Collections staff suffer abuse - 11/02/2009

[ScarletPimpernel]

As always, the CSA seeks to blame others for its own inadequacies - classic bully behaviour, of course.

 

The notion that employing young, not very clever people, paying them in a way that encourages bad behaviour, training them to contact people in a confrontational way, and then wondering why people fight back shows either breathtaking naivety or a stunning level of arrogance.

 

It's absolutely right that any employer should protect their staff from genuine risk, but I doubt that the CSA would accept that compliant behaviour on their part is the key to reducing levels of 'abuse' from those they deal with.

 

Note to Gillian Forrest-Elliot - if you genuinely think that DCA call centre staff do an 'extremely important job', have a look at Help for Heroes. It may help you to put things into perspective, and to understand why people don't take your organisation seriously.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Call me a cynic, but I suspect that this story has as much to do with the CSA spinning a tale to try and counter the bad press the debt industry is currently enjoying as it does with genuine harassment of DCA staff.

 

A responsible employer would bring proceedings against the perpetrator of genuine harassment of an employee, or if it's bad enough, report the matter to the police. They'd have to be able to justify their own actions, not least as the instigators of confrontation.

 

Given that DCAs regularly tell us that constant telephone calls, threats of legal action, lies and misdirection don't amount to harassment, I'd imagine that the CSA must be talking about their staff being subjected to some pretty heavy stuff - death threats, viable VBIEDs, that sort of thing - but something tells me that it will really amount to 'the nasty man shouted back at me'.

 

 

Welcome to our guest, incidentally...

[ScarletPimpernel]

on a side note......isn't it now time for the likes of these forums to be viewable by members only,and not guests?

 

Then,according to the conditions of the site,the DCA's couldn't sign up without stating who they were,and then go on to use info gleaned here about specific cases?

 

it's worth serious consideration IMHO

 

I don't agree, for these reasons:

 

- The open accessibility of CAG is one of its great strengths, in my view.

- Making access members only would be difficult to enforce.

- Site admin are aware of, and monitor, visits by DCA/bank staff.

- A closed site would make accusations of advising debt evasion easier to make.

- The occasional foolish DCA letter telling people not to rely on website advice are all the funnier when everyone can see them here.

- Most DCAs operate on a sausage-machine basis, and couldn't possibly keep up with all the cases.

 

There might be a case for having an occasional private forum in particularly sensitive cases.

 

The glorious Cretin Today forum is a notable example of why trying to restrict access is a bad idea.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Given that DCAs have demonstrated that their level of intellectual ability is such that they are unable to determine that a white crystalline substance in close proximity to a doughnut is more likely to be sugar than ricin or anthrax spores, one can only marvel if attendees on the course can actually locate the correct building in the first place.

 

If you know what you're doing DCA monkeys are easy meat, psychologically, and no amount of training will compensate for lack of intelligence and immaturity. You can tell when you have successfully engaged the target, because the tone of their voice indicates that they're shaking like a sh1tting dog with anger.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Panorama viewers will remember Greenhalgh's Solicitors, the firm whose website (which features, appropriately, an image of a reptile on its home page) contained wording considered by OFT to be in breach of its guidance. The offending wording is gone - though they still say that they "won't listen to 'sob stories'".

 

Elsewhere on their rather poor site (who forgot to use the spellchecker?), they say that they don't employ "scripted puppets recruited from the fast food industry". So, confirmation from within the industry, if we needed it, of the type of people who work for DCAs.