Credit Corp On Watchdogs Name-n-Same Register!

That is not a name-and-shame register – it is an AFCA lists all credit licence holders' complaints received, with saints and sinners listed together. Also, AFCA is not the watchdog, it is an external disputes resolution (EDR) supplier – ASIC is the relevant watchdog. ASIC has not recorded any adverse findings in respect to CCP, so the Annual Report does not invent any. There are generalised comments to the contrary in the Annual Report – for example:

“Credit Corp has an impeccable compliance record and a strong reputation as a sustainable and responsible service provider. Despite being the largest and longest-established debt purchaser in Australia, we have never been the subject of a regulatory order or undertaking and have one of the lowest rates of external dispute resolution complaints in the industry.”

“We maintain the lowest number of external dispute resolution (EDR) complaints per million dollars collected in our industry as reported in the last published results by our EDR provider” [The EDR provider is AFCA]

The AFCA report informs us that from a customer base of about a million in Australia (1.6 million globally), a few hundred CCP customers lodged complaints (437 under Credit Corp Services Pty Limited, and 102 under Credit Corp Finance Pty Ltd), and most of these were resolved internally. When one considers that the PDL customer base is substantially a population of debt welchers, that is a very low percentage of complaints. Also, with the purchased debts, some of the complaints, although valid, may spring from a small percentage of debts that were dubious initially (non-collectible), and CCP only discovers this when it attempts to collect.

Panthera Finance Pty Limited has a large number of complaints (roughly the same as CCP) relative to its minuscule size compared to CCP. This suggests something may be amiss there, and also see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/debt-collection-company-in-court-over-alleged-harassment.

Many years ago Collection House (and its subsidiary, Lion Finance Pty Ltd) were taken to court for collecting on debt, or attempting to do so, in cases where the debts had passed their statutory limit of six years, and were not collectable – see https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/public-registers/undertaking/725768-1-d06_11013.pdf . Collection House has been criticised recently for being too quick to litigate, but as this seems to be its legal right, no official case against it has arisen. See https://www.copyright link/companie...m-casts-focus-on-ledger-sales-20190814-p52gz7 , and note the benign light the report shines on CCP in contrast to Collection House.

Collection House was founded by Americans, and debt collectors there are quick to litigate. Whether that cultural background set the tone for Collection House, may, or may not, be the case. CCP in contrast is attempting to take its non-litiguous culture to the US, and thus present a more customer-favourable option for US banks and utilities, and this seems to be working.