debt collection guidance - uk government web...

Debt collection guidance

Response to consultation paper and final guidance on unfair business practices

July 2003

OFT664

Further copies

Further copies of this report can be downloaded from our website at www.oft.gov.uk or by contacting the OFT publications order line (see below).

Viewing individual responses

Individual responses are available for viewing, subject to confidentiality requests, at the OFT office at Fleetbank House. Those wishing to view may do so by booking an appointment with Richard Kitley on 020 7211 8979.

OFT publications order line

OFT information leaflets and reports can be ordered free of charge on 0870 60 60 321

Information on the internet

You can order OFT publications online, and find advice and information on consumer rights

and on the work of the OFT at www.oft.gov.uk

Crown copyright

© Crown copyright 2003 This material may be freely reproduced, except for sale or advertising purposes.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/

http://www.oft.gov.uk/

CONTENTS Page PART I: OFT RESPONSE TO DEBT COLLECTION CONSULTATION

1 Introduction 1

What is the scope of the guidance? 1 Who does the guidance apply to? 2

2 Key issues 3

Creditor responsibility for debt collectors 3 Use of different debt collectors 3 Quality of debtor information 4 Dealing with queries/disputes 4 Contacting debtors speculatively 5 Contacting debtors under false pretences 5 Third parties acting on debtors' behalf 6 Contacting debtors at unreasonable times and intervals 7 Failure to pass on money and/or keeping and providing details of payments

7

Debt collection charging 8 Debt collection visits 9 Statute barred debt What next?

10 11

PART II: THE NEW DEBT COLLECTION GUIDANCE

1 Introduction 12

What is the purpose of the guidance? 12 Who does this guidance apply to? 13 Creditor responsibility for third parties 13

2 Unfair business practices 14

Communication 14 False representation of authority and/or legal position 15 Physical/psychological harassment 16 Deceptive and/or unfair methods 17 Charging for debt collection 18 Debt collection visits 19 Statute barred debt 20

Annexe

Respondents to the consultation 21

PART I: OFT RESPONSE TO DEBT COLLECTION CONSULTATION

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 In our consultation paper of 28 November 2002 we sought views on new guidance

for the debt collection sector. We felt that respondents would welcome some information on our rationale for the final guidance.

1.2 We are very grateful to all respondents to our consultation. The level and quality of

responses was very high and we are pleased that the majority of respondents found our guidance clear and concise. A total of 67 responses were received representing views from a wide range of stakeholders. On many issues views on the overall position were consistent. A list of respondents can be found in the annexe.

1.3 The final guidance is in Part II of this document. We believe that it strikes a

proportionate balance between the need for consumer protection and industry's ability to collect its debts in a fair manner.

1.4 In this response we focus on the areas of our guidance which are new or where

the consultation exposed issues which merit wider dissemination.

What is the scope of the guidance?

1.5 A few comments and suggestions revealed some misunderstandings about the scope of the guidance. This is clarified below:

• the aim of our guidance is to clarify unfair business practices which will

call into question fitness to hold a consumer credit licence

• we will make decisions about fitness on a case by case basis

• we are not seeking to impose or suggest best practice, and • licence holders should abide by the spirit as well as the letter of the

guidance.

Office of Fair Trading 1

Who does the guidance apply to? 1.6 Our guidance applies to consumer credit licence holders and applicants. If you

want or have a licence then this guidance applies to you. 1.7 Our guidance does not relate to the routine collection of repayments. It applies to

the collection of debt once an account is in default. This guidance does not therefore affect the ability of traders involved in the home collection of payments/repayments to visit their customers as those payments fall due.

2 Debt collection guidance July 2003

2 KEY ISSUES

Creditor responsibility for debt collectors

2.1 Of the few comments we received on this issue, industry representatives all expressed the same concern that their licence could be revoked because of actions carried out by associated third parties of which they had no knowledge.

2.2 Our aim is to ensure that creditors do not ignore the unfair practices of debt

collectors, whether in-house or external, acting on their behalf. They should take an active interest in the behaviour of those acting on their behalf. It is not for the OFT to specify in this guidance how choices about third party selection are made nor to advise on desired conduct between third parties. However, during any investigation in this respect, we would expect to see that care had been taken in the selection process, complaints had been investigated and that firm action had been taken as appropriate. It would be unlikely that we would take action against a creditor who could demonstrate such action had been taken.

2.3 One respondent suggested we publish a list of those engaged in questionable

fitness behaviour. We are bound by legislative disclosure provisions and cannot publish a list naming those alleged to be engaging in questionable fitness behaviour. Details of those who have had their licences refused or revoked are available on our public register.

Use of different debt collectors

2.4 Virtually all respondents who commented on this issue agreed that it is unfair to use more than one debt collection company at the same time. Industry respondents were more split on the fairness of using different debt collectors one after another. Justification for such action included the fact that different debt collectors might prove more successful or a debt collector may have ceased trading. A number of respondents stated that debts should only be recycled in this way if an adequate history of events is passed on.

2.5 We can see no justification for using more than one debt collection company at the

same time in relation to a particular debt but accept that there are circumstances when use of successive debt collectors will be appropriate. These include instances where a collector ceases trading. In such circumstances we would regard it as unfair if information about past debt recovery action is not passed on or if the debtor is not informed that a different debt collector is now handling their case.


Quality of debtor information

2.6 Many industry respondents acknowledge weaknesses in the information passed between creditors and/or debt collectors.

2.7 In some cases there will be no more than the electronic transfer of a name and an

address that may be out of date. Debt collectors have pointed out that they can only act in good faith on data they have been given. This is one area where creditors can assist the process by ensuring that debt history data is clear, accurate and capable of use by debt collectors, as well as consumers who may dispute the debt.

Dealing with queries/disputes

2.8 The following is a sample of views expressed by the majority of industry respondents on this issue:

• any request for information about a debt is purely a delaying/avoidance

tactic by the debtor

• the debtor should be able to prove that they do not owe the debt or that the amount being claimed is incorrect, and

• no matter what the debtor alleges, the debt collection process should

continue until the matter is resolved to the satisfaction of the debt collector.

2.9 Some industry respondents said that there is a duty to investigate any claim. A few

went further and stated that evidence should be provided to ensure that any query is genuine and not a delaying tactic.

2.10 We accept that some debtors may query debts in order to avoid and/or delay

payments. It would be unfair to place everyone who queries or disputes a debt into this category. This is especially so where, as respondents have pointed out, the information passed between creditors and/or debt collectors can be of a poor quality.

2.11 We believe that to ignore or dismiss queries out of hand and to disregard debtors'

reasonable requests for information about a queried debt is unfair. We have seen a number of cases where debtors have been informed that they will continue to be pursued until they can satisfy the debt collector that they are not the person concerned or the debt is not due. Debtors have been asked to prove their identities by supplying their passports, driving licences, full name, date of birth and/or


signatures. We consider it to be unfair to place all the burden of proof onto the debtor. In other cases debtors' reasonable requests for information about a queried debt have been disregarded.

2.12 Failing to establish and maintain the details of the debt history may also raise

concerns about compliance with the fourth principle of the Data Protection Act which requires that 'personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date'.

Contacting debtors speculatively

2.13 Industry respondents advised that speculative approaches are necessary where contact has been lost or there is doubt that an occupier at an address is the debtor in question. It was also pointed out that it is quite reasonable to ask a current occupier for help with contact details of a previous occupant.

2.14 We see nothing wrong in writing to an occupier to enquire about the whereabouts

of a previous occupant. Such contact would be subject to the provisos that information is not disclosed to them about the purpose of the enquiry or the details of the debt. However, we do view it as unfair when initial contact, addressed to unnamed occupiers, demands payment and/or refers to debt recovery action to be taken against them. We have seen examples of such letters which are not enquiring by nature. The letters state that action will be taken. This is wholly improper when those addressed are not liable for the debt in question.

Contacting debtors under false pretences

2.16 Two respondents said that:

• we should not prevent details being obtained by surreptitious methods where a debtor is or appears to be deliberately attempting to avoid payment and is denying him/herself at the address

• it can be difficult to declare a truthful interest because of data protection

requirements

• if a telephone or doorstep enquiry is answered by someone not party to the agreement, the collector is severely restricted as to what can be divulged.

2.17 It has not been our experience that surreptitious methods are only used in respect

of debtors avoiding contact/payment. We do not believe that data protection requirements prevent truthful interests being declared to debtors. In relation to


gaining information about an individual the first principle of the Data Protection Act requires that the individual should be told:

• the identity of the data controller or their nominated representative

• the purpose(s) for which the data are intended to be processed, and

• any further information necessary in the specific circumstances of the case

to enable the processing in respect of the data subject to be fair.

2.18 Of course there are constraints about disclosing information to third parties. However, the need to make discreet enquiries is a different issue to contacting debtors under false pretences.

Third parties acting on debtors' behalf

2.19 The main issue for industry respondents was to query whether we would consider it unfair if they were to refuse to deal with third parties who are not reputable or acting in the debtors' best interests. A small number stated that they should not be prohibited from contacting debtors directly.

2.20 If it can be proven that debtors' appointed third parties are not reputable or acting

in their best interests, then it is unlikely that we would view refusal to deal with them as unfair. In some cases referred to us company policy has been given as the reason to refuse to deal with appointed third parties. No such justification for refusal has been provided in the majority of cases referred to us where there has been either:

• a refusal to deal with appointed third parties, or • instructions have been disregarded to contact debtors via appointed third

parties. 2.21 When dealing with debt management companies, the principles of our debt

management guidance apply. These are that it is unfair to operate a policy, without reason, of refusing to negotiate with third parties acting on a consumer's behalf. Consumers and their representatives must be informed immediately of any refusal to negotiate with a representative acting on their behalf. The debt management guidance explains that where payments are tendered on a consumer's behalf, it is a principle of law that creditors cannot refuse to accept those payments.


Contacting debtors at unreasonable times and at unreasonable intervals

2.22 Slightly more respondents who commented on this issue were of the opinion that we should not attempt to specify what we consider to be unreasonable. There was widespread agreement that attempting to be prescriptive on this issue would be difficult given debtors' differing circumstances.

2.23 There was a degree of consistency from respondents that contacting debtors

between the hours of 8am to 9pm Monday to Friday would be reasonable. There was greater disparity over what is reasonable in respect of contact made at the weekend and on public/bank holidays etc. There was also greater disparity over what constituted reasonable intervals with opinion ranging from daily, every couple of days to weekly. A number of respondents including Citizens Advice and the Credit Services Association stressed the importance of giving debtors a reasonable time to respond.

2.24 We believe the best way to deal with this issue is to determine on a case by case

basis whether the business concerned has acted reasonably. This gives us the discretion to take into account individual circumstances. It also gives debt collectors the ability to accommodate debtors' preferences.

Failure to pass on money and/or keeping and providing details of payments

2.25 Very few respondents expressed a desire for the OFT to specify a reasonable timescale for passing on money. The timescale suggested by the majority of respondents was one month, with a few pointing out the need to ensure that arrangements do not disadvantage the debtor. Several respondents pointed out that such matters are determined in the contract between the collector and creditor. On the issue of failing to keep and provide details of payments, all respondents who commented agreed that this is an unfair practice.

2.26 We believe that it is not appropriate for us to prescribe a timescale for passing on

money. We will determine what is unfair on a case by case basis. Any delay in passing on money that adversely affects the individual consumer's financial position will be regarded as unfair. We see no excuse for failing to keep and provide details of payments. Information must be accurate and kept up to date in accordance with the fourth principle of the Data Protection Act. Failure, where necessary, to disclose details of payments made and how much is owed is an unfair practice.


Debt collection charging

2.27 The majority agreed that it is fair to charge debtors for collection where there is contractual provision to do so. Only one respondent suggested that it is acceptable to charge debtors reasonable costs whether it is in the contract or not.

2.28 In addition respondents suggested that charging is fair:

• where legally entitled to, e.g. court order

• where debtors are unduly obstructive/evasive • where debtors fail to address the issue despite being given reasonable

written notice (e.g.60 days)

WHAT IS THE INDUSTRY RATIONALE FOR CHARGING?

2.29 The most common themes were:

• debtors should be liable for reasonable costs incurred by creditors who have to take recovery action

• shareholders and good payers cannot be expected to subsidise bad payers

• cost of credit is based on orderly repayment and those who do not pay on

time should expect to pay more, and

• debtors must take responsibility for breaking agreements.

IS CHARGING UNFAIR?

2.30 Three respondents stated that charging is unfair. Their grounds included their belief that costs are often added unnecessarily, charging undermines the proper prioritisation of debt and it is unreasonable to expect debtors to pay further charges when they are already paying arrears interest and/or other charges.

2.31 Some organisations representing the interests of consumers stated that charging

could be unfair in circumstances where the debtor is only able to make minimum repayments and the amounts charged exceeded reasonable recovery costs. They felt that although there are genuine administrative costs in collecting debts, their scale is often oppressive and onerous. It was suggested that the OFT could set out


bounds for what costs may be properly passed on and that lenders should be obliged to give binding figures for each chargeable item, that lists should be given of chargeable items and that notice should be given of the intention to apply charges.

2.32 The OFT's previous guidance on charging, issued in January 2000, covered the

following:

• there is no legal basis to claim collection costs in the absence of express contractual provision

• debtors should not be led into believing they are liable to pay charges

when this is not the case, and

• even if collection charges are allowed for in the contract we may still regard the levying of charges as unfair where they are of an unreasonable amount or disproportionate to the main debt.

2.33 We believe that guidance is still valid and that when referring to reasonable costs

we should include reference to actual necessary costs.

Debt collection visits

2.34 The majority view was that home visits are not unfair subject to certain safeguards.

2.35 Concern from organisations representing consumer interests centred on debtors

not being clearly informed of the purpose of visits and feeling threatened by the prospect of debt collectors visiting. Nearly everyone agreed that visits to the workplace, except where commercial debts are being collected, are unfair unless requested or with the permission of the debtor.

2.36 A number of suggestions were made regarding setting standards and/or providing

safeguards for visits such as adherence to a code of practice, adequate insurance cover, vetting, recruitment and training of staff. These are matters for industry to cover in codes of best practice.


2.37 We recognise that it would be unduly restrictive to adopt a position that it is never appropriate to visit a debtor at home. However, there are circumstances when visits are not appropriate. It seems from responses and our experience of cases that visits are predominantly used in the following three scenarios:

• debtors have agreed to or requested visits • debts are disputed or deadlocked, and • debtors have avoided contact.

2.38 We believe that it is unfair not to make the purpose of a proposed visit clear.

Debtors who agree to visits should be given enough notice to allow them to seek advice, support or the presence of a third party. Debt collectors should also leave if requested to do so.

Statute barred debt - is it unfair to pursue?

2.39 Respondents had strong opposing views on whether it is fair to pursue statute barred debt. Industry stated that it would be wrong to seek to prevent a legally permissible course of action. The majority of organisations representing/protecting consumers' interest believe it is not fair to pursue such debts under any circumstances.

2.40 This guidance applies to the pursuit of debt regardless of its age. We will be

carrying out further work on this aspect of debt recovery including analysis of relevant legislation and practice throughout the UK.

2.41 In the past we have dealt with a number of statute barred debt cases governed by

the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales. Based on that experience our position with regard to England and Wales remains:

a. we accept legally the debt exists

b. it is the methods by which the debt is collected that can be unfair as

follows:

• it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period

• 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


• it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations (e.g.

falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally recoverable and relying on consumers not knowing the relevant legal provisions, and

• continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they

will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

What next?

2.42 Now that the guidance has been issued in final form we expect debt collectors to abide by it. We would hope that creditors will find the guidance useful in assessing debt collectors they use, whether in-house or not. Where the guidance is not being complied with we want to know.


PART II: THE NEW DEBT COLLECTION GUIDANCE

1 INTRODUCTI0N

1.1 The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has a duty under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

to ensure that licences are only given and retained by those who are fit to hold them. The Act provides that the OFT take into account any circumstances which appear to be relevant and in particular any evidence that an applicant, licensee, or their employees, agents or business associates, past or present, have:

• committed offences involving fraud, or other dishonesty or violence • failed to comply with the requirements of credit or other consumer legislation • practised discrimination in connection with their business • engaged in business practices appearing to us to be deceitful, oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper (whether unlawful or not).

1.2 Where the OFT has evidence we can take action to refuse or revoke the credit licences of those concerned.

1.3 The OFT issued general consumer credit licence guidance to holders and applicants

in February 2001. This included guidance on debt collection practices. At the time we indicated our aim to issue further guidance for specific market sectors where problems have been identified or where a more detailed consideration of particular market circumstances would be helpful.

1.4 This guidance expands, clarifies and incorporates past OFT guidance and reflects as appropriate responses to our November 2002 consultation paper entitled Debt collection guidance for consumer credit licence holders and applicants.

What is the purpose of the guidance?

1.5 This guidance is intended to set out the type of behaviour the OFT considers to fall within the category of unfair business practices which will call into question fitness to retain or be given a licence. It is expected that applicants and licence


holders will abide by the spirit as well as the letter of this guidance. Publication of this guidance will also enable the OFT to take speedier action against behaviour that clearly falls into the type of categories of unfair practices shown.

1.6 This guidance is not designed to be a comprehensive checklist of behaviour. Nor

are we advising on best practice or a code of practice. The guidance outlines unfair practices with illustrative examples. The examples given are based on OFT complaint information and issues brought to our attention by organisations representing consumers, business and other regulators.

Who does this guidance apply to?

1.7 This guidance applies to all consumer credit licence holders and applicants. 1.8 Our guidance does not relate to the routine collection of repayments. It applies to

the collection of debt once an account is in default. This guidance does not therefore affect the ability of traders who deal in home collection of repayments to visit their customers as those payments fall due.

Creditor responsibility for third parties

1.9 If consumer credit licence holders choose to do business or continue to do business with third parties engaged in questionable fitness behaviour, then their own fitness will be called into question. Our aim is to ensure that creditors do not ignore the unfair practices of debt collectors, whether in-house or external, acting on their behalf. It is not for the OFT to specify in this guidance how choices about third party selection are made nor to advise on desired conduct between third parties. However, during any investigation in this respect, we would expect to see that care had been taken in the selection process, complaints had been investigated and that firm action had been taken as appropriate. It would be unlikely that we would take action against a creditor who could demonstrate such action had been taken.


2 UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES

Communication

2.1 It is unfair to communicate, in whatever form, with consumers in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner.

2.2 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. use of official looking documents intended or likely to mislead debtors as to their status, e.g. documents made to resemble court claims. b. leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it creates a false or misleading impression or exploits debtors' lack of knowledge c. those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who they work for, what their role is, what the purpose of the contact is d. unnecessary and unhelpful use of legal and technical language, e.g. use of Latin phrases e. failing to provide debtors or creditors with information on status of debts, e.g. not providing requested balance statements when reasonably requested f. contacting debtors at unreasonable times g. ignoring or disregarding debtors' legitimate wishes in respect of when and where to contact them, e.g. shift workers who ask not to be telephoned during certain times of the day h. asking or instructing debtors to make contact on premium rate telephone numbers


False representation of authority and/or legal position

2.3 Those contacting debtors must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their authority and/or the correct legal position.


a. falsely implying or claiming authority, e.g. claiming to work on instructions from the courts, claiming to be bailiffs or, in Scotland, sheriff officers or messenger-at-arms. b. falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when it legally

cannot, e.g. referring to bankruptcy or sequestration proceedings when the balance is too low to qualify for such proceedings or claiming a right of entry when no court order to this effect has been granted.

c. misrepresenting status or backing, such as

• using a logo which falsely implies government backing • using a business name which implies public body status, or • falsely claiming trade body membership.

d. falsely implying or stating that action has been taken when it has not, e.g. that civil action has been taken or that a court judgment has already been obtained.

e. falsely implying or stating that failure to pay a debt is a criminal offence or that criminal proceedings will be brought. f. pursuing third parties for payment when they are not liable. g. taking or threatening to take court action in the wrong jurisdiction,

e.g. taking action against a Scottish debtor in an English court unless legally justified.


Physical/psychological harassment

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive. 2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. contacting debtors at unreasonable times and at unreasonable intervals b. pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further borrowing or to extend their borrowing

c. using more than one debt collection business at the same time resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different parties

d. not ensuring that an adequate history of the debt is passed on as

appropriate resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different parties

e. not informing the debtor when their case has been passed on to a

different debt collector

f. pressurising debtors to pay in full, in unreasonably large instalments, or to increase payments when they are unable to do so

g. making threatening statements or gestures or taking actions which

suggest harm to debtors h. ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are

disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment i. disclosing or threatening to disclose debt details to third parties unless

legally entitled to do so j. acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor either

deliberately or through lack of care, e.g. by not putting correspondence in a sealed envelope and putting it through a letterbox, thereby running the risk that it could be read by third parties.


Deceptive and/or unfair methods

2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair. 2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. sending demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that

they are the debtor in question, e.g. threatening debt recovery action to 'the occupier' or sending a payment demand to all people sharing the same name/date of birth as a debtor in the hope that contact with the correct debtor will be made.

b. disclosing debt details to an individual when it is uncertain that they are

the debtor in question, e.g. disclosing details to 'the occupier' of an address.

c. refusing to deal with appointed or authorised third parties, such as Citizens Advice Bureaux, independent advice centres or money advisers d. contacting debtors directly and bypassing their appointed representatives e. operating a policy, without reason, of refusing to negotiate with debt management companies f. passing on debtor details to debt management companies without the

debtors' informed prior consent g. failing to refer on to the creditor reasonable offers to pay by instalments

h. not passing on payments received within a reasonable time resulting in delays that adversely affect a debtor's financial position.

i. failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is

queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued j. requiring an individual to supply information to prove they are not the

debtor in question, e.g. driving licences, passports, full name, date of birth, signatures

k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or

disputed debt.


Charging for debt collection

2.9 Charges should not be levied unfairly.


a. claiming collection costs from a debtor in the absence of express contractual or other legal provision

b. misleading debtors into believing they are legally liable to pay

collection charges when this is not the case, e.g. when there is no contractual provision

c. not giving an indication in credit agreements of the amount of any

charges payable on default d. applying unreasonable charges, e.g. charges not based on actual and

necessary costs

e. applying charges which are disproportionate to the main debt.


Debt collection visits

2.11 Those visiting debtors must not act in an unclear or threatening manner. 2.12 Examples of unfair practices are:

a. not making the purpose of any proposed visit clear, e.g. merely stating that collectors or field agents will call is not sufficient b. visiting a debtor when it is known they are vulnerable, e.g. when a doctor's certificate has been provided stating that the debtor is ill c. continuing with a visit when it becomes apparent that the debtor is

distressed or otherwise vulnerable, e.g. it becomes apparent that the debtor has mental health problems

d. entering a property uninvited e. not leaving a property when asked to f. visiting or threatening to visit debtors without prior agreement when the

debt is deadlocked or disputed g. not giving adequate notice of the time and date of a visit h. visiting debtors, unless requested, at inappropriate locations such as work

or hospital.


Statute barred debt 2.13 This guidance applies to the pursuit of debt regardless of its age. We will be

carrying out further work on this aspect of debt recovery including analysis of relevant legislation and practice throughout the UK.

2.14 In the past we have dealt with a number of statute barred debt cases governed by

the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales. Based on that experience our position with regard to England and Wales remains:

a. we accept legally the debt exists

b. it is the methods by which the debt is collected that can be unfair as follows:

• it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from

the creditor during the relevant limitation period • 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

• it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations, e.g.

falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally recoverable and relying on consumers not knowing the relevant legal provisions, and

• continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they

will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.


ANNEXE

RESPONDENTS TO THE CONSULTATION

Abbey National plc Alliance and Leicester plc Anthony Sharpe Associates Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies ** Association for Payment Clearing Services Bristol Debt Advice Centre British Bankers Association ** British Cheque Cashers Association British Gas BT Citizens Advice Bureau ** Citizens Advice Bureau Scotland ** Citizens Advice Bureau Sheffield – Debt Support Unit Civil Court Users Association ** Consumer Credit Association ** Consumer Credit Trade Association ** Control Account Credit Services Association ** Credit Services Association Equidebt Ltd ** Federation of Information and Advice Centres ** Finance Industry Standards Association ** Finance & Leasing Association ** First National Bank plc Glasgow City Council Green & Co Innogy plc Institute of Credit Management ** Intrum Justicia Law Society of Scotland ** Legal & Trade Financial Services Ltd The Lewis Group Littlewoods Retail Ltd LACORS** Logic Group plc The Mail Order Traders' Association ** MENCAP Metropolitan Collection Services



Money Advice Association ** Money Advice Trust ** Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd National Australia Group Europe Ltd Mr J Sutcliffe National Consumer Council ** National Consumer Credit Federation ** National Consumer Federation ** National Debtline ** Nationwide Building Society NCO Financial Services (UK) Ltd OFGEM ** Office of the Information Commissioner ** Mr O'Keeffe – individual response Ms Y Parks – individual response Robinson, Way & Co Roxburghe International plc Salford City Council Welfare Rights & Debt Advice Service Scarborough Building Society Scotcall Scottish Consumer Council ** Scottish Executive (Justice Department) ** Sheriffs Officers Association of England and Wales ** South East Trading Standards Authorities Regional Group (SETSA) ** Student Loans Company Ltd Surrey County Council Trading Standards Department Mr J Sutcliffe – individual response Swift Advances plc Thames Credit Ltd Trading Standards Institute ** Westcott Credit Services ** = those who were on our initial consultation list

debt collection guidance - uk government web...

Documents