Released every month our debt collection blog contains news, stories and tips to keep you informed.
A 19 year old teenager in West Gladstone QLD has recently discovered that causing damage to someone's property is not the correct way to recover a debt.
The teenager was attempting to recover an alleged $700 debt when he attended the address which saw him kicking a metal screen on the front door of the property before smashing a glass window and smashing a TV he found at the side of the house.
Acting Magistrate, Jason Schubert, fined the teenager a total of $1,100 and ordered him to pay $335 in compensation.
It's not the first time we have seen some Unusual Debt Collection Techniques such as those we outlined in our September 2016 issue of Debt Collection News.
Source: The Observer - September 2018
In our June 2018 edition of Debt Collection News we published our article ASIC Regulatory Guide 165 Internal and External Dispute Resolution.
Regulatory Guide 139 (RG139) now appears to be out of amended draft form and can be download here with ASIC reminding Creditors that RG139 is only in place until all current disputes with the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Credit and Investments Ombudsman have closed -
Note (20 June 2018): In the transition to the commencement of the new, single EDR scheme—the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA)—on 1 November 2018, complaints made to the FOS and CIO schemes will continue to be dealt with under the relevant scheme’s terms of reference and rules that applied when the complaint was made.
This guide provides the framework for those versions of the terms of reference and rules. It will remain in force until all those complaints are closed. At that time, we will withdraw RG 139. Regulatory Guide 267 Oversight of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (RG 267) sets out how we will perform our oversight role in relation to the AFCA scheme.
As a reminder the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) will start accepting complaints from 01/11/2018 with Creditors required to ensure that all final response letters and "delay" letters include reference to both relevant predecessor EDR schemes from 21/09/2018.
If you require clarification of the new requirements please contact Collection Law Partners on (02) 8923-1613.
A timeshare lender, Future Holiday Finance Pty Ltd (FHF) has recently been pursued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) for breaches of responsible lending practices.
FHF provides finance for the purchase of membership in ULTIQA Lifestyle which is described as a points-based timeshare arrangement with many consumers being approached by employees of FHF providing scratch cards that tells them that they've won a free holiday. After attending a seminar, which is charged at between $20 to $40, consumers were being given the chance to sign-up to a timeshare scheme to enjoy cut-rate prices at major hotels. To be eligble consumers had to agree to enter into a Contract, with what appears to be a cooling-off period of 14 days, and paying between $12,000 to over $25,000 to secure their points and pay an ongoing yearly subscription.
In the action commenced by ASIC it was found that FHF signed consumers up to loans without assessing affordability and a review of the documentation attached to the loan identified potential unfair contract terms.
FHF has been fined and paid a penalty of $135,000 in response to 3 infringement notices and has been ordered to pay up to $3 million in compensation. FHF will also review loans provided to consumers between 01/07/2012 and 30/08/2018 and will provide refunds to customers where the loan was unsuitable. The refund scheme will be overlooked by an indepdent expert who will also assess FHF's compliance with future responsible lending obligations.
In a statement released to the media, ASIC Deputy Chair, Peter Kell, said, "Timeshare finance operators must ensure that they comply with their responsible lending obligations. 'Consumers should always take the time to consider upfront and ongoing costs of timeshare, including finance, given they are a long-term commitment and can be difficult to sell."
Consumers can get more information about the refund scheme by visiting the MoneySmart website.
Source: ASIC Media Centre - August 2018
There has been some anxious times recently for body corporates who have been eagerly awaiting the decision in the Queensland Court of Appeal in Body Corporate for Mount Saint John Industrial Park Community Title Scheme 18632 v Superior Stairs & Joinery Pty Ltd  QCA 173.
In the District Court the Defendant, Superior Stairs & Joinery Pty Ltd (STJ) argued that the action by the Plaintiff, Body Corporate for Mount Saint John Industrial Park Community Title Scheme 18632 (Body Corporate), should be struck out after action was taken for the recovery of unpaid levies, recovery costs and penalty sums on the basis that the proceedings were commenced outside of the limitation period. STJ arguies that the limitation period for bringing body corporate debt recovery action was contained in Section 145 of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2008 (QLD) -
Part 4 Payment and Enforcement of Body Corporate Debts
s145 Payment and Recoery of Body Corporate Debts
(1) If a contribution or contribution instalment is not paid by the date for payment, the body corporate may recover each of the following amounts as a debt -
(a): the amount of the contribution or instalment;
(b) any penalty for not paying the contribution or instalment;
(c) any costs (recovery costs) reasonably incurred by the body corporate in recovering the amount.
(2) If the amount of a contribution or contribution instalment has been outstanding for 2 years, the body corporate must, within 2 months from the end of the 2-year period, start proceedings to recover the amount.
STJ successfully argued in the District Court that the time limit for recovery of a debt by the body corporate was 2 years and 2 months pursuant to s145(2) however the Body Corporate submitted at the time that the time limit was 6 years from the date the levy became due and payable pursuant to Section 10 of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (QLD).
The District Court agreed with STJ at the time however on appeal, the Court of Appeal, overturned the District Courts decision. In the decision Justice McMurdo, Justice Mullins and Justice Bond stated that the issue raised on appeal was not that of conflicting limitation periods but whether or not s145 prescribes a limitation period. The Justices concluded that s145 is to compel a body corporate to commence proceedings but cannot be interpreted as a limitation period and therefore s10 of the Limitiation of Actions Act is the governing legislation (ie 6 years from the date the contribution becomes outstanding).