Debtfree Magazine Sept 2017

The fee guideline is sadly quiet about subsequent legal costs which may arise during
the process (Eg. recessions and amendments due to the consumer leaving the
process or annual review resulting in a new payment proposal). It also does not cover
advocates fees when defending matters at high court - for vehicle repossessions -
which may form part of the needed legal services during the lifespan of the debt
review.
Once again attorneys fees remain a tricky subject and some additional thought
might be needed in regard to the specific wording of the guideline here.
It is unclear if the NCR are purposefully trying to reduce the use of the NCT and
reduce sustainability of smaller debt review practices while pushing up costs for
consumers. The fees, as proposed, do have these effects and thus once all the
comments are in from the industry, it will be interesting to see how the NCR react.
Many other parts of the industry have also been hit by reductions in income (none
as hard as the PDAs). The negative consequences to consumers however need to
be factored in. Consumers want to deal with sustainable service providers and want
to avoid having to pay increased costs if they have to find a new service provider
half way through the process because their old one went out of business.
It would be nice to see a fee guideline which prioritises
keeping consumers in the process to its conclusion, while
educating them about credit use. All eyes now turn to the
NCR to see if they will release a second and third possible
set of guidelines, as provided to them by their research
firm or if they will factor in comments and release a revised
version of this guideline to the industry.