E-bulletins and publications
-
-
Trust account requirements – 12/12/08
-
Debt collector prosecuted – 22/05/08
-
E-bulletins
Trust account requirements – 12/12/08
Consumer Protection is taking this opportunity to remind licensees of the requirements of the Debt Collectors Licensing Act 1964 (the Act) in relation to the naming of trust accounts.
The definitions contained in s. 3 of the Act set out two requirements for the naming of trust accounts:
-
The title of the trust account must read “Trust account of [name of entity]”. For example: “Trust account of John Smith”. Trust accounts that have been named differently will not satisfy the requirements of the Act.
-
The name of the entity that appears in the title of the trust account must be exactly the same as the name of the entity that appears on the debt collectors licence. For example, if the licence is held by a corporation, that corporation’s name must appear in the title of the trust account.
The onus is on the licensee to ensure that their trust account conforms with the requirements of the Act.
Consumer Protection will continue to monitor the compliance of debt collectors’ trust account names as part of the licensing and renewal process and through its proactive compliance visit program.
Debt collector prosecuted – 22/05/08
Consumer Protection has recently issued the following media statement, reproduced here for the information of licensees:
Former licensed debt collector Paula Davenport of Bunbury has been fined $2000 with costs of approximately $8000 in the Bunbury Magistrates Court.
“This successful prosecution of Ms Davenport was a landmark case for Consumer Protection as it is the first time a debt collector has been found guilty of undue harassment and coercion, since the department took over regulation of debt collectors in 2005,” Consumer Protection Commissioner Anne Driscoll said.
“The penalty and significant court costs should send a clear message to the industry that intrusive and unprofessional conduct will not be tolerated,” she said.
The magistrate rejected Ms Davenport’s account of her dealings with her clients, and found instead that the number of calls and inappropriate comments in connection with attempts to recover debts with respect to goods and services was in breach of the Fair Trading Act.
Consumer Protection’s investigation had indicated that Ms Davenport had used similar practices against a number of people in the South West region.
“Bullying and intimidation is unwarranted and illegal. A debt collector’s duty is to draw the debt to the attention of the debtor and take reasonable steps to recover the debt.
“Harassing and threatening families is not on, and Consumer Protection officers will use all possible means available to ensure that the rights of consumers are protected and offenders are held responsible,” Commissioner Driscoll said.