The issue raises the debate whether or not the court procedures relating to debt collection should be reviewed. Aspects identified include simplifying the language and presentation of the summons, notice of appearance to defend and cutting down the procedures relating to pre-trial conferences and submission of issues to the court.
A significant number of stakeholders are against the idea of debt collectors going to court to represent creditors. However, some feel that the court procedures should be reviewed and made more user friendly for the sake of all and not just for debt collectors. It is suggested that debt collectors should be allowed to purchase debts from creditors provided that the cession is communicated to the debtor.
Some have argued that legal practitioners should not have a monopoly over issuing court process on debt collection matters. They argue that harassment type debt collection can only be eased if debt collectors are allowed to appear in court on behalf of creditors.
Those against the idea suggest debt collectors should not be allowed to usurp the duties and privileges of the lawyer by appearing in court. They argue that almost all debt collectors never went through the degree training program for lawyers and do not have the expertise relating to court procedures. Further that, if they wish to so represent then they should join law school.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.