Proposition 50K0223

Projet de loi relative au recouvrement amiable des dettes du consommateur.

General information ¶

Authors

Vooruit Magda De Meyer, Henk Verlinde

Submission date

Nov. 4, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection indebtedness

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 21, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, the CD&V will support the bill of Mrs. De Meyer and Mr. Peeters, as amended by the Government. On 27 October 1997, Mr. De Richter and Mr. Demotte submitted a bill to prohibit the recovery of debts from a consumer against payment. In other words, the activities of collection agencies would not only be subject to rules, they would even be prohibited in the case of collection by ordinary consumers. During the previous legislature, a hearing was held on the draft in the Committee for Business and the Consumer Council was asked for an opinion. That advice, by the way, was quite nuanced and very sophisticated.

From the very beginning, the attitude of the CD&V was clear. We oppose an absolute ban on the introduction of consumer debt by collection agencies. It was our conviction that this should still be possible. Our group has always broken a lance for a regulation of the profession. The cowboys had to get out. In this legislature, Ms. De Meyer and Mr. Peeters have submitted the bill again, but still with the ban on collection agencies. Today, almost 5 years after the submission of the first proposal, the CD&V finds its political position back in the present proposal. It has taken a long time. Too much too long. The Minister has long waited to give his concrete support to the bill. Today a balance has been achieved between a good legal framework that monitors the interests of, on the one hand, consumers and, on the other hand, creditors.

However, there are a few shortcomings. The first point is the civil sanctions, which are very extensive. Additionally, new administrative burdens are imposed on companies. The committee has received a letter from a BVVO who made comments on the new administrative burden arising from this bill. They expect that their file costs in the handling of damages at the family policy will increase from 2 to 3%. This is contrary to the administrative simplification that this government is constantly promoting. We assert the opposite. I invite the Minister and the applicants to give the necessary awareness of this new law. Anyone who is in any way involved with debt claims has an interest in being informed of the new regulation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the proposal against the background of the Political Manifesto for a Comprehensive Approach to Debt Overwhelming, a political dossier launched a few months ago by Welfinszorg during the campaign "Debt, who gets better of it?". In the Political Manifesto, Welzijnszorg calls for the regulation of debt collection and the banning of debt collection agencies. This proposal is aimed at this. It is one of 10 points in which organisations facing excessive debt expect to eventually ⁇ a breakthrough in the short term. With this bill this happens. That is positive. Therefore, I find it ⁇ regrettable that our plea, which we held a few weeks ago, for more information and awareness-raising campaigns to prevent excessive debt burden, for which we had even found the necessary resources, has not been heard by the majority. Our plea to structurally fund the debt observatories was not heard by the majority, not even by Mrs. De Meyer. However, this was also a point of welfare care, a point that is ⁇ important in the light of the fight against debt overload. With the approval of our amendments, we could have contributed to the preventive fight against debt overload.

We will support this bill from the opposition, because it is important for everyone and especially for those who already had debts. We do not play political games on the back of the people and on the back of those who are in an unfortunate position. We do not play it like the majority, which a few weeks ago voted out against the amendments of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, we support the proposal submitted by Mr. Verlinde and Mrs. De Meyer. We think it is time to separate the grain from the grain. I have submitted a few amendments because I remain with a few questions about this proposal.

We propose to incorporate a transitional measure in Article 3 for companies that have been carrying the word “Justice” in their name for more than 15 years. These are collection agencies that have been active for many years and which ⁇ do not intend to create confusion. For these companies, we would like to ask for an exception.

In connection with Article 7, it seemed appropriate for us to remove the words "the address and telephone number of the creditor". It is intended that the creditor would feel protected, because in the end he nevertheless delegates the debt claim to a collection agency. It does not seem to us appropriate that the debtor would harass the creditor in this. We therefore request that the aforementioned words be removed from Article 7. We propose to remove Article 14 and increase the sanctions in Article 15. In our view, Article 14 provides that the consumer can be fully exempt from his claim if the collection agency makes mistakes in the collection process. However, it cannot be intended that consumers who are in bad faith may be exempted from all debts if they find errors in the collection of the collection agency. Article 14 proposes that, where appropriate, the recovered funds should be fully refunded to the consumer, so that the collection agency would eventually have to pay the creditor. Malafide debtors may use this article to be fully exempt from their claims. Therefore, we propose to increase the penalties in Article 15 by 25% of the claim made.

In addition, we also ask whether it is possible to apply the procedure, applicable to the Law on Consumer Credit, also for this draft. Thus, the collection agency will be given the opportunity to appeal, if any, if there would be a judgment.

Mr. Bourgeois asks for the word. Mrs De Meyer, co-author of the proposal, will then be given the opportunity to speak.

I would like to congratulate the applicants on the proposal. We had a proposal that went a little further, but that was apparently not sufficiently carried out. Initially, we would move to a general ban, but nevertheless, I think this proposal has great merits. It regulates a sector where indeed many abuses are prevented.

I think it is definitely better to take a first step than to do nothing at all.

I have another small question. In the first last line of Article 14 paragraph 2 I read the term "default interests". This need not be specified further, because that term does not seem clear in the context. After all, it is not about conventional interest rates, but about the statutory interest rate. Is it not therefore better to mention it as such? I suspect that the applicants are seeking that legal interest is owed without default.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we initially had indeed opted for a ban on collection agencies, as Ms. Creyf rightly cited. However, on the advice of the Consumer Council, which represents consumers and producers, we have come back to that and have chosen to develop a regulation for the collection agencies. You will find this back in the proposal.

I would like to express my thanks to the opposition members who are willing to approve the proposal. It is important that there is a legal regime for all recovery of consumer debts that is always applicable. In addition, the consumer’s private life can no longer be violated, he can no longer be deceived and there is respect for his human dignity.

By listing the conditions that a collection agency must meet, we offer a solution to the abuses about which numerous complaints have been formulated. I think of incorrect legal threats, of incorrect mentions on a cover as if it were a legal entity collecting a debt, of the interrogation of neighbors, employers and family, and so on. The new regulation will put an end to all these abuses.

Among other things, collection agencies are required to register with the Ministry of Economic Affairs and they are at risk of cancellation if they do not meet the conditions we have stipulated in our proposal.

In my opinion, we are making a big step forward with the proposal and I welcome that the text implements point 5 of the Political Manifesto of Welfare. We ensure a better regulation of debt collection.

Let me now come up with a few comments from the members of Parliament. Of course, I was very surprised to find in the plenary meeting that the VLD group has submitted amendments that were not discussed in the committee. Meanwhile, I understood that this is due to the fact that Mr Lenssen was sick during the committee discussion. I believe that the text provides a good response to the objections expressed in the amendments.

As for the comment on the recovery company operating under the name Justitia, it is true that we reject any mixture between recovery agencies, which do nothing but mediate, and legal entities. As long as the distinction is clear, for example by making it clear on the letter that it is a letter from a collection agency and not from a judicial authority, it can be for us. If Justitia clearly indicates that it is a collection agency, then everything is okay.

However, there should be absolutely no mixing, and that was exactly the problem. Some letters did not even mention that it was a collection agency. All kinds of legal symbols make people think that the letters come from official legal bodies. The VLD submitted an amendment to not include the address and telephone number of the creditor in the first letter of the collection agency to the debtor. The preservation of this address is important. The idea comes from the mediation position of the collection agency and the actual creditor should not be forgotten. Furthermore, the debtor should continue to be able to negotiate directly with the creditor. Also for the sake of transparency and clarity, it seems to me important that the debtor knows very well what debts are concerned and who the creditor is exactly. I therefore recommend that this address be ⁇ ined.

The VLD made an important comment on Articles 14 and 15 on the punishment. We have registered a civil sanction but not a criminal sanction. There is no adjustment of criminal proceedings, because on the express request of companies we have moved to the civil sanction. It seems to me important to know that this demand comes from companies. However, there is a problem, also correctly cited by the collection agencies. The fear exists with the collection agencies that the debt would disappear due to a small formal error. However, that is absolutely not the intention. An error in the name or address of the creditor is such a small formal error. The sanction is as follows: if a collection agency has illegally acquired an inning from a debtor, the collection agency must simply return that inning to the debtor.

That sanction is heavy but does not prevent the creditor from being paid, as the relationship between the collection agency and the creditor remains, of course, stable. The creditor is paid anyway, even if the debt collection agency has already recovered only part of the debt. However, the collection agency that has committed a serious mistake must reimburse the amount to the debtor. We believe that this measure is reasonable because this civil sanction also always involves a judge. It is a civil judge or a peace judge when it comes to small amounts. The judge shall assess whether the sanction is applied or not. In my opinion, that is sufficient to guarantee that such a severe penalty is not imposed merely for small, formal errors.

Mr. Bourgeois made a comment on the concept of “default interest”, which we discussed with the Minister at the competent committee meeting. The Minister has ordered his services to re-examine this concept, as well as the legislative secretariat. Mr. Bourgeois, that is unfortunately the only answer I can give to your comment. I think sufficient legal bodies have checked the correctness of the wording. I am sorry that I cannot give a more conclusive answer.

Mrs. De Meyer, we do not want to interfere in any way, that is ⁇ not our intention. I would like to express our concern about the fact that the sanctions must be proportionate to the crime. We hope that the judge will make a correct judgment. I am willing to withdraw my amendments.