OFT warns 13 companies about their debt collection practices

[cerberusalert]

I came across this snippet whilst searching google archives The Office of Fair Trading: OFT warns 13 companies about their debt collection practices so much for crudite bleating on about how 'responsible' their members are.

 

The OFT has not disclosed the names of the companies subject to these informal actions. Under legal restrictions relating to disclosure of information, a public authority such as the OFT may commit a criminal offence if it discloses certain specified information relating to a business or individual, which it obtains in connection with the exercise of its functions.

[ODC]

This was posted some time ago. We still never heard who they were but we could be fairly certain that ***** ****** is one of them

[Monty2007]

4. The OFT has not disclosed the names of the companies subject to these informal actions. Under legal restrictions relating to disclosure of information, a public authority such as the OFT may commit a criminal offence if it discloses certain specified information relating to a business or individual, which it obtains in connection with the exercise of its functions.

 

They should name and shame!

[cerberusalert]

Financial news, business, blogs, finance director jobs - Director of Finance Online - OFT warns debt collection firms

Marked increase in consumer complaints

 

The action taken by the OFT against the consumer credit licence holders is a response to a marked increase in consumer complaints received by the OFT about debt collection practices.

 

The OFT found that these companies had generated some of the more serious complaints which involved chasing consumers for payment of debts they did not owe, failing to properly investigate disputed debts and failing to carry out sufficient accuracy checks on data received from creditor clients and/or credit reference agencies.

 

They also contacted debtors at unreasonable times and intervals, threatening home visits when debts were disputed, and refusing to deal with or bypassing third party consumer representatives such as Citizens Advice Bureaux.

 

The companies have been given four weeks to respond and the OFT will consider taking action against any business which fails to address the concerns raised, up to and including revoking their consumer credit licences.

 

David Philpott, OFT deputy director of consumer credit, said, “It is unacceptable for debt collection businesses to engage in unfair practices and we will continue to take action where we find evidence of this. One of our main priorities is to protect consumers who may already be vulnerable as a consequence of serious debt problems.

 

Since the OFT's debt collection guidance was issued in 2003, action taken by the OFT has resulted in the issue of nine notices to debt collectors that the OFT was minded to refuse or revoke their credit licences and a total of 137 warning and advisory letters have been sent to 120 licensees.

 

The Credit Services Association (CSA) estimates that there are around 450 to 500 debt collection businesses in the UK (where debt collection is the primary activity) of which approximately 292 are members of the CSA.

 

What is amazing that with the catalogue of complaints the OFT have decided to issue 'informal' warnings.

[lunar jim]

Financial news, business, blogs, finance director jobs - Director of Finance Online - OFT warns debt collection firms

 

 

 

 

What is amazing that with the catalogue of complaints the OFT have decided to issue 'informal' warnings.

 

Hmm that'll be one for *their* 'ignore' pile...

[Docman]

4. The OFT has not disclosed the names of the companies subject to these informal actions. Under legal restrictions relating to disclosure of information, a public authority such as the OFT may commit a criminal offence if it discloses certain specified information relating to a business or individual, which it obtains in connection with the exercise of its functions.

 

This quote from the OFT's editors note to its press release for this story last year smacks of one of those quotes from DCAs that say you must do XXX. However, when we look hard at the law, the so called 'legal restrictions' disappear.

 

Does anyone know what the legal restrictions are in this case under the Fredom of Information Act?

 

I certainly think that 13 names announced at once overrides the individual protection usually required in these announcments.

[cerberusalert]

Probably under Part II Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)

[blipvert]

Financial news, business, blogs, finance director jobs - Director of Finance Online - OFT warns debt collection firms

 

 

 

 

What is amazing that with the catalogue of complaints the OFT have decided to issue 'informal' warnings.

 

Good link but I can't see a date on it, is there one ?.

[cerberusalert]

Good link but I can't see a date on it, is there one ?.

 

Wednesday, 09 April 2008 In faded grey under 'OFT warns debt collection firms'.

[42man]

And this is another reason why everybody needs to keep complaining to the OFT....!!

[installspark]

Probably under Part II Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)

 

According to a Freedom of Information request and the OFT response on 17 September 2008 it is Part 9 of Enterprise Act 2002 (c40.) which prevents disclosure.

 

 

Part 9 Information

 

Restrictions on disclosure

 

237 General restriction

 

(1) This section applies to specified information which relates to—

(a) the affairs of an individual;

(b) any business of an undertaking.

(2) Such information must not be disclosed—

(a) during the lifetime of the individual, or

(b) while the undertaking continues in existence,

unless the disclosure is permitted under this Part.

(3) But subsection (2) does not prevent the disclosure of any information if the information has on an earlier occasion been disclosed to the public in circumstances which do not contravene—

(a) that subsection;

(b) any other enactment or rule of law prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of the information.

(4) Nothing in this Part authorises a disclosure of information which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29).

(5) Nothing in this Part affects the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

(6) This Part (except section 244) does not affect any power or duty to disclose information which exists apart from this Part.

238 Information

 

(1) Information is specified information if it comes to a public authority in connection with the exercise of any function it has under or by virtue of—

(a) Part 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 or 8;

(b) an enactment specified in Schedule 14;

© such subordinate legislation as the Secretary of State may by order specify for the purposes of this subsection.

(2) It is immaterial whether information comes to a public authority before or after the passing of this Act.

(3) Public authority (except in the expression “overseas public authority”) must be construed in accordance with section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).

(4) In subsection (1) the reference to an enactment includes a reference to an enactment contained in—

(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(b) Northern Ireland legislation;

© subordinate legislation.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 14.

(6) The power to make an order under subsection (5) includes power to add, vary or remove a reference to any provision of—

(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(b) Northern Ireland legislation.

(7) An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(8 ) This section applies for the purposes of this Part.

 

 

[blipvert]

Wednesday, 09 April 2008 In faded grey under 'OFT warns debt collection firms'.

 

oh, must've been filed in the round thing then.

[Kraken1]

I wonder how many complaints they actually get. I would think that they would need a fair number to actually shut a dca down, especially as in the current climate they would probably get some flack if they caused loads of job losses.

 

But then again, I understand that it isn't actually the oft that shuts them down, but independent adjudicators and BERR. The OFT just makes the case to BERR and they decide.