The Path Towards a Trace Code of Practice
Published Tuesday 01 July 2008
Tracing, or rather ‘mis-tracing’, continues to dominate recent debates in the industry and is an area of understandable consumer concern; stories of people being hounded for a debt they don’t owe have been widely reported, and the unscrupulous practices used by some to obtain debtor information is an issue that has to be addressed.
Yet whilst such practices can never be condoned, they should not be allowed to detract us form the fact that tracing remains an essential part of debt collection, vital to reducing the amount of ‘gone away’ debtors.
It is imperative therefore for tracing agencies to balance the challenges of tracing with the need for observing the very highest levels of professionalism and integrity, using neither subterfuge nor any method that could cause embarrassment or distress to the individual concerned.
The answer to achieving this must lie with working towards best practice, creating clear guidelines for all tracing agencies to adhere to in order to raise the perceptions and standards of the industry and eliminate rogue practices. This is where a new Code of Practice designed specifically for tracing agents is the next logical step.
Up until now, tracing has come under the wing of the existing Credit Services Association’s Code of Practice, with one or two of the points appended to tracing. This, we believe, is no longer enough.
Various methods can and typically will be deployed to ensure the accuracy of a trace: most tracing agencies, for example, will have access to commonly-available databases; accessing electoral Roll and telephone directories as a starting point, with the gathering of information having the biggest advantage.
However these methods are not foolproof. A debtor that doesn’t want to be found is a difficult person to track down. Ever more people are choosing to be ex-directory or opting out of the electoral roll (neither, it should be stated, is a crime), while more onerous compliance requirements and regulations such as the 1998 Data Protection Act result in further hindrance to a successful trace.
Whilst we would all like to believe that cheats never prosper, unfortunately at present they can. Those agencies that opt to pursue what can only be described as ‘dubious’ tracing methods not untypically report higher success rates than their more ethical colleagues. The net result, in the performance-led industry in which we work, is that they are often able to win contracts that the ethical providers cannot. This is of course grossly unfair, but a fact of life nonetheless. Until, of course, the industry decides to make a stand.
The Information Commissioners Report (ICR) two years ago highlighted a number of concerns regarding obtaining/trading in personal data by means of rogue practices such as corruption and ‘blagging’ (a more colloquial word for subterfuge). We believe that any new Code of Practice should not tell companies HOW to trace, rather HOW NOT to trace, and as such the only drawbacks will be for those who trace unethically.
Of the many advantages of a standardised Code of Practice, eliminating false reporting and ensuring that all agencies are on a level playing field is just one. Already the ICR has made banks sit up and listen, and many banks and building societies now look for DCAs to be CSA members with its self-regulating Code of Practice as it currently exists. A dedicated tracing code will certainly help to ensure that traces carried out on their behalf are fully audited and tracing procedures are above board.
But what can businesses expect from tracing agencies currently? To ensure the highest levels of accuracy and integrity, agencies should have rigorous quality checks in place, with records showing proven transparent methods and validation of information, ensuring that details should only be passed onto the client if the tracing agent is 100% sure and confident that the correct person has been found. Although not every trace will be successful, it is better to send an unsuccessful report to the client than provide them with ‘unreliable’ information that will undoubtedly prove worthless anyway.
Where help is definitely required is in eliminating certain grey areas where there is insufficient or inaccurate information, to ensure that everything is reported, in full, in black and white. At the Lewis Group for example, tracers are trained to electronically log every minute detail of a case, ensuring that all records can be accessed at the touch of a button and can be readily audited to see that a clear process has been followed.
This transparency should be standard practice, and we believe that the CSA must also be vigorously auditing to make sure standards are adhered to.
With almost 25 years in the tracing industry, I am well aware of some of the things competitors do to trace, and it is frustrating to lose tenders based solely on success rates, not on recheck rates or number of complaints. As tracing comes under increased scrutiny, now is an opportune moment for the industry to prove that ethics and accuracy can go hand in hand, and worm out any rogue traders who bring the reputation of the profession into disrepute.
Now is the moment of change, and I hope the industry seizes the opportunity with both hands.