FCA warns "Debt Packagers" about poor debt advice to enter IVAs

On 5 October, the FCA wrote a Dear CEO letter saying:

We have undertaken a review of a small sample of debt advice provided by Debt Packager firms and are very concerned about the poor standards we have seen…

The FCA then asks the CEO to review:

your quality of debt advice;
the firm’s identification and treatment of vulnerable customers;
financial promotions, and
systems and controls.

What is a Debt Packager?

A “Debt Packager” is a firm authorised to give debt advice but which doesn’t provide the debt solutions themselves, they advise a customer on the best debt solution and then refer (or signpost) the customer to a suitable firm to provide that solution. Where this is a referral, the Debt Packager provides information on the client to that firm and gets a fee for this.

The size of the fee depends on what solution is being advised. The fees for an IVA are normally a lot larger than for a DMP, and no fees at all are paid for DRO or bankruptcy referrals.

As a result, many Debt Packagers make most, in some cases probably almost all, of their money from recommending IVAs. They are effectively IVA Lead Generators.

The problems with IVA Lead Generators

Lead Generators have a very important role to play in the advice process. As the Insolvency Service has said in its recent report on IP regulation:

The initial conversation is crucial in helping to determine the course of action chosen by the debtor.

People in debt need good advice on their options, otherwise they will take the first solution offered, particularly if it sounds very tempting.

In 2016, Money Advice Trust said:

we are now seeing a worrying growth in lead generation companies solely passing on leads to IPs for IVAs, which is a course of action that neatly bypasses FCA scrutiny. This could easily result in a much less rigorous or holistic debt advice process being carried out, and the exacerbation of a new trend in possibly unsuitable IVA products being sold to clients with lower incomes and lower available income.

In my article that year on unauthorised IVA Lead Generators I looked at how lead generators often gave too positive an impression of IVAs and too negative impression of other debt options.

In 2017, IVA numbers continued to grow and so has the concern that IVAs are being mis-sold to people who would have qualified for a DRO or who, with better advice, may have chosen to go bankrupt, see 2017 Insolvency Statistics – the real story.

But since 2016 some previously unauthorised IVA Lead Generators have chosen to become authorised, either directly by the FCA, or as an Appointed Representative (AR). So has the additional FCA scrutiny not resulted in improved advice?

The problems described in the Dear CEO letter

The Dear CEO letter says:

[higher fees for IVA referrals] may create a conflict with a key requirement of our rules which requires that staff (whether
employees, agents or appointed representatives (ARs)) are not incentivised to provide advice that:

does not have regard to the best interests of the customer, or is not appropriate to the
customer’s individual circumstances, or
is not based on a sufficiently full assessment of the customer’s financial circumstances.

We expect you to ensure that you are putting customer interests at the heart of the business to achieve the right outcomes…

make a sufficiently full assessment of the customer’s circumstances to ensure that the advice provided is appropriate
ensure that your staff have the necessary skills, knowledge and expertise to provide advice
ensure that vulnerable customers are identified and receive appropriate support throughout their customer journey
ensure that the financial promotions and customer communications used by your firm, its employees and its agents are clear, fair and not misleading.

The Annex to the letter gives more details including the need for firms:

to provide not misleading descriptions of the different debt options;
to assess reasonably foreseeable changes in customers circumstances so the advice given is likely to be sustainable;
to provide advice in a durable medium and allow sufficient time for the customer to consider it before taking a decision;
to not unfairly incentivise staff – advice has to be in the best interest of the customer.

Some examples of these problems

The FCA letter doesn’t give examples, but here are some of my thoughts :

if a website looks like an advert for IVAs, it is misleading. This includes having no information about debt solutions apart from IVAs; having the majority of the home page of a website devoted to IVAs, and only providing testimonials for IVAs;
it is misleading to highlight an advantage or disadvantage of one debt solution and not mention if that also applies to other debt solutions. So if your website says you cannot borrow more than £500 in a DRO without informing the lender, it should also point out that you cannot borrow more than £500 in an IVA without the agreement of your IP;
it is misleading to suggest that IVAs may have a less detrimental effect on a customer’s credit rating than bankruptcy or DROs (eg “However, compared to other arrangements such as bankruptcy – which leaves a mark on your credit file for up to six years – it may not be quite as impactful”);
it is misleading to suggest that IVA monthly payments will always be affordable;
a separate assessment should be made for each member of a couple;
debt advisers and websites should not play on people’s fears (eg “For many people, an IVA is the preferred solution as it enables them to avoid bankruptcy and all the unsettling consequences that come with it.”);
what are facts may require more explanation so they are not misleading (eg for bankruptcy “you will hand over all rights to your personal belongings (assets) to a ‘Trustee’. It’s the Trustee’s job to oversee the sale of your assets”.) It is a debt adviser’s job to try to dispel any myths and explain how bankruptcy may be better for some clients;
firms should provide useful information and signposting about the ways a client could get the necessary bankruptcy fee;
debt advisers need to be aware that disability costs are routinely taken into account in DROs and bankruptcy so a customer with an assessed IVA monthly payment of over £50 on an IVA basis may still qualify for a DRO or pay no IPA/IPO in bankruptcy;
debt advisers should ask questions about possible changes over the next five years – need to move house? retire? lose benefits? support a child at uni? car finance ending? etc;
IVAs should not be sold as a quick and simple way of avoiding problems with bailiffs without detailed consideration of the other alternatives.

Phone call recordings need to be listened to by the FCA

The Dear CEO letter says baldly that:

We have concerns that this business model has the potential to cause harm to customers.

Many of the examples above relate to websites. These should be simple and quick to correct and it’s easy for a regulator to check it has been done.

But in practice, most of the harm probably comes through phone calls. These are the single most important part of the process. A good debt adviser will be alert to any signals about vulnerability; will not coach people into giving “suitable” answers when completing an I&E; does not treat the call as a sales process.

Given the seriousness of the FCA’s concerns and the potential detriment to consumers sold an IVA where they have a better debt option available, it seems to me to be essential that the FCA should be systematically listening to call recordings as part of its supervision process.

I don’t think it can be left to authorised firms to regulate their ARs – they have a financial incentive to spend as little effort as possible in doing this and to decide the AR is doing a good job. I think the FCA needs to supervise all firms doing business as Debt Packagers directly.

A welcome move by the FCA

I think the Dear CEO letter is a very important and welcome move by the FCA. Unregulated IVA lead generators have a huge potential for causing harm to people in debt. But authorisation by the FCA does not by itself solve these problems, that requires effective supervision and enforcement of the provisions in CONC. This Dear CEO letter is a warning shot to the firms that the FCA is focussed on these problems and will act to prevent them.

Comments

John says
October 9, 2018 at 9:29 am

I was in an IVA and was told to lie about some of my debts! They said just say this is 30 a month instead of 150.
They said this was because if it was more than 75% written off I wouldn’t get it.
This led to serious problems with me trying to pay it each month as I was always struggling and it had to get extended for another year

Michael Peoples says
October 9, 2018 at 9:34 am

There are valid concerns about some packagers but they do provide access to IPs which debtors would normally not be able to do themselves. They would be left with no assistance at all or be put into some pointless long term DMP as very few people in financial trouble will contact an IP directly. They fear the name ‘insolvency practitioner’ and are afraid of up front fees despite the fact that this is a myth in most cases.

Regardless of where the debtor is referred we always effectively start from scratch anyway. If all IP firms did this and did not take the recommendations of the packager then there would be much less of a problem. Ultimately it is the IP and their firm who are giving the advice and if this contradicts what was said by the packager then the IP must do so. It should always come down to best advice and sometimes only the IP can do this properly.

It is in no one’s interest to put debtors into unaffordable IVAs as they are prone to failure anyway.

- Sara (Debt Camel) says
  October 9, 2018 at 9:42 am
  
  I agree that in IP starting from scratch is a good move, but it still leaves the major issue that it is the first conversation leaves a lasting impression. If you are told that an IVA is the best option for you and it will be simple and affordable, people already “know” that is what they want when they talk to an IP and either tune out or don’t pay much attention to what the IP says.
  
  The debt packagers have to provide an unbiased assessment of the different debt options, not just a quick check that someone may be suitable for an IVA – that is not debt advice.
  
Nick says
October 9, 2018 at 1:56 pm

I share Sara’s concerns about IVAs and welcome the close attention FCA is now giving to debt advisers and managers, most of whom have a murky record and I doubt are often acting in the best interests of their customers. Some years ago a disastrous combination of circumstances meant that I had to default on about £75K of credit and for a year my income was irregular and uncertain as I was self-employed doing consulting work. Bankruptcy would have been the financially sensible choice, but I work in FCA regulated firms, need to be an FCA approved director, and having a bankruptcy on my file was not an option, and an IVA would also have had to be disclosed. While the usual advice is to engage with creditors, I acted on the principle that you can’t get blood out of a stone and simply ignored them for a year or two. When I was back in high income employment, I wrote to my creditors and offered them 35% in full and final settlement. After lengthy and tough negotiations, all accepted payment of between 35% and 50%. This may not be the route for all, as you have to be tough and bloody minded, and in the course of it I had to make numerous formal complaints about the processes of the FCA-regulated lenders and debt collection agencies, but people in general I think overestimate to power of the debt collectors, and if you persevere and make yourself a nuisance they will in my experience accept something as better than nothing.

Alan McIntosh says
October 10, 2018 at 3:28 pm

Thinking about similar issues in Scotland:

The FCA are looking at a specific market and practices that relate to that market, the IVA market.

The letter also follows on from the excellent Insolvency Service Review of the Insolvency Market which helped raise a lot of concerns regarding these practices. The Insolvency Review only looked at the IVA market as they have no jurisdiction over the Scottish Protected Trust Deed market, which is devolved and regulated by the Accountant in Bankruptcy and ultimately by the Scottish Government.

Serious concerns been raised about the Scottish market similar to those being raised by the Insolvency Service Review, however, the AIB have not recently carried out a similar review to that carried out by the Insolvency Service. I suggest if they did and approached the FCA, similar concerns would be raised by them.

As it is, in reality, the FCA concerns that have been raised in relation to the IVA market are as applicable to the Scottish Market and as the firms involved are operating in both markets, the concerns that have been raised by the FCA are likely to apply equally to Scotland. If it leads to improvements then these will apply to Scotland also.

FCA warns “Debt Packagers” about poor debt advice to enter IVAs