New Lending Code 5: mental health, information recording

176. With a customer’s explicit consent and in line with requirements of the Data Protection Act, where it is possible and appropriate subscribers should record relevant information about the customer on their account so that staff can deal appropriately with the customer.  [Reproduced with the kind permission of the British Banking Association -see link below]

As happens so often with different advances in civilised behaviour there is some conflict between different needs. I doubt whether, in this situation, there is a great problem between ensuring there is adequate information on file, and observation of data protection and privacy.

What is perhaps more interesting and important is both how that information is flagged, and how staff are trained to respond to it.

There is already a very intrusive approach to personal information gathering by creditor staff. Financial and health information, addresses, phones, relationships and family are all demanded as of right with little more confidence given the debtor than a rather loose code requirement and the Data Protection Act.

While there will be great annoyance and publicity at any breaches, we already know how much disc-stored information is either hacked or stolen and sold on. We have no real assurance about staff filtering or training, and even less about the policies and their implementation by creditors.

These considerations are multiplied where we find also that on transfer to a debt collection organisation the creditor is under no obligation to transfer important information, and a whole new – and potentially even less secure storage system – is made free to request and store all that information again.

So I urge on the BBA and the Lending Standards Board, as well as the OFT and the FSA to give great thought to the care which is needed in this, the procedures and requirements for the creditor and all agents, and the idea that it is right, as a routine, to expect debtors to repeat their information when it is already on file.

All that said, the addition of this is a support for the intent of the section, and is to be applauded.

Joseph Harris, Debt Control Man
Author: Control Your Debt Crisis on Your Own Terms
http://www.controlyourdebtcrisis.co.uk

The new Lending Code is here http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1758
The MALG 2007 submission to the review of the code is here http://www.moneyadvicetrust.org/download.asp
And the Treasury Select committee view is here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtreasy/274/27406.htm#a18

 

New Lending Code 4:mental health, third parties

175. Where it is appropriate and with a customer’s consent, subscribers should work with advice agencies and health and social care professionals in a joined-up way to exchange information and ensure an effective dialogue. [Reproduced with the kind permission of the British Banking Association -see link below]

Many creditors, and some debt collectors, may well prefer to work with representative agencies. Always much easier to work to a routine and have someone else work out the details, and do all the questioning and examining.

Especially if that intermediary, that third party, because of its own pressures, needs to pigeonhole and classify elements of the debtors finances and problems.

Often this is presented as a requirement. To my mind this is disgraceful, and a breach of the terms under the defunct Banking Code, the new Lending Code and under the Consumer Protection Regulations.

Of course this third party representation can work sometimes for the debtor. But many cases have unique elements that are quite difficult to satisfactorily understand, let alone resolve.

For that reason among many others, such as the individual’s rights in a democracy, it is important that the right to represent oneself is again emphasised.

By implication the institutions are told that they are dealing with an individual, and that individual will decide whether to use an intermediary or not.

Notice also the reference to a ‘joined up way’ and ‘effective dialogue’. One hopes this is more effective that Tony Blair’s joined up government. But putting that humour aside, it does mean that the obligation is on the creditor to ensure proper collection of information and making inclusive judgement after all the to and fro discussion.

Creditors are also, by implication, required to inform themselves on mental health issues. This is why a specialist department for the vulnerable cases is not just a good idea, but sound practice. The creation of such departments should be treated both as a matter of urgency, and enforced by the OFT.

Joseph Harris, Debt Control Man

Author: Control Your Debt Crisis on Your Own Terms

http://www.controlyourdebtcrisis.co.uk

The new Lending Code is here http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1758

The MALG 2007 submission to the review of the code is here http://www.moneyadvicetrust.org/download.asp

And the Treasury Select committee view is here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtreasy/274/27406.htm#a18

New Lending Code 3: mental health, responses

174. The appropriate response will differ in each case and could involve a range of approaches, including:

• working positively with an advice agency

• promptly carrying out agreed actions

• being flexible in responding to offers or schedules of repayment

• sensitively managing communications with the customer (for example preventing unnecessary and unwelcome mailings). [Reproduced with the kind permission of the British Banking Association -see link below]

 

Paragraph 174 has some useful pointers to the creditor on how to handle its dealings with vulnerable debtors.

These terms: ‘positively … promptly … flexible … sensitively’ give a clear indication of the manner in which companies should gear these particular contacts. This is in sharp contrast to the normally aggressive and harassing manner of most debt collection departments and debt collection agencies.

Sensitive in the context of this matter is defined as finely aware of the attitudes and feelings of others [The Penguin English Dictionary].

While I suggest the companies rethink their whole collection procedures in light of this advice, it will be a big advance if they do so at least for the vulnerable. Since the Consumer Protection Regulations already feature the idea of differences of approach to vulnerable consumers, there is now no excuse for creditors not making this policy for their internal procedures.

Those who prefer to handle their own affairs should note that the use of advice agencies remains an option, not a requirement. While the specialist charities do know their own fields, and offer more awareness, you should be careful about the awareness of any intermediary over your own situation.

Never allow yourself to be harassed over this by agents. Remember it is not your job to make the companies’ lives easier, but to get fair treatment – and to yourself behave fairly!

If companies fail to show this level of care in a case of mental health disorder they should be reported to the monitoring agency – The Lending Standards Board. If you feel the matter is serious I suggest you also report it to the Licences Section of the Office of Fair Trading.

Joseph Harris, Debt Control Man

Author: Control Your Debt Crisis on Your Own Terms

http://www.controlyourdebtcrisis.co.uk

The new Lending Code is here http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1758

The MALG 2007 submission to the review of the code is here http://www.moneyadvicetrust.org/download.asp

And the Treasury Select committee view is here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtreasy/274/27406.htm#a18

How Will the New Lending Code take effect?

One can probably trace the genesis of the new Lending Code, from FSA bombshell about taking over the Banking Code, to realising parts belonged under the OFT, to realising that means rewrites, to thinking the best people to write it would be the current possessors, to conveying that information and then to actually confirming.

Only after that could the British Banking Association deal with the severe truncation of its code and the Lending Standards Board, as the prior Banking Code Standards Board is now known, start reorganising.

It was a severe disappoinment to me that he result of this meant the code was not ready for examination and comment long before it came into effect. Indeed it was not in sight until the moment of becoming The Code.

So it is no surprise to any of us if understanding how the changes in it will be worked is not yet extant.

In my discussions with the FSA, the BBA and the OFT – I have not attempted to ask the FOS yet – I have asked the following questions and made the following points.

1. How will the mental health section, pars 173-183, which is entirely new and very important for affected debtors, apply to existing cases

2. It seems likely that a court would interpret its application to an existing collection at any point of change; but what would be the relevant criteria for ‘change’?

3. Where a complaint has reached final response and is then either on its way to or with the FOS how does the FOS utilise pars 173 to 183. There are many ways to do this, including returning the complaint to the creditor or agent with instructions to reconsider it in light of the new pars.

4. In par 183 reference is made to the MALG advice of 2007 as further guidelines, virtually bringing the whole of them in to the code. These are about all vulnerable debtors ]probably including borrowers whether in financial difficulties or not. As this ties in firmly to the CPRs on vulnerable customers, adding a definition in part, to what extent are all vulnerable debtors assisted by the new paragraphs.

5. As the OFT is the enforcing agency, the FOS, and all debtors and their advisors, will need to know your position on them. Will you advise when the necessary advice is issued, and give details of that advice?

I would point out that the creditors, as large and powerful institutions and with various industry bodies, lobby intensively both on legislation, rules and codes, as well as interpretations. While there are seriously over-stretched charities who represent debtors they either do not specialise or are not big enough to offer a strong countering voice in this area.

6. The voice of the actual debtor is simply not heard and his lobby is weak. Even the ombudsman, the FOS, is actually funded by the industry, and its influence is very clear in process.

7. Through the credit licences the OFT has considerable power to ensure better observance of rules and a more balanced judgement by the FOS; yet from the debtor’s point of view that power is used very lightly.

8. The OFT is the body upon which the debtor must rely to make sure the rules there are effective. This is a matter I will return to.

Joseph Harris, Debt Control Man
Author: Control Your Debt Crisis on Your Own Terms
http://www.controlyourdebtcrisis.co.uk