Leaving debt resolution to individual creditors and 'case by case' arrangements is a recipe for disaster, writes Bill Hobbs
Most people have no idea of how to plan a way out of unaffordable
debt. Even where they access information and advice, they will not have the expertise
and skill to negotiate with their many lenders.
Convened last week to consider the Keane report on mortgage
arrears, Social Protection Minister Joan Burton’s stakeholder forum heard from
consumer protection advocates of the urgent need to adopt an integrated
approach to resolving the consumer debt crisis.
They maintain that as mortgage
debt cannot be dealt with in isolation, any consumer protection response must
deal with all debts. Participants also highlighted how, despite the Central
Bank’s mortgage arrears resolution process and improved consumer protection
codes, lenders are treating indebted consumers as wallets to be sweated to
maximise loan repayments. If the intention is to ensure fair treatment, it
seems that regulatory codes and supervision are not having the desired effect.
Government’s response to the consumer debt crisis needs to appreciate
the totality of consumer protection solutions needed. While the Keane report
recommended the establishment of an “independent mortgage advice function”
which would “advise and support mortgage holders in assessing their options”,
its response falls far short of the protection supports required. Critically it
failed to frame its solutions within a properly constructed debt mediation approach
through which people are ensured fair treatment and proper standards of
customer care by their lenders.
This is to be expected as one of the problems experts have
is they cannot know what ordinary people don’t know. Because financial and
legal experts know too much they cannot put themselves in a position of knowing
nothing and will always assume people are more skilled than they are. Most
people do not have the experience or competence to assess their financial
situation. Nor do they have the skills to propose the solutions needed and they do
not have the bargaining power or status to negotiate agreements with their many
lenders. They are, in effect, powerless and acutely exposed to lenders' exploitative behaviour within a non-transparent system that accommodates
bankers’ insistence on a “case by case” approach.
Can all bankers be trusted to treat people fairly and
equitably and not to favour some over others? There are indications that some
banks would welcome a “total debt” mediation and settlement system that they
can themselves can rely on.
It makes absolute sense that mortgage affordability cannot
be dealt with without also dealing with all other debts. The scale of debt settlements and scope of
solutions needed to work out billions in unaffordable debt and unsustainable
mortgages is seen in what little data is being made publically available. With
banking and credit union consumer expected loan losses amounting to over €13bn, chances
are that close to 100,000 people will need to arrange over well over 300,000
debt settlement agreements with dozens of creditors that include not only banks
and credit unions but revenue, utility companies and local authorities.
Leaving debt resolution to individual creditors and their
“case by case” arrangements is a recipe for a social and economic crisis. It’s
in Government’s, lenders, other creditors and consumers best interests that a
transparent system is established through which people can arrange to settle
their debts and creditors can face up to the business of debt settlement.
Consumers will be best protected by a dedicated, expert debt
advice and resolution system that proposes and achieves debt settlement
arrangements and agreements on their behalf. Such a system would see competent,
experience, qualified advisors proposing and agreeing realistic mortgage
solutions and other personal debt settlement arrangements with a consumer’s
creditors. Properly structured this approach would ensure fair treatment and
high standards of customer care. It would also integrate with the state’s new
insolvency regime which will see a legally enforceable non-court based debt
settlement regime through which people will earn a fresh start after a short
period of time. Indications are this regime will include for mortgage debt and
allow a fresh start after three years.
The focus of a debt advisory and resolution service should
be on establishing and mediating sustainable agreements and getting lender’s
agreement on these. It should also be a consumer protection advocate with the
status and muscle to get banks and others to treat people fairly and ensure
best practice in consumer protection.
But such a system cannot be shoe-horned
into existing state supports as they are not designed to provide the scale and
depth of expert based service required. Many observers consider existing services
have become captive of banker’s interests.
Any new national debt advice and settlement mediation
service will have to be built as a new service and not a bolt-on to existing
service providers. It should also have the reputational standing and status of
a senior stakeholder with powers to ensure fair treatment.
A version of this article appeared in the Irish Examiner, Business Section, Monday 14th November 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment