1    

THE MONEY ADVICE LIAISON GROUP ANNUAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION

Wednesday 19th November 2014

Royal College of Physicians 11 St Andrews Place, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4LE

“Ticking the box on problem debt - so job done then?”

Introduction

The Regent’s Park squirrels were as fat as turkeys - had they boxed clever to solve problem debt? Only MALG had the answer, in the many avenues of discourse across its Annual Conference and Exhibition. Over the road and into the warm reception, round the glistening stairwells to the prime vantage point of the mezzanine, more of us came than ever before, and so many new faces too (274 registrations!).

The hall was packed, as each seat, hosting a copy of Lending, debt collection and mental health: 12 steps for treating potentially vulnerable customers fairly, was filled. Quite how the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Money Advice Trust managed to balance the weight of their insight on those folding chairs, we shall never know, but such is the magic of MALG!

We settled promptly, to which Anthony Sharp beamed, before introducing the conference chair, freelance journalist and broadcaster, Paul Lewis. Sharing the collective hope that …

we all go away with one new thought, one more idea, or perhaps one less prejudice

Paul opened the eagerly-awaited Pandora’s Box of questions in which we were confident of a serious gift. Unwrapping a panel that included Kim-Louise Heffernan, Senior Manager at the Credit Authorisations Division of the Financial Conduct Authority, Russell Hamblin-Boone, Chief Executive Officer of the Consumer Finance Association, Alistair Chisholm, Creditor Liaison Policy Officer at Citizens Advice, standing in for Anna Hall of Citizens Advice, who unfortunately was unwell, and Leigh Berkley, President of the Credit Services Association, reflection took hold.

Question One: Do existing debt solutions solve all individuals’ debt problems?

The Panel opened with thoughts that included:

• growing instability amongst advice seekers, examples of the design and delivery of basic goods and services being unaffordable, differentiation of food bank users into those who had fuel for cooking and those who did not, such that existing debt solutions could not always be applied;

• the challenges of public service debts and the disparity between government and consumer credit debt collection practices; the need for existing debt solutions to remain relevant to their socio-economic context; and recognition of short term credit

2    

as an appropriate alternative to debt advice in certain circumstances;

• the need for compulsory education to embed money management from an early age and, with the impact of this being a generation away, identifying key touch points at which financial distress can be identified before advice is sought, because this is often too late;

• ensuring that all advice agencies refer customers to others whenever a specialism is lacking because many customers are vulnerable, likely to have reached the end of their journey with credit products, and the range of solutions is incredibly complicated.

The audience [italicized] expanded the debate:

a) Does the panel have any thoughts on the success rate for vulnerable customers actually reaching specialist teams, who are more highly trained?

b) After recently coming across a prospective tenant, impeded through credit referencing that indicated a zero-hours contract; is this a wider trend and are there appropriate debt solutions for this kind of scenario?

c) Thinking about teachable moments; is there scope for advisers to formalise arrangements to work with other organisations to embed some form of support or education?

d) In terms of the credit industry and so called debt solutions, how are people adapting to new trends such as zero-hours, increased part-time and self-employment, and, for example, the 30 million adults who are financially insecure?

§ There isn’t an easy solution to financial fragility. The lack of settled solutions is a problem, as is being unable to secure work because of an adverse credit record - access to housing and work is under pressure. As to the success of specialist teams, the problem is they are islands of excellence, so if you want to have excellent service for vulnerable customers you must have excellence for all.

§ For debt advisers working with vulnerable customers, we have specialist teams, who are not only highly trained but also empowered to make decisions that are not profit driven. All our members have similar processes in place and we have seen huge numbers of people using these.

§ There is a limit to the extent you can help customers at the advice seeking stage, but we can signpost people to other organisations and lobby for financial education. Many are school based, and once you are an adult having those sorts of difficulties, it is something that can be difficult to sort out. I think by then the problems have been embedded, unfortunately.

§ It has to begin with the affordability of lending in the first instance and then looking at reasonable forbearance when things go wrong. With regard to debt advice, pricing is important, so looking at all of the points when things can start to go wrong.

3    

Using red cards to vote “no” and green for “yes”, delegates’ almost unanimous decision was that existing debt solutions do not solve all individuals’ debt problems. This was mirrored by the pre-conference Twitter Poll, in which some 95% of respondents shared the same view.

Question Two: Ticking the box on problem debt - are call centres a help or a hindrance?

The Panel’s opening comments included:

• The FCA is neutral with regard to debt advice channels because its focus is the quality of advice. An important part of this is providing all the relevant information, not in a rigid tick box approach, but actually being able to respond to the consumer and adapting to situations like part-time and zero-hours contracts appropriately;

• There are some excellent call centres that go above and beyond standards we recognise, like for breathing space and incentivising staff. So much so that some CABx have pooled resources to create call centres and this is working well. However, the problems occur when callers have to wait a long time or cannot get through;

• It’s about quality and consistency. Most of our members work without a script, which can be difficult as we do have to tick a lot of boxes. Call recording is widespread and technology like speech analytics makes the quality of conversation better. Automated systems can record things that advisers may not have time to do, updating income and expenditure with ten rather than one creditor at a time, for instance;

Paul challenged:

Isn’t this just a response to FCA regulation and their ability to listen to your calls?

• No. Quality is paramount because Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) has been embedded in the business for several years now, to the point that we are looking for as many “green” calls as possible.

• We cannot forget channels - some people prefer the phone, others web chat, so the challenge for call centres is managing expectations, maintaining interest and momentum. More complex issues take longer to sort out and attention can be lost if something isn’t happening. We will always try to treat the individual as an individual, but it is inevitable that with systemisation you can lose engagement.

Then he queried:

So call length, being on the phone for say three hours, is a problem?

• There’s an element of that because it prevents someone else getting through, though the idea of sales type incentives is virtually gone now. The FCA is having a huge influence on the culture and the way that call centres operate.

4    

• Incentives have been a major focus for the FCA, but more recently concerns have turned to consistency, especially policies that look good but are not implemented.

When Paul invited the audience to join the debate, delegates added:

a) The systemisation and centralisation of debt collection over the past thirty years has led to creditors treating customers fairly.

b) Call centres work for simple queries, but not complex issues. I’d rather see a smaller number of people who are more highly trained.

c) Call centres don’t listen if they can’t tick their box. Managers are often on holiday or at lunch and a lot of call centres are abroad, so don’t understand cultural differences.

d) The question seems to be how human do you really want to be - are we actually addressing the individual’s question and can that be done online or in a call centre?

e) Systemisation is inevitable, but in debt advice customers must be treated as individuals.

f) Call centres have two opposing aims because you are trying to keep the costs of debt collection down, which is in everyone’s interest. But they employ people who are often quite young, with less experience of life. So are they aiming for good customer service or to keep the costs down?

The panellists responded:

§ In some public sector call centres the customer service is appalling. In the private sector, you’d be out of business if you operated that way. The government is turning to the private sector for some £20 million in tax payments, but their collection techniques are very different - wipe away any thought of a good customer journey - and whilst collections have moved towards using higher paid more experienced people, creditors are not necessarily paying for that service.

§ Effective debt collection has to recognise the human element and take account of the individual.

§ The FCA has changed the landscape and those of us at the forefront of scrutiny are trailblazing with the technology that we’ve got. Quality control is a really critical issue, with layers of call handling being monitored, so we are learning all the time. I also think it’s unfair to say younger people don’t understand the issues.

Around six in every ten delegates used their cards to vote that call centres were a help compared to four in ten voting that they were a hindrance. The Twitter poll was less clear, with a quarter abstaining and the remainder split slightly in favour of call centres being a hindrance. Doubtless, the debate will go on, not least in a world that continues to develop its relationship with new technology.

5    

Question Three: Do targets and key performance indicators set in the debt advice sector work against treating clients properly?

Initial contributions from the panel considered:

• There’s a distinction between targets and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), the former relating to volumes, processes and so on, whereas quality has to be balanced with the quantity of people calling. You need to be able to help as many people as possible, speak to them as quickly as possible, but equally make sure there is quality within that. Also, more could be done to share private sector best practice with the public sector;

Paul probed:

Though doesn’t it work against treating clients properly if you have targets?

• No, because we now have a regulator that is looking at both and I think one of the things we now need to focus on is the outcomes of support in the short, medium and long term.

• Many of the targets and KPIs in the debt advice sector are set by the Money Advice Service. However, the FCA thinks it is important that firms set their own too. There are concerns about unintended consequences, for example, if a volume target means an adviser is not able to spend as long with a customer as needed, or if a target skews the recommendation given. Ideally, they should be about outcomes.

• People perform as they are managed, so gone are the days of the dash for cash. There’s less emphasis on collections, no issues about call length. Now it is all about how we are treating the customer fairly, what has the journey been like and is the outcome right for the customer. If there’s no signposting or referring a client to the vulnerable stream, that would immediately mean a “red” call, so the person on the phone may well lose their bonus for that month, which is no longer cash related. Many Debt Collection Agencies (DCAs) are still paid on a commission basis, but with emphasis on call quality, some creditors are moving away from this and I think that will continue.

Then he added:

Commission has been of interest to the FCA before. It is a conflict of interest, isn’t it?

• It is; so the FCA also looks at incentives and commission arrangements, as well as the controls that companies have to protect against risk and the potential for poor behaviour.

• Feedback from some Bureaux is that it can be much harder keeping up with targets and not having the time needed for clients. However, there is another side to this. For example one of our targets is to survive, so before debt advice was put on a firm footing, I don’t know that face to face services would have survived. Furthermore,

6    

recent contracts stipulate cohesive advice and set out some really good performance indicators that are aligned with what we want to do.

Paul continued to challenge:

Isn’t there a danger though that you will perform to targets just to get that money?

• I think there was a sharp shift towards that a couple of years ago but that’s only to be expected with a new contract.

• It’s about quality and consistency. Most of our members work without a script, which can be difficult as we do have to tick a lot of boxes. Call recording is widespread and technology like speech analytics makes the quality of conversation better. Automated systems can record things that advisers may not have time to do, updating income and expenditure with ten rather than one creditor at a time, for instance;

Finally, Paul invited delegates to have their say before the plenary vote:

a) There is a risk with targets and KPIs that we do not think outside the box or revisit systems. There is also a need for better infrastructure to help organisations be more robust. Clients are not homogeneous, they have different needs and we need to get those messages across to funders.

b) KPIs and management information help to understand how the business is achieving its goals. Targets derived from customer satisfaction, for instance, are helpful. The problem is when targets focus on volumes of customers or revenues.

c) Whilst we have improved indicators for identifying people as vulnerable, we are actually finding it more and more difficult to find the consistent and sustainable support that these clients need.

d) The question seems to be how human do you really want to be - are we actually addressing the individual’s question and can that be done online or in a call centre?

e) To treat clients fairly and effectively, targets need to consider how we empower them to move forward, sharing our work with them so they don’t come back to us six months down the line.

§ In the advice sector, there can be a conflict between wanting to do the right thing by the customer and having the time to do it. At a recent advice agency meeting, it was clear advisers want to do it properly and if we ever move away from that it will be a very sad day for the advice sector.

§ I have an issue with some targets influencing whether we will still be here in April.

§ I think we all have the same people’s interests at heart and perhaps we can do more to share best practice between all of us.

§ It’s really about outcomes in the short and longer term and that is something the FCA will be assessing.

7    

Among delegates, some six out of ten felt that targets and key performance indicators encourage the proper treatment of clients, whereas just over half of Twitter Poll respondents felt they did not, though again there were quite a lot of abstentions (15%). It is likely that live discussion of the more qualitative measures of customer outcomes added depth to our appreciation of effective management information.

Refreshments and Exhibition

Laden with goodies for our delectation and delight, every corner of the Exhibition competed for our attention and retained it. The fine fare on offer from the Royal College of Physicians sat amidst an array of stands allowing us to mix and mingle across the mezzanine. From the DIY goodie bag, compiled lovingly by CABMoney, to the armoury of branded lollipops from The Debt Counsellors Charitable Trust, exhibitors including Advice UK, Auriga Services, Charis, ClearStart, DEMSA, entitledto Ltd, Equifax, Experian, Payplan, StepChange Debt Charity, TaxAid, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Institute of Money Advisers, the Money Advice Trust, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Wescot Credit Services had plenty to share. Newcomers, Postee Ltd and Tenant Shop Ltd found the particular attention of MALG delegates a welcome surprise and thanks must go to Grant Thornton for providing the neatest of folding bags to carry all our swag home!

Keynote Speech

The hall settled noticeably as Paul introduced Zach Lewy, Founder and Executive Director of Arrow Global, a firm that handles some £15.4 billion of purchased debt, including a large tranche bought from the government’s student loan book. Rather than exploring whether problem debt was a job done, Zach asked us to consider how the job was done, in an exploration of moving debt collection from the actuarial to the psychological.

Cutting a less imposing figure than one might expect of a debt buyer and collector, Zach’s passion was apparent from the outset. With agility reminiscent of the silent screen hero, Harold Lloyd, Zach’s dance between speech and presentation slides engaged us in the complexity of personal indebtedness from the outset. There was to be no claim of having all the answers here: humility was to bind us all. For instance, when some 8.8 million people are struggling with problem debt, how is it possible to consider individual circumstances simultaneously? Professionals need models to address indebtedness on this scale, yet an assumption that borrowers’ decision-making is actuarially driven is too convenient. Much of the industry’s work is predicated on a hypothesis of rational, economically sensible decision-making and Zach found this deeply flawed, sharing his fears of how this plays out in practice.

Taking the example of affordability, Zach asked which financial outcomes we should favour in a particular set of personal circumstances. Acknowledging that assessments need rules, we were encouraged to recognise how they were prone to error when the outcomes borrowers sought might change even day to day. Drawing on research that had recently caught his attention, Zach introduced us to “Sean”, a manager struggling to make ends meet, for whom received wisdom made less sense as his daughter’s Birthday approached.

8    

Scarcity compromises decision-making was the initial hypothesis shared. Extending real world scenarios, Zach gave Sean’s car a fault, costing £300 to fix, covered only in part by his insurance, which was now due. This gave Sean the dilemma of spending over budget again, or simply driving his car in the hope it would not break down. However, when remodelling without scarcity, such that car maintenance cost £3000, Zach explained that researchers had also found the wider public to be challenged by spending priorities. Decision-making was similarly impeded by thoughts of how to finance repairs, including lengthy consideration of apparently illogical options, because the outcome was a “non-decision”. Scarcity might equally be perceived, it seemed.

From a position that an actuarial definition of affordability ignored his observed reality of personal preference in spending priorities, Zach continued his exploration of cognitive research. Summarising tests that had assessed performance through a combination of deprivations (for example receiving information through the dominant and non-dominant ear), Zach revealed the levels of degradation that occurred: a person of average intelligence suffering from scarcity presented as borderline deficient; a person of superior intelligence presented as average.

Most interesting to Zach was that the impact of scarcity was not simply confined to financial means. Individuals restricted by diet performed similarly when confronted with a relevant trigger, for instance. In short, the presence of any reminder of an inability to afford a purchase or to eat certain foods increased decision-stress from medium to high levels. From this insight, Zach questioned the efficacy of focusing attention on a full balance statement or initiating advice with a review of income and expenditure. An approach that accentuated scarcity from the outset was counter-productive, he suggested.

In the interests of establishing a relationship that could both sustain repayments and customer wellbeing, Zach advocated simplicity that went beyond stress avoidance. He cited the impact on Head & Shoulders’ sales from streamlining its range from thirty-six to three hair care products as an example. Thus, taking hours to determine whether a borrower should repay £5.21 or £3.11 per month was not only irrelevant to creditors’ lifetime value calculation but also detrimental to the customer. On this basis, Zach’s preference was to prioritise the relationship between borrower and adviser, standardising initial repayments to a simple token of as little as £1, with a view to completing a detailed assessment of income and expenditure some six months later. His reference to the 7.5 million adults (83%), identified by the Money Advice Service’s Indebted Lives research as not currently seeking advice, added impact to his argument, as did his uncertainty that the benefits of debt advice matched the pain of pursuing it.

It was not simply a question of removing barriers to accessing a state of rational decision-making that interested Zach. He saw the long term engagement of customers as an ongoing process. Citing an Arizona Park, where crime levels increased in response to notices prohibiting such behaviour, Zach drew our attention to the irrationality of creditors escalating conflict through communications that presumed delinquency. Far from engaging customers, Zach felt that reinforcing responses to potential defaults and arrears contributed to anti-social expectations and the realisation of these. Bluntly, he impressed upon us: you’re just telling them everyone else isn’t paying either.

9    

Inviting us to the consider the potential of customer relationships, Zach relayed the very different approach he had encountered at Christians Against Poverty, which, he stressed, is not in London, has no government and only 10% creditor funding, alongside “staggering” conversion rates. Here he experienced a compelling diversion from common practice in that first meetings were not with trained financial advisers. Conducted face to face, the rapport developed by an outreach counsellor extended to a breadth of welfare and employment advice, often before opening the channel to deliver financial advice. Impressed by their customer-centricity, Zach accepted CAP’s challenge to test their model within his firm, splitting new accounts into a CAP supported and control group, with donations to CAP for better performance among the former. A focus on customer service seemed to be delivering better results.

Finally, Zach summed up that if people are in trouble, they need help, and we need to give time to establishing a relationship at their pace. He felt that a longer term view was needed to establish lifetime value and confessed to a fascination with this. Drawing on the industry’s acknowledgement of the need for breathing space, Zach asked us to consider extending this to a point at which the individual’s normal proficiency might be regained through recovery from such as unemployment. He challenged the outcome of collections, should the scope for rehabilitation prove to have ten times the value of the prevailing approach and questioned the potential for synergy between economic, regulatory and consumer interests. Rejecting “can’t pay / won’t pay” as a broken paradigm that did not take the time to ask in a number of ways, on a number of occasions, Zach concluded that lower confidence in existing procedures and greater openness to exchanging ideas was important to recovery in its broadest sense.

Paul then invited questions with one of his own:

I’m sure lots of people will agree with you, but isn’t your approach very labour intensive?

We are agnostic as to how that works out. We already check which customers are with which advisers and whether other payments are being made that need to be brought into minimising provocative contact.

I take it you don’t mean that you don’t want an income and expenditure at some point and I’m keen to learn how you justify this because other creditors may not see it that way. Also, the amount of person hours involved is not insignificant and I am concerned that friendly relationships may be alien to what money advisers do?

My interest was in false dichotomies, for instance ”can’t pay / won’t pay”, and whether creating a binary opposition between actuarial and behavioural thought was not risking the same problem, when we are all working with a blend of both kinds of thought?

Payments received through advisers perform better for us than those from any other source. We are very pro money advice from a corporate social responsibility point of view, but it is an economic win for us also. There are many reasons why that is, partly the adviser, partly because it stops other creditors from chasing per se, and I think also the benefit of financial progression and the support the adviser gives throughout the process.

10    

The point about accepting £1 a month without an I & E; that is fine for six months, for sure, and I think that as a practical matter, you have to see it from our perspective. If it helps more customers enter the advice process; if it improves accessibility and continued satisfaction that would be the win for all of us, though I think we have to do a lot more research so we have the evidence. Ipsos MORI did a fascinating study for The Money Advice Service and most customers have very strong opinions on where they are willing to save or not. I think running studies like this together, as to where the conflict lines are; running the actuarial in the medium to long term, but using the social behavioural engagement model in the short term feels like the right balance and we are more than willing to do that.

Paul added:

There’s also the nudge unit at Downing Street isn’t there? HMRC, I think, have used that and they send letters out saying things like “90% of the people in your street have paid their tax” and that actually works better than threatening with bailiffs.

Yes!

You say this is a solution to problem debt, but I am interested in the costs because Arrow Global buy debt at a rate which allows you to operate more patience and tolerance to the customer so I was wondering how the two tied together?

One of the reasons we do early income and expenditure is to put down what they spend because most people do not know whether they spend £50 in Sainsbury’s or £20 in the little shop round the corner, so it does help them focus better on that.

You’re clearly right that if you buy debt at a discount you can take a low payment arrangement for a very long time and come off okay in a way that, if you lent someone £100 and they stopped paying, you don’t come off anywhere near as okay. It’s a cause and effect question, so if you think of different industry rules that have the effect of making more people say they are in trouble, then clearly you exacerbate the risk for existing lenders who then have to take a new discount because of guys like us, who can let the customer recover over a long period. But from what I have seen, I think there are a lot of consumers, who are in an unsustainable place, and that is actually an actuarial calculation.

If you look at a country like Greece, where debt to GDP was 160% and it cost 70% to service the debt, they were going to have to produce growth rates of 10% a year that they were extremely unlikely to do. We do calculations like that with the consumer, like a customer who owes £30,000 with a 20% average interest rate and has to make £600 just to stand still. In any reasonable set of circumstances that customer is not going to make good on their financial obligations, so whether you put them through the hard route or whether you help them get help early so they come up with better answers, is a very delicate question I agree. You could analyse your way through a model that is behavioural or market place balanced.

The second question I am not going to answer because every time I have this conversation with advisers I learn another reason why I am wrong. Clearly you have a much better knowledge of how to give best advice than we do, but I do think the relationship is essential. If you think that a much larger number of people need advice than those who seek it, and that when people seek advice it is usually at a very desperate and late stage, I think we all need to look at why that is.

11    

Summing up, Paul asked the audience to vote on whether “can’t pay / won’t pay” was a broken paradigm, and using the cards from the morning’s panel session, most delegates agreed that it was.

Workshops

A. “Who has benefited from the April Bailiff Reforms and have we seen aggressive bailiffs disappear for good?”

Presenters: Stephen Caven, Director General, CIVEA Peter Tutton, Head of Policy, Stepchange Debt Charity Facilitator: Sue Lindsay, Head of customer Relations, Wessex Water Scribe: Steve Perring Compliance Officer Cabot Credit Management & representing The South East Discussion Forum

Workshop Outline

Steve Caven began by summarising the role of the Civil Enforcement Association, explaining that it is a voluntary organisation, whose members are required to follow a Code of Practice. The role of CIVEA includes the handling of complaints where the internal complaints procedure of members has not resolved the issue.

Steve proceeded to set out the historical context of bailiff reforms and that the Ministry of Justice has confirmed that there will be a review of the reforms 1, 3 and 5 years after their introduction in April 2014.

Historical Context

The CAB have published a document named ‘Decades of inaction’, which describes the difficulty faced when looking to strike a balance on rules and regulation versus the need for enforcement agents.

12    

Why legislate?

The aim of legislation was to introduce a straight forward system with a fair and transparent fee and cost structure and to deal with vulnerable people appropriately. It sought to balance the interests of both creditor and debtor.

Most complaints about bailiffs were about fee structures being confusing and unclear.

New provisions from the reforms have seen:

- Requirement for a Notice of Enforcement, which signposts to sources of free debt advice. We have already begun to see payments of debts increasing upon receipt of this letter, avoiding the necessity for bailiff action

- The right of entry is now set out more clearly - Touches on vulnerable debtors, stating that enforcement MUST be frozen and

signposting to free debt advice organisations is mandatory - Mandatory training and certification by a Judge - A simpler regime of capped fees which are easier to understand

Steve observed that the number of complaints received had already begun to fall as a result of the new legislation and the clearer rules on fees.

Peter Tutton then spoke about a number of key questions that are interesting to consider:

What public policy outcomes do we want here?

Peter explained that the original policy objectives were:

• Addressing bailiff conduct issues

13    

• Context of ‘over indebtedness action plan’ – ensuring enforcement doesn’t make debt worse, supporting people to recover from financial difficulties / make sustainable debt repayments.

• Effective enforcement

The questions were then posed:

- How have they addressed the issues ensuring appropriate solutions are offered? - How have they dealt with conduct issues (oversight and fee structures)? - How can they ensure there is enough (appropriate) oversight? - How will it be similar to other regulation for individuals and firms?

How does it compare to other sectors?

We considered other similar reforms, such as the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which has since seen the amendments to the Act that came into effect in 2008, whilst more recently the Financial Services and Markets Act and the Financial Services Act have reformed parts of the CCA.

The bailiff reform did not take a step back from the industry to consider the outcomes and was purely technical – how do you apply ‘Treating Customers Fairly’ to bailiff activity?

It is interesting to note that in the FCA’s Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC), Debt Management firms are required to hold and maintain a specific policy for dealing with vulnerable customers, whereas no other firms regulated by the FCA have this specific requirement. (Although it is a point of best practice and CONC makes reference for Debt Collection firms to treat vulnerable customers appropriately).

Throughout the workshop, reference was made to the Royal College of Psychiatrists ’12 Steps for treating potentially vulnerable customers fairly’, as a useful guidance document around the subject of vulnerability.

Has it/Will it Deliver?

A key point to remember on financial difficulties is that people in debt will cost the UK economy a combined total of £8billion!

Part V of the reforms sought to deal with people in financial difficulties, yet none of Part V was actually enacted.

With regards to fee structures, the reforms may have dealt with the legality of charging fees, but does that make the fees fair?

Fee structures differ between different types of debt – why is this? Will it ever change?

The focus on ‘aggressive bailiffs’ was not the right outlook to have taken; it would have benefitted from focus on key effectiveness issues, such as vulnerable customers and fairness.

14    

Debate Session (Morning workshop)

Q Tony – Bromley CAB: Gave an example where a Financial Statement had been completed and submitted with a reasonable offer of repayment but a particular bailiff refused and demanded a minimum payment of £100 per month, which was not affordable and also applied fees and charges, firstly £75 and then £250.

A Steve advised that individual creditor practices are for their own consideration – in this case, the creditor could have accepted a lower amount and asked to do so. CIVEA stated that one aim of the legislation was to encourage payments at compliance stage without the need for a doorstep visit by bailiffs – significant amounts of payments have been seen following the new Notice of Enforcement, which avoids the need to escalate to the taking of goods.

Peter mentioned that Local Government are almost incentivised to push debts out to bailiffs and may also prescribe acceptable levels of payments

Q Colin – Plymouth CAB: ‘Close cousins’ use the Common Financial Statement. The best way forward is for the bailiff sector to use this too.

A Steve said that this is not a mandatory requirement but also that it may not be appropriate in all circumstances.

Q Mike – Debt Counselling Charity: Are we better off year on year following the reforms? We have seen an improvement in the transparency of fees but misrepresentation and deliberate misleading continues occasionally. Based on experience, approx 90% of local councils will leave the job of collecting debt to bailiffs and don’t particularly care about it thereafter. Overall, it is going in the right direction but more can be done.

A Steve mentioned that cameras attached to enforcement agents are used at a number of enforcement agencies to manage the risk of misrepresentation. This practice is relatively new but continues to expand. There are a number of prescribed documents, which should avoid misrepresentation but there remains a number, which are not prescribed.

Q Jenny – Shoosmiths: How will the reform deal with training and ensuring best practice, rather than just apply legal requirements? Who has oversight to ensure appropriate training takes place? An example was given where a bailiff assumed that they were exempt from having to obtain explicit consent to record sensitive personal information about a customer?

A Steve confirmed that CIVEA promotes good practice and will in future to highlight excellence, although again, membership is voluntary. There is now mandatory training and certification for bailiffs but this relates to the powers of bailiffs and only touches on vulnerable customers. There is no mandatory requirement for training on the handling of vulnerable customers.

Q Paul – Phoenix Commercial Collections: Not opposed to the reform and is surprised by Jenny’s example relating to explicit consent. Customers have benefitted from the reform, by virtue of the significant amount of earlier payments following the Notice of Enforcement. Advice agencies have benefitted and also the professional enforcement agencies have benefitted from the reforms. What does ‘aggressive’ actually look like?

15    

A This question was echoed by all in the room – it is difficult to define what ‘aggressive’ looks like.

Q Frank – McClure Naismith: On the issue of accountability, the 2006 Consumer Credit Act which amended the Consumer Credit Act 1974 introduced provisions for unfair relationships, for which the accountability will fall with the creditor.

A Peter advised that most debt that reaching private bailiffs is not regulated by the CCA – mostly fines, tax and council debts. Looking at ‘close cousin’ sectors, the Regulator sees Collections Advice and Creditors accountable for their actions but the bailiff reforms have not had the same effect. Question raised – do different rules apply to tax? The answer is yes, to an extent, but more questions remain unanswered.

Q Anonymous: What is done to monitor the ‘bad apples’?

A Steve advised again that membership of CIVEA is voluntary, but could be mandatory. There are sanctions for bailiffs that apply poor practices, such as creditors pulling back business and complaints through the Court. It is different for High Court Enforcement, where there are mandatory requirements.

Q Marty – CAB: Concern that the prescribed wording for the the Notice of Enforcement states ‘obstructing a bailiff constitutes a criminal offence’. Other delegates in the room advised that it does not state this and that if there are instances of such practice; complaints should be raised with the local authority. What is the definition of ‘obstruction’?

A Steve advised that there is an offence for obstructing a bailiff from carrying out their duty, but this does not feature in the prescribed wording. The definition is yet to be subject to review by the Court as there has not yet been a prosecution case. Ann-Marie Goddard from Ministry of Justice advised that the Rules of Entry have not changed and that an individual is entitled to refuse entry to their property.

Q Lisa – Guardian/Observer: Are the fee structures different to the original proposals?

A Peter advised fees are specified in the fee structure and we might see fewer complaints from this. They are more transparent, but some fees may actually be higher than they were before. The usual consumer protection concerns around fees and charges have not been applied to the bailiff fee review.

Q Is it common for professional enforcement agencies to leave membership of CIVEA?

A Steve advised it is not common but membership is voluntary so could occur.

Q Ray – CAB: Vulnerability training and misrepresentation seems not to have improved. With regards to Council tax debt, should this be back with the local government in vulnerable cases, as they have all the information about the individual?

A Peter advised that CLG have issued guidance but it is not binding. Councils should be more pro-active; however people also need to engage with their creditors

16    

Debate Session (Afternoon workshop)

Q Anonymous: On paper, the transparency of fees looks good. However, it has come unstuck where the bailiff has overriding responsibility to do as the creditor requires. A balance between TCF and the responsibility to creditors is required.

A Steve advised that the fee transparency is welcomed and that the Ministry of Justice is looking into whether the fees are fair. It is difficult to address the balance between TCF and creditor expectations.

Peter advised that the question should be ‘who controls the fee?’ – is it the bailiff or the firm? Discussions took place around the control over bailiff instructions from creditors. Do we need to look at creditor contracts and requirements on bailiffs to ensure appropriate customer outcomes?

Q Sheriff Office (Scotland): Have the reforms missed having personal culpability? All Sheriff Officers are personally accountable to the Court. We require further transparency around what constitutes ‘stepping out of line’. Should local authorities become part regulated (scrutinised) by the FCA?

A Steve advised that the Court can withdraw a bailiff’s certification at any time once certification has been obtained if they step out of line. Good practice will continue to be promoted and bailiffs should act responsibly. There is a Code of Practice and The National Standards for Enforcement Agents is currently being reviewed. Local authorities continue to specify acceptable payment amounts.

Peter stated that it was a very good point about regulation of local authorities. People in debt with tax or rent have little or no protection.

Q Meg – Money Advice Trust: It would appear that fees for tax are higher; this being after local authorities already add fees and charges – this is disproportionate. Can VAT be charged on fees or not?

A The question of VAT was echoed around the room and we understand that this is currently being considered.

Q Jane – Previously OFT/FCA: Various regulators need to improve talking to each other about reviews etc. of rules across different sectors – can they come closer to improve practices consistently?

A Peter advised that consistency is certainly required within local government – but how will regulate it?

Q Question rose about the taking of a car in certain scenarios.

A Steve advised that bailiffs can take a car unless it is on a neighbour’s drive or in a public car park. However, we are seeing less need for this action, as near 50% of debts are now receiving payments at the Compliance stage, where Notice of Enforcement is issued.

A debt advisor in the room stated that they have experienced an improvement in offers of payment arrangements (as opposed to payment in full) being accepted by bailiffs.

17    

Workshop Close

Sue Lindsay summarised by setting out that the overall feel of the workshop was that the reform has seen changes in the right direction but there are still issues around fees, negotiation, Polices and Procedures, good practice, vulnerable customers, training and accountability.

From the afternoon workshop, we explored some comparison with the Scottish enforcement regime and considered whether there are lessons to be learned. We think that regulators should work more closely together to improve consistency.

Sue finalised the workshops by thanking all delegates for attendance and valuable contributions.

B. “Debt Advice- panacea or sticking plaster- does it work in

practice?”

Presenters: Lee Usher, Debt Advice Manager, Customer Assistance Strategy, Customer Operations, UKAR Chilli Reid, Head of Development and Policy, AdviceUK Facilitator: Nick Bussey, Director of Business Development, ClearStart Scribe: Keith Osborne, Counsellor, Heath & Wellbeing, Metropolitan Police & representing The South East Discussion Forum

The style of the workshop was very much in the ethos of MALG as a Discussion Group using short PowerPoint presentations, facilitated with questions to the audience and then an open debate to finish.

Lee Usher opened as follows:

Before I begin sharing views on this subject, it’s probably useful to provide some background to UKAR so you have an understanding of position from which I speak:

UKAR:

- was established in October 2010 bringing together the Government owned, FCA regulated businesses of B&B, MX and NRAM plc - has around 460k customers (secured, unsecured and BTL debt)

-­‐ 93% of our customers are up to date with their repayments. -­‐ are managing a closed book with no new products/services to sell and our

aim is to be excellent in Customer and Debt Management -­‐ my role is to design and deliver an effective debt advice strategy, so

what value do I see in debt advice?

Whilst we are very confident in our people and processes at UKAR, we also understand that as soon as a customer in financial difficulty ends a call with us, they may then have to

18    

negotiate similar arrangements with other creditors chasing their own repayment proposals and putting our mortgage/loan repayments at risk. I am not having a go at other creditors here, merely pointing out that creditors are not always joined up in approach to supporting customers. Therefore our view is an effective debt advice strategy can support our customer and business strategy by taking the holistic approach to resolving consumer debt problems that creditors cannot.

When considering how effective Debt Advice is, we should look at the question from different viewpoints as the response may be different depending on who you ask…

Customers, Creditors and Advice providers may have different expectations that inform their response i.e. a creditor may view the subsequent payment performance of their loan as an indicator, whereas for the customer it may be simply removing the burden of negotiating with creditors themselves.

Good customer outcomes should really drive the response to this question as an effective Debt Advice provider should achieve the best outcome depending on that customer’s needs. The outcome should not be driven by an advice provider’s funding model. As a creditor, what is normally best outcome for the customer tends to be best outcome for us. Some customers want to be debt free quickly and are accepting of any limitations insolvency may place on them whilst others may feel an obligation to repay the debt in full as soon as they are able. Good advice can help inform these decisions.

Creditors have a commercial interest in the engagement and repayment performance of a customer; we also have clear guidelines from our regulator in terms of expectations to engage customers with impartial debt advice. I'm sure many creditors also consider the PR impact of engaging effectively with the Debt Advice community. I don't shy away from talking about this if it helps better engagement with our customers in understanding we are here to help. Our biggest challenge sometimes is to engage with customers.

Debt Advice providers – support both customer and creditor needs but they also need to generate income from the process... how would you respond to the question when asked if debt advice works in practice?

Engaging customers with debt advice is not easy. Our own data shows 5% of our 1+MIA book were engaged by us with Debt Advice this year despite our Quality Assurance (QA) process illustrating 98% customers who we contacted were told of the benefits of Debt Advice. This is in part down to the fact we have already engaged many of our customers with Debt Advice since 2010 so the opportunity to refer is reducing, however, Money Advice Service Research also shows the broader picture suggesting only 17% of people struggling with debt are engaged with advice. This seems low to me, what is the panacea here?

Payment Performance is a difficult measure in my opinion. We can measure kept rates of Debt Management Plans (DMPs) easily enough but I'm uncomfortable comparing these to internal UKAR kept rates as there are too many caveats to place around this. At UKAR we see a kept rate of over 90% on unsecured and no negative movement on priority debt. Latest Money Advice Service report suggests 76% people engaged with advice reduced debt within 3mths following advice.

19    

Customer Satisfaction seems consistent with UKAR and Money Advice Service surveys. This is a significant positive result 98% UKAR and 9 out of 10 Money Advice Service.

Assessing Circumstances - In my opinion, advice providers are in a better position to assess customers’ circumstances due to impartiality / customer more willing to share info. How do we build on this? Should creditors hand over this part of the process where customers struggling with multiple creditors or are there other opportunities to consider?

Consistency in delivering outcomes – not sure all customers achieving appropriate outcomes following advice. Our own Management Information (MI) I shows big differences across the industry in % outcomes and I'd be interested in your views on this when we break out.

Reduction in debt levels – Money Advice Service research suggests customers who seek debt advice are twice as likely to move into manageable debt position. This is a great statistic but how is it achieved i.e. write off or increased repayment amounts?

Delivery Channels – number of different delivery channels available but do we as creditors explore with the customer what is best for them before engaging with debt advice?

Funding models – FCA levy on creditors managed through Money Advice Service, fairshare which not all creditors support and can be withdrawn at any time, commercial organisations generate funding around different debt solutions. Is this fit for purpose?

Customer Satisfaction – Our own MI and Money Advice Service research suggests customers are very satisfied with Debt Advice. The call handling I witnessed and time invested in customers is very impressive.

Creditor and Advice Provider engagement – Definitely improved and MALG has played instrumental role in this I believe. Still think there is lots more opportunity to be innovative and further enhance the customer experience.

Debt a Panacea or Sticking Plaster?

In my view, the answer to the question depends on:

Who you ask

Which advice provider the customer engages with

Customer commitment

As debt advice manager for UKAR, I would say yes Debt Advice works in practice when it’s done right.

Chilli Reid then gave his presentation

The title of this workshop links in my opinion very clearly back to the conference theme of “Ticking the Box on problem debt-so job done then”, with the implication that the ticking boxes probably doesn’t equate to job done at least from some perspectives. In particular, it suggests that the job might be done from the perspective of the funder or someone running a service but not necessarily job done for the client or customer.

20    

In terms of the subject of this workshop “Debt Advice-panacea or sticking plaster-does it work in practice”, I think we need to start by just making sure we understand what we are being asked to consider. First of all sticking plaster- a temporary or inadequate solution to a serious problem. If as Anthony Sharp says in his forward to the conference and I quote “Whether we are creditors, regulators or debt advisers, surely we all have the same goal-to help people out of debt?” then presumably that is not what is being sought. So a panacea- something that will solve all problems. Big ask.

Lee looked at different perspectives to the question especially with regard to does debt advice work in practice. I am somewhat unscientifically approaching it from the perspective of the debtor. Looking at the slide the debtor is the common factor and the in fact the only reason one could argue that a large number of organisations in the rectangles actually exist. I’ll come back to that in a short while.

So from the perspective of debtors what is the answer to the question? I said before that this is not scientific but in our work in N, P And C working with the free advice sector that answer is debt advice in itself can as we all know be life changing, amazing and a fantastic relief for people. Debt interventions can literally save people’s liberty, their home, their utilities and their goods. It can do amazing things. However, we learned that for a sizeable number of people debt advice, and it is debt advice which often takes place at a time of crisis, can be nothing more than a sticking plaster, however good it is, if the underlying causes are not dealt with-poor education, 'worklessness', working but in poverty, poor housing, addictions, inability to deal with the complex processes of everyday living. Where debt advice has been combined with other approaches such as support in dealing with e complex processes, sometimes mathematics, and working with people on the more serious issues that affect them, the results of a WPA can be great, but the question is about debt advice itself

Debt or Glory?

The word glory is there because I vividly remember a client of mine on their having their 5th warrant of eviction on their rented property suspended saying how glorious it felt to be free from the Sword of Damocles. I felt equally relieved. If freedom from debt, back to the forward from Anthony is what we are after, is that what people are getting? The time periods on the slide give some indication of the time some debtors are tied into repaying their debts if they behave well! The point is that it is largely about debt management. Is managing debt from any perspective the outcome that is desired especially if it lasts for years?

Back to Anthony’s forward again of “surely we all have the same goal-to help people out of debt”. Of course whether we recognise it or not, we are all part of a debt industrial complex that is staggeringly large and swallows many millions of pounds and provides many, many thousands of jobs all because someone is “unable to make a payment when it falls due”. Debt has spawned an industry as in the common factor slide that is dependent on having people in debt, falling back into debt, or getting into debt. Is it in anyone’s interest to create or aim for the panacea?

Debt advice can have a dramatic effect on people; as I said earlier it can be life changing, dramatic and act as a catalyst for changing behaviour. Debt advice however, on its own in many cases will have limited impact. For a few, that is all that is needed, for many though it

21    

can never be more than a sticking plaster that will eventually fall off if everything else remains equal. Debt advice in conjunction with other actions can have longer term impact…..

I will end and open the debate by posing the following questions:

• Should Debt Advice be a panacea? • If so, who achieves it? • If the answer to the first question is no what should debt advice be?

DEBATE SESSION(s)

Nick Bussey opened this session by inviting comment from the audience

Andrew Smith from the Debt Resolution forum felt that we should be ashamed that less than 1 in 5 seek help and that a “cruel to be kind approach needed to be adopted.

Sim IIyas felt that debt advice could not possibly be a panacea, (a view much repeated) and that low income clients were likely to be repeat customers.

Keith Osborne added that it is not just low income clients who are repeat customers and that dealing with the underlying issue was required to help clients deal with debt.

Nick Pearson stated that in his experience of 35 years there is no silver bullet and the question of getting more people to come through the doors for advice remained a big challenge.

He added that it is a sticking plaster; however it is a high quality one.

Sarah Williams made the point that other areas should play a role, for example Housing Associations.

This also raised the concern that other areas who could offer support are under pressure due to cuts in funding and other resources.

Lee Usher wondered if we are too solution focussed and need to have a more holistic approach.

Nick Bussey raised the question should financial capability be part of money advice and Chilli Reid commented that toxic targets can often be a problem for this approach.

Christians Against Poverty said they had successfully used the approach of including financial capability in debt advice and that 96% of clients remained debt free.

Robert Skinner added that measured, not toxic targets helped to deliver consistent quality of advice and supported funding opportunities.

22    

SUMMARY OF POINTS MADE

• Debt Advice is not a Panacea • Debt Advice is a good quality Sticking Plaster • Good Quality Sticking Plasters often need to be re-applied • Targets are necessary and can be helpful, it all depends on what the targets are • Targets need to be more holistic • Underlying issues need to be addressed to lower the amount of repeat clients • Underlying issues needed the support of other services, however these are all under

threat • Engagement of clients is an issue, once they get to the right person they get good

advice, however the winning of clients “hearts and minds “ is an on-going difficulty • Financial Capability should be included in Debt Advice and seems to add value to

both adviser and client • Early intervention is key, however most clients engage at the “heart attack” stage

CONCLUSION

The workshop stimulated a great debate and in many ways there were more questions than answers. However it also demonstrated that there is a high quality of debt advice available with several good initiatives in place. Further it demonstrated how both Advisers and Creditors are working together for the common good of our clients.

C. “Household budgets have substantially changed over recent years- what now determines affordability? “

Presenters: Claire King, Insight Manager, Money Advice Trust Jane Tully, Head of Insight and Engagement, Money Advice Trust Martin Roseweir, Managing Director, Allied International Credit Facilitator Yvonne MacDermid OBE, Chief Executive, Money Advice Scotland Scribe: Vanora McCullagh, Creditor Liaison Manager, Debt Advisory Line and representing The Midlands Discussion Forum

Yvonne introduced the speakers and explained that they would talk about how household budgets have changed in recent years and what they look like presently and of course how the industry has changed to adapt and what this means for all of us.

Jane began by highlighting some current trends.

23    

She explained how inflation has outstripped wages and how current trends show we have the highest real time pay-cuts since the 1920s. And although we are led to believe that unemployment is reducing, the creation of new jobs is mainly in part time, self- employed and zero hour contracts; 50% of job growth in the first half of 2014 is in low paid jobs compared to 20% in 2008. Unemployment will also need to reduce much more to see any genuine wage rises. Jane asked the question is this just a phase or is it the new ‘normal’ that we will see in the future.

She also looked at the rising costs of living, in particular at rent and mortgage and some expected future trends. Between 2008 and 2040 private rent costs are expected to rise by 90%, way above inflation.45% of 25-34 year olds live in private rented accommodation. The cost of private rented accommodation amounts to around 40% of private renter’s wages (compared to 20% costs on a mortgage). However those with mortgages are also feeling the squeeze with a mortgage costing an average of £133 per week five years ago compared to £187 today, and, this is with the record low interest rates which are only set to rise in the future.

Claire then went on to explain how this has changed the debt landscape with increasing numbers of people not just experiencing income shocks such as unemployment but that there are more visible and long term deficits appearing in household budgets causing more systemic long term problems. Calls to National Debtline have reduced on standard debt issues such as credit cards and loans but are increasing in areas such as council tax, rent and household bills and this is very worrying as these are areas which cannot continue to be squeezed without consequences. Over 50% of those in the lowest 5% income categories have no household insurance as they simply cannot afford it.

The importance of looking at budgets was discussed and how this can help with opening up communication, helping people to understand where they are spending money and if and where this can be saved. It also shows where there is genuinely no capacity for any spare money to pay debts and so leads to the bigger question of how we assess budgets.

Money Advice Trust currently support and update the CFS (Common Financial Statement). This is recognised throughout the industry and can be used by debt advisors under license to calculate household expenditure. They have also been involved in the discussions with Money Advice Service and StepChange Debt Charity on a new SFS (Single Financial Statement) which aims to replace CFS and all the various guidelines used in the industry with one set. The aspiration would be that this could be used for all purposes and all agencies including the courts and local government. Claire emphasised it would be really good to understand what everyone else thought about the SFS proposals.

Martin then explained how things had changed in particular in his organisation but also across the debt collection and creditor industry. He felt this was not just a change because of FCA and increased regulation but had been already ongoing because those within collections understood the need to develop treating customers fairly in all their interactions. By developing trust and open channels of communication and understanding when customers could no longer meet their credit commitments they would be able to support those in genuinely very difficult circumstances. He advised that his company would not agree to take any payments from customers where it was clear from the income and

24    

expenditure assessment that they could not afford to pay anything and would instead refer them on for free debt advice and support.

Discussion then opened out to the floor and some really good debate ensued, I have bulleted some of the issues discussed below:

• SFS was wholeheartedly welcomed and the value of having a single tool was acknowledged by everyone. When discussing the categories of spending proposed in the consultation smoking was raised by several participants and the audience were subsequently asked to vote on their views of the new smoking category. Over 90% were against having a separate listing for smoking and a similar number in favour of having a savings element included.

• Views were shared on what sustainability looked like and the general consensus was that for both the customers and the creditor/collector it should mean that the payment offer could be kept to and was therefore realistic and affordable.

• All felt that the government was not doing enough to change social policy to stop people falling into these debt traps and look at how more people were on zero hour contracts and increasingly having no or fluctuating disposable incomes making putting offers of repayment in place very difficult.

• Discussion occurred on how we had not really seen the full extent of benefit changes and that with the rollout nationally of Universal Credit then things were likely to become much worse. Concerns were raised on the under 25’s and the housing benefit and general financial support restrictions now in place.

• It was asked if there were plans to include in the SFS a decision on how to calculate payment offers, pro rata based on balance of debts or based on contractual amount due for example.

• It was also suggested that the SFS should be made available as a self-help tool and so be user friendly for anyone to use, not just debt advisors.

• Encouraging secured lenders and local authorities to accept the new SFS (and in the meantime the CFS) in the same way that other creditors do is seen as especially important given the number of clients now struggling with these debts.

 

D “Creditors and advisers do now talk together-job done then?” Presenters: Peter Munro, Head Of Business Development – Creditors, PayPlan David Easterby, Head of Consumer Servicing, Idem Capital Facilitator: Darryl Matthews, Group Head of External Relations, Harrington Brooks Scribe: Phill Holdsworth, Proprietor of Phill Holdsworth Consulting and representing The North East Discussion Forum

25    

Both the morning and afternoon sessions of this workshop were well attended and good discussions ensued. Both workshops started with introductions from each speaker, which included the adviser and creditor perspective on the above title.

Peter Munro, covered the advisor perspective and started with the matter of ‘talking IS progress’, alluding to the ‘Bridging the Divide conference in 2008 where it was clear to him that advisers and creditors still did not speak to each other very well, or in some cases not at all. He believes we have come a long way and it’s is credit to the work of MALG, the regulators and everyone else on both sides of the divide playing their part to produce such a positive climate we are now enjoying. David added to this with the fact that advisers and creditors always had to talk but now it is more about how they communicate with each other. Before creditors didn’t know what advisers did and advisers didn’t understand the credit industry and believed the controls were lacking. Today, it would appear, in the main, we all have a greater understanding and are able to trust more.

Peter pointed out that ‘collections’ is a lot less sausage factory and more tailored according to customer needs. Creditors appear to be putting debt advice more centre stage and are developing specialist teams that can deal with the vulnerable, i.e. mental health, etc. Reciprocal visits are now helping each side of the industry to understand the processes involved and referrals are becoming more targeted including follow through, focusing on outcomes. Creditors are learning to understand the debtor circumstances and that those who seek debt advice have greater success in sticking to the debt solution due to greater engagement.

Both Peter and David gave an overview of their respective organisations journey and the work done to facilitate a better relationship between adviser and creditor. David mentioned the investment his organisation has made in giving staff time to help them understand the adviser world and what they are dealing with. Also encouraging staff to visit advisers, listen into calls and understand adviser and debtor issues. The value of these reciprocal visits has meant changes to processes that have promoted efficiencies on both sides including the development of 3rd party teams that deal with the money & debt advice organisations. This has helped with communication uniformity. Both agreed that there is still much more to be done but the landscape looks promising.

In both workshops we then went into an open discussion where the panel fielded both questions and comments from the floor, Darryl Matthews managed this very well.

Some of the subject areas that were covered in both workshops were:

• Look at the debtor situation as a whole not just the one debt in question with regulated DMP’s being the way forward.

• We seem to be heading towards more people being able to do their own debt solution but recognise that some still need that in-depth support.

• Advisers need a wider dialogue with debtors beyond debt solutions.

• Public sector and council tax debt, people do need advice to tackle these.

26    

• More discussion needed around those debtors with fluctuating incomes.

• Advisers need to provide more information around debtor circumstances to help better-informed decisions being made by creditors.

• Still need to improve relationships between adviser, debtor and creditor.

• There was a concern that with greater communication companies could fall foul of the competition rules but this wasn’t felt to be as big a problem given the right kind of communications.

• There was a comment that the regional MALG fora do facilitate good dialogue between advisers and creditors and as such each part of the industry should be encouraged to take better advantage of this, more should be encouraged to attend.

• What sectors would we want to encourage around the table? Public sector and Telecoms. A comment “don’t sell or pass out debts that are on a plan!” It was stated that there had been a huge contraction in multiple changes on who collects debts

• Regulation changes have encouraged the need to support one another by informing the regulator, which creditors won’t accept weekly payments for those debtors who are paid weekly.

• Are notes on financial statements being read by creditors, sometimes this can be very frustrating for advisers.

• Real issues with telecommunications not being willing to engage and also show forbearance.

• FCA dissuades creditors from contacting debtors who have engaged with debt advice and encourages greater communications with 3rd party; this is proving difficult for the many Citizens Advice Bureaux around the country due to cases being closed once initial communications have been made.

• Now is the time of heightened opportunities to influence positive change, creditor to adviser and adviser to creditor.

Close of Conference

After delegates had completed their choice of workshop in the afternoon, Paul Lewis invited us all to return to the conference hall for the usual summation and thanks to our event hosts, organisers and contributors. With tweets echoing these warm sentiments to our digital audience, we progressed to a very welcome drink in the library, which could only be enjoyed in person! In 2015, the MALG Conference will take place on Wednesday November 25 2015 at The Royal College of Physicians,11 St Andrews Place, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4LE.

Emma Bryn-Jones, Founder and Director, Zero-credit Limited

27    

The following is a summary of the quantitative feedback from the Evaluation Forms received after the event. Thanks to those who contributed them. The winner of the free prize draw was Ingrid Samuels of Union of Brunel Students

EVALUATION FORM

MALG Annual Conference & Exhibition – 19th November, 2014

“Ticking the box on problem debt – so job done then?”

NOTE – the following summary is based upon 77 returns received (5 of which were ‘anon’) although not all delegates answered all questions

Excellent Good Average Fair Poor

Paul Lewis, Conference Chair 64 (85%) 11 (15%)

- - -

Points of View Panel Session 33 (47%) 35 (49%)

3 (4%) - -

Workshop A: “Who has benefited from the April Bailiff Reforms and have we seen aggressive bailiffs disappear for good?”

8 (32%) 14 (56%)

3 (12%) - -

Workshop B: “Debt Advice- panacea or sticking plaster- does it work in practice?”

19 (42%) 17 (38%)

8 (18%) 1 (2%)

-

Workshop C: “Household budgets have substantially changed over recent years- what now determines affordability?”

20 (44%) 19 (42%)

6 (14%) - -

Workshop D: “Creditors and advisers do now talk together – job done then?”

8 (37%) 12 (55%)

1 (4%) - 1 (4%)

Keynote Speaker: Zach Lewy – Arrow Global

50 (74%) 15 (22%)

3 (4%) - -

Post conference reception 19 (56%) 13 (38%)

2 (6%) - -

28    

General – use the sections below this table for additional comments if appropriate

Excellent Good Average Fair Poor

Accessibility within venue? 43 (61%) 26 (37%)

2 (2%) - -

Venue easy to reach? 49 (68%) 21 (29%)

2 (3%) -

-

Ambience/Atmosphere 51 (71%) 19 (26%)

2 (3%) - -

Refreshments 47 (71%) 16 (24%)

3 (5%) - -

Lunch 40 (55%) 27 (37%)

4 (6%) 1 (1%)

1 (1%)

Helpfulness of RCP staff 43 (61%) 27 (38%)

1 (1%) - -

P.A. System/IT 45 (64%) 24 (35%)

1 (1%) - -

Conference administration 59 (81%) 13 (18%)

1 (1%) - -

Delegate Packs 59 (81%) 14 (18%)

1 (1%) - -

Exhibition 41 (55%) 27 (37%)

6 (8%) - -

Were you made welcome on arrival? 54 (74%) 15 (21%)

4 (5%) - -

How was the format of the day? 50 (68%) 18 (25%)

5 (7%) - -

How do you rate this conference overall? 53 (73%) 20 (27%)

- - -