Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'A source for good'

A slightly unusual topic for me this week prompted by recent personal experience. I was involved with a police force at the weekend about a missing person. The details and circumstances aren't important but the police wanted to know everything I knew about the missing person who has gone AWOL many miles from home and may need help.

My wife and I shared all we knew (which wasn't much to be honest) and my wife referred the police to Facebook which included a number of friends in the area where they were looking, and had comments that might give clues as to their whereabouts. We were asked if we had a picture of the individual and we confirmed we had but pointed out that a more recent and clearer one was on Facebook.

Extraordinarily, a few minutes later we received a phone call asking if we could download the picture and email it, along with any other relevant information, because the police didn't have access to Facebook and so couldn't use that source of information! I don't know if this is common to all police forces and I don't know the detailed reasons why access is denied but - in today's age - I was incredulous that such a productive source of information couldn't be used!

I discussed the use of Facebook in tracing debtors following the release of the OFT's Debt Collection Guidance a few weeks ago and shared my view that the content of the guidance was being misrepresented by the media. We've also recently heard the ongoing debate about how social media was insufficiently monitored during the riots across the UK in the summer.

Social media is a powerful tool that can be used for good - as well as bad - but it strikes me that the potential 'dangers' of Facebook et al and sensitivities over privacy, while understandable, are getting in the way of progress. It certainly seems absurd that the police could not pursue what to me would have been a blindingly obvious line of enquiry.

Whether we like it or not, social media is here to stay and we can't just ignore it. The ICM has heavily embraced Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook because we know a proportion of our members are using them and we see many benefits.

I fear, however, that in certain cases bureaucracy is winning and the loser is someone who could really need help!

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'The changing 'Face' of Debt Guidance'

Since mentioning the publication of the new OFT Debt Collection Guidance in my blog last week, I've now had chance to look through it in detail. No great surprises; it's very similar to the draft on which we were consulted some time ago and says what I guess we'd all largely expect it to say. It is, after all, only an update of the version of the document issued in June 2003.

The aspect that seems to have caused the greatest debate on the ICM Credit Community LinkedIn group, and elsewhere, is the OFT warning to debt collectors not to use social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook to pursue people who owe them money. I don't want to be pedantic here but I'm not sure that's exactly what it says. Actually what it says is that unfair or improper practice would include 'acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor...' which includes, as one of the examples quoted 'posting messages on social networking sites in a way that might potentially reveal that an identifiable person is being pursued for the repayment of a debt'. That's a long way from banning the use of Facebook!

I might be showing my age here but I remember lecturing ICM evening classes at Watford College in the 1980's and recall teaching about s40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 which addressed the unlawful harassment of debtors and included the works: 'A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation'.

So nothing has changed really; in those days, the example of harassment was parking a van outside someone's house with the words 'debt collector' written on the side. Surely all we're talking about here is the 2011 equivalent? There's nothing wrong with using social networking tools to find people or to learn more about them but harassing people by any means is - and must be - unacceptable. Those who have seen me present using a baseball bat as a visual aid will know that such a bat is an equally unacceptable collection tool!

I am intrigued by the following words in the Foreword: 'This guidance document is not intended to provide a basis for debtors to avoid the repayment of debts duly owed. We consider that debtors should take responsibility for engaging appropriately in the debt recovery process...'. On the one hand, I am encouraged by its inclusion; on the other, the fact that they have to write these words at all makes me think that the document is weighted heavily in favour of debtors. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that taking on debt carries with it an obligation to repay it, and that should always be the starting point.

The Guidance carries considerable detail and Consumer Credit licence holders would do well to read it and ensure they, and any third party organisations working for them, are complying with it.