What part of the process don't you like? It actually seems pretty reasonable to me. It sucks for those who end up on a list due to mistakes - but there isn't going to be a scenario where that doesn't happen however the system is set up. Unless paying back debt is done on an honour system I suppose.
Corporations dedicated to, essentially, harassment is much better than the first obvious alternative, which is having officials involved. If the police think you've done the wrong thing they generally won't be dissuaded by a certified letter.
my perception is that its less about it being "perfectly ok to harass" and more about it being a fact that mistakes happen, and the means for correcting such mistakes is not unreasonably difficult.
of course if you have an alternative idea please share.
When "mistakes happen", the companies who make those mistakes should be penalized, and the pain should be severe enough that they are incentivized not to make mistakes.
> And demanding payment for debts without harassment.
That'll look pretty much the same as what they are doing now. People who take money on the basis that they will do a thing in the future should then do the thing. If they can decide not to do the thing and walk away with the money then the situation gets a bit silly.
Persistently asking for the money back is about as mild a recourse as possible. The hoop-jumping to make them stop is horrible for people who get caught up by mistake, but is not that terrible.
The alternative is magistrates and lawsuits. That would be much worse. Getting into to a fight with the tax office when they mistakenly think you owe them money would be much worse.
The problem isn't that they're asking for payments, it's that they're demanding payments when they don't actually have any evidence that any are due, which is why they simply disappear when asked for any evidence, for a while anyway.
The problem is 1) when people act in good faith and assume the debt is actually real and just pay, 2) people who might be afraid that things escalate and pay to "avoid trouble", and 3) the fear that it might negatively affect your credit score. The power imbalance is very real.
When a debt collecting agency sends you a bill, this is essentially it's an accusation that you didn't fulfil your responsibilities and duties. I don't know about you, but I tend to make pretty darn sure that I'm right when I accuse of someone, especially if it's a very specific accusation.
While mistakes can surely be made with the best of efforts, it's the debt collector's responsibility to correct any, rather than just shrug and ignore any rebuttals.
Of course, that's not in their financial interests (quite a few debt collecting agencies "buy" outstanding bills and try to make a profit from collecting them).
It's not my responsibility to prove I don't need to pay something; the burden of proof is completely reversed; eBay has been harassing me for years for an £18 alleged "debt" where I have already explained in great detail and with great patience why it's erroneous, but they don't listen: they simply don't reply and then send a new message as if I'm talking to a wall. I had to block a whole bunch of email addresses and phone numbers, instead.
> The alternative is magistrates and lawsuits.
"Oops, sorry, looks like I don't actually have a bill from AT&T which says you owe anything!"
All DCAs buy past-due amounts for pennies on the pound/dollar. By the time they get to a DCA the sums have been written off by the original lender. So if the DCA can persuade a creditor to pay up in full, they're making a lot of money.
As for the law - in the UK debts are a civil not a criminal matter. So unless there's been obvious flagrant fraud they end up in county court before a judge, not a criminal court before a magistrate.
Consumer orgs like the Consumer Action Group (https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/) and Legal Beagles (https://legalbeagles.info) who make it their business to offer free legal information for anyone being chased for debts, whether "reasonable" or not, with a view to avoiding a court case, getting the best possible result, or - in some cases - winning compensation for unfair/unreasonable claims and DCA/bailiff actions.
It's not unusual for lenders to have poor record keeping. People who keep original paperwork have found that some DCA "proof of debt" is entirely fake, assembled as required, with a creditor's signature copied from recent correspondence.
It's hard to feel any sympathy for an industry that operates like this.
I found that consumer protection in the UK in general is pretty terrible or non-existent, and that organisations (both private and government) treat consumers/citizens rather harshly, to put it mildly. At least compared to my native country of the Netherlands. I don't know why there's such a culture of that :-/
Corporations dedicated to, essentially, harassment is much better than the first obvious alternative, which is having officials involved. If the police think you've done the wrong thing they generally won't be dissuaded by a certified letter.