Federal Court Fines Debt Collection Agency $750K

You may recall in our August 2018 edition of Debt Collection News that we reported that the Federal Court found against a debt collection company acting for Telstra after proceedings were commenced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC).

It has now been revealed by Yahoo! Finance that the Federal Court has ordered the debt collection agency involved to pay $750,000 in penalties for intimidation and harassment of the 2 customers who collectively owed $8,920.

The debt collection agency involved in the proceedings was ruled last year to have violated Australian Consumer Law after the ACCC commenced legal action in June 2016 where it was alleged that the agency had contacted a stroke victim on more than 40 occasions demanding payment including 20 demands made by letter despite the customer indicating to the agency that he had difficulty in speaking and could only utter single words like "stroke", "no" and "speech" in an attempt to indicate that he was disabled and unable to communicate.

ACCC Commissioner, Sarah Court, said in a statement, ".... continued harassment and intimidation of a care facility resident who had difficulty speaking after suffering multiple strokes is one of the worst cases of unconscionable conduct we have seen in the debt collection sector .... conduct towards another consumer who was in difficult financial circumstances, which included giving false information and making empty threats of court action, was also particularly egregious."

Commissioner Court went on to say, "Unconscionable conduct such as harassment, intimidation and coercion of consumers is unacceptable to not only the ACCC and the court, but the wider community."

A spokeperson for Telstra distanced the company from the proceedings stating, “collection activity is being conducted on behalf of the new owner, not on Telstra’s behalf” and that the telco sells debt to a third party only as a last resort."

Misleading Debt Collection Tactics in New Zealand

stuff.co.nz is reporting that the New Zealand Commerce Commission has warned a debt collection agency for possibly breaching the Fair Trading Act.

The warning comes following a complaint by a consumer that if she wanted to dispute a debt that she should raise the dispute with them but pay the debt to them in the meantime.

A spokeperson for the Commerce Commission said in a statement that the debt collection agency was incorrect in this advice as the debt collection agency had in fact purchased the debt and that the dispute should be handled by them. The Commission went on to say that it has also warned the debt collection agency to take care in the future to avoid making statements to debtors which may give the impression that Court action was inevitable if the debtor did not make immediate payment.

Commissioner, Anna Rawlings, said, "While debt collectors often need to discuss the nature of a debt and the consequences of non-payment with a debtor, they must not use misleading techniques to pressure debtors into paying or to deter them from pursuing genuine disputes. This includes saying that a debtor cannot dispute a debt, telling them that court action will commence within a certain timeframe when it may not or giving the impression that certain outcomes are inevitable if they are not."

While there may be differences in the legislation surrounding debt collection practices in New Zealand and Australia this article should serve as a timely reminder of your obligations under the Debt Collection Guidelines: for Collectors and Creditors with a specific focus on s13 of the Guidelines regarding disputed liability and s19 of the Guidelines regarding Representations about the consequences of non-payment.

Phone Book Publisher Fined Over Fake Debt Collection

A phone book publisher, Local Blue Pages, has been fined $40,000 by the Magistrates' Court for coercive debt collection.

The phone book, which is primarily delivered in the Melbourne metropolitan area, contains advertisements from small businesses however following an investigation by Consumer Affairs Victoria it was found that Local Blue Pages had harassed 4 advertisers between 2014 and 2016 using illegal debt collection tactics.

These tactics included:

• Establishing a fake debt collection agency;
• Misrepresenting and overstating the consequences of non-payment;
• Serving documents pertaining to be issued by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("VCAT") which were never lodged with the tribunal;
• Creating an impression that legal action had commenced; and
• Continually making demands for payment where the business owner was not liable

Dealing With Authorised Representatives

It is common in the debt collection industry a debtor to elect to authorise a 3rd party to act on their behalf.

Regulatory Guide RG96 Debt Collection Guidelines give the right to the debtor to authorise a 3rd party to represent them or advocate on their behalf about the debt.

What happens however when this 3rd party does not consent, won't respond or does not have instructions from the debtor?

RG96 is very specific about when you are entitled to contact a debtor which we have supplied as an extract below:

(d) You are entitled to contact a debtor directly if:
- The debtor specifically requests direct communication with you
- The representative does not consent to represent the debtor in relation to the debt
- The representative advises you that they do not have instructions to represent the debtor in relation to the debt
- The representative does not respond to your communications within a reasonable time (normally seven days) and you advise the representative in writing after the reasonable time has passed that if they do not respond within the next seven days, you will make direct contact with the debtor
- You advised the debtor that you require a written authority which states that you are only to communicate through the debtor’s representative, and the debtor or representative fails to provide you with that written authority within a reasonable time (normally seven days). Note that this does not apply where the debtor’s representative is a solicitor. When an authorised representative does not agree to have written correspondence redirected to the representative, such correspondence should continue to be sent directly to the debtor. 

Other instances where contact can be made with a debtor directly where they have previously authorised a 3rd party include:

- The representative is acting in a manner or making decisions which increase or are likely to increase the debtor’s liabilities
- The representative may be charging the debtor a fee for services that can be readily accessed free of charge
- The representative may be receiving payment from the debtor for the negotiation of a debt settlement
- You reasonably believe that the representative is not informing the debtor of all available options, offers of settlement, offers of hardship assistance or other creditor proposals
- You reasonably believe that the representative is engaging in a deceptive or misleading manner in engagement with either or both the creditor or the debtor
- You reasonably believe that the debtor has not been informed of the potential risks and
 consequences of a course of action the representative is pursuing
- You reasonably believe that the representative is acting against the debtor’s best interests.

It is our recommendation that where you have elected to discontinue contact with an authorised 3rd party that not only is your intention confirmed to the 3rd party in writing, and a minimum 7 days allowed for a response, that when contact is made with the debtor that you clearly indicate as to why you are no longer communicating with their representative and ensure that any correspondence is documented for future reference.

Source: Regulatory Guide RG96 Debt Collection Guideline

Note: Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice. If in doubt you should seek your own proper, independent legal advice.

Debt Collection and the Statute of Limitations

It has been some time since we looked at the impact of the Statute of Limitations in debt collection so we thought that an update might be worthwhile as a refresher not only for our long-term subscribers but also those that have recently subscribed to this blog and our newsletter.

What Are Statute Barred Debts?

Statute Barred debts are debts to which the appropriate limitation period has expired for the debt to be collected. Across each State and Territory of Australia the limitation period varies from 3 years to 15 years.

The table below summarises the limitation period for each State and Territory:

It should be noted that in the table above that the limitation periods stated only apply to unsecured personal loans and credit cards (overdrafts, line of credits, etc). These are typically referred to as "simple contracts" and Court Judgments.

When Does the Limitation Period Start?

The limitation period starts from what is referred to as a "right of action". While not particularly straightforward a right of action can be interpreted as when a debt becomes due, either because a contractual repayment is required, or because an instalment that fell due is defaulted on as set out in the contract.

Can The Limitation Period Be Extended?

The limitation period can be extended when payment is received or the customer acknowledges the debt. There are other circumstances that may extend the limitation period, specifically relating to a Judgment Debt, however you should seek your own independent legal advice concerning this.

How Is A Debt Acknowledged?

The legislation surrounding the limitation period is very specific in relation to what must occur for the debt to be acknowledged. The acknowledgement must:

• Be made by the customer or an authorised person acting for and on behalf of the customer;
• Be in writing and signed; and
• Constitute a clear knowledge that the debt exists and remains unpaid.

Fair Trading Investigate SEO Company

A Sydney based SEO ("Search Engine Optimisation") company allegedly contacting 3rd parties in relation to an outstanding debt is currently being investigated by NSW Fair Trading over potential breaches of Australian Consumer Law.

The company, Search Results Specialists, appears to undertake their own debt collection activities and after having invoices go unpaid by La Mona Beauty it is alleged that they contacted 3rd parties, including the owners daughter's boyfriends employer, the owners son's boss as well as the Local Council and suppliers to the debtor.

Search Result Specialists claimed that La Mona Beauty owed $1,400 for SEO work performed however the owner, Nidhal Robb, denied utilising their services and asked for evidence which was not forthcoming.

It is being reported that the matter has now been settled by the parties, NSW Fair Trading have indicated that since 2014, 64 complaints have been received about Search Results Specialists including 12 in this year alone.

While this is certainly not an isolated incident for Search Results Specialists it should serve as a reminder to anyone undertaking the collection of debts that you must comply with not only Australian Consumer Law but also the ACCC / ASIC Debt Collection Guidelines. 

Source: Daily Telegraph - Public Defender: Search Results Specialists Will Hound People You Know If You Owe Them Money

Debt Collection Enforcement Action And The Ombudsman

The February 2016 release of CIO News had an interesting case study published.

It was noted in the article that the service of legal documents are deemed to be enforcement of a debt. This is particularly relevant if a complaint has been lodged with the Ombudsman and a legal document, such as a Statement of Claim, are with an agent for service.

In the case study the following timeline was utilised:

• 28 January 2015 - Statement of Claim Filed
• 25 March 2015 - Complaint Lodged with CIO
• 9 July 2015 - Payment Arrangement Made
• 31 August 2015 - Second Payment Arrangement Made
• 7 September 2015 - Second Complaint Lodged with CIO
• 24 September 2015 - Statement of Claim Served

The Financial Services Providers ("FSP") Commercial Agent who was instructed to serve the Claim waited until 24 September 2015 to serve the claim knowing the customer would be at Court in an unrelated matter.

It is unclear whether the FSP instructed the Commercial Agent to hold service pending the outcome of the CIO Dispute which was a necessary step the FSP needed to perform.

The outcome of this for the FSP was an agreement to allow the customer 28 days from the date of the CIO review to file a Defence.

Source: FSP News

ACM Contact Stroke Victim Over Telsta Debt

Courts Rule Collectors Not Required To Go To Trial

Three consumers had brought an action against three debt collection agencies on the basis of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") on the basis of misleading or deceptive conduct on the basis of threatening action they do not intend to take.

In these cases:

• The collection agency had issued a Summons;
• The collection agency subsequently voluntarily dismissed the proceedings; and
• The consumers argued that the agencies never had an intention of proceeding to trial, but rather were issued to obtain Default Judgment or a settlement of the outstanding debt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the proceedings and agreed with the Federal Court, noting that it is not always economic or desirable to go to a trial and a collection agency is entitled to change its strategy at any time in the process.

Source: InsideARM - Debt Collection Lawsuits Revisited: Seventh Circuit Rules Collectors Not Required To Go To Trial

ACCC Commences Court Action Against ACM Group

Court action has been commenced against ACM Group Ltd by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ("ACCC"). The ACCC allege that ACM engaged in conduct that breached Australian Consumer Law and / or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act.

The breaches include:

• Misleading or deceptive conduct
• Harassment and coercion
• Unconscionable conduct in dealings with two consumers

Consumer 1 - A Resident In A Care Facility

Consumer 2 - A Single Parent With Limited Income