handbook to reflect this."

I have also commented on this. This has needed to happen for a long time. Hopefully it will give some protection for vulnerable people being chased by debt collection agents. 

Castle

Currently this seems to be most appropriate part of the FCA's handbook with regards to debt collection:-
https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CONC/7/14.html

Of course there will have to be a lot of re-wording to make it relevant; starting with the definition of a "customer" to begin with.

D_P_Dance

A customer surely is someone who gives their custom to another.  

Snakes_Belly

I don't believe that these claims are debts until the claim has been proved in court. Then they become debts. However if they are chasing these claims then there should be some regulation over the collection of these disputed claims.   
 

Sandtree

There is no over arching definition of a "customer" in the first instance and the FCA handbook already manages to deal with those that refuse to consider themselves a customer hence CONC 7.14.1.2 mentions about a customer disputing a debt and 7.14.2.1 gives the example that a "customer disputing a debt" can be an "individual" being pursued who claims not to be the true debtor.

D_P_Dance

I have dealt with many DCAs. over the years.  Usually I ignore but if they persist I have found that telling them that the debt is in dispute usually sees them off.

Castle

Sandtree said:

There is no over arching definition of a "customer" in the first instance and the FCA handbook already manages to deal with those that refuse to consider themselves a customer hence CONC 7.14.1.2 mentions about a customer disputing a debt and 7.14.2.1 gives the example that a "customer disputing a debt" can be an "individual" being pursued who claims not to be the true debtor.

Which would excludes companies.

Sandtree

Castle said:

Sandtree said:

There is no over arching definition of a "customer" in the first instance and the FCA handbook already manages to deal with those that refuse to consider themselves a customer hence CONC 7.14.1.2 mentions about a customer disputing a debt and 7.14.2.1 gives the example that a "customer disputing a debt" can be an "individual" being pursued who claims not to be the true debtor.

Which would excludes companies.

CONC is in relation to consumer credit so naturally excludes incorporated companies anyway. 

It'd be a one word deletion in these clauses to make the above fit for a wider purpose, could simply remove the "natural" from in front of limb a) of the definition of an individual... the definition of person already covers both natural and legal persons. Alternatively have individuals with the protection of the FCA rules and let companies fend for themselves... the distinction is made in many other areas.