Informal debt-collection practices (IDCPs) designate all methods employed by a creditor for debt recovery that do not involve the judiciary or other state agents (bailiffs, sheriffs, or police officers). In other words, it is a form of private enforcement. IDCPs are rampant in practice today in all legal systems, yet they are regulated only by few. This reality appears to be independent of the legal or economic development level. For instance, out of 27 EU Member States only 9 regulate, to various extents, IDCPs.

Debt-collection agencies offer a wide range of services, ranging from self-help repossession, to purchase and collection of receivables. Subjecting them to a functional legal framework, would ensure enough mechanisms and safeguards to monitor their activities. Still, unfortunately that is not always the case, which opens the path for abuse. In the light of this proposal, abusive IDCPs refers to debt collection practices infringing the consumer-debtor’s human rights to privacy, dignity, safety, and health (including mental health) as well as economic and other legal rights.

The project aims to address a gap in legal knowledge and will contribute significantly to the foundation for appropriate policy making in the field. Through a close and fine-grained analysis, the project will:

1. assess the role and appropriateness of current consumer protection legislation in tackling the issue of abusive IDCPs in South-East Asia and Australia,
2. analyze sectorial national legislation of four South-Asian jurisdictions (where it exists) and Australia to identify policy aims, similarities and differences of various models concerning regulation of abusive IDCPs,
3. assess the role of traditional liability remedies – civil, administrative, or criminal enforcement, level of fines and damages – in solving the issue of abusive IDCPs.
4. compare findings with previous ones extracted from a pan-EU analysis to create a cross-regional picture towards a (more) global reach.