Response to Interim Report of the Financial System Inquiry
Financial Rights Legal Centre submitted a response to the Financial System Inquiry’s Interim Report with over 40 Recommendations for improving financial services in Australia. The submission focused on consumer outcomes in the insurance sector, particularly improving disclosure regimes, increasing transparency in premium pricing, implementing the recommendations in the CHOICE and Trowbridge reports and creating suitability requirements for insurance products.
The submission also comments on competition in the payments and banking sectors, payday lending, industry self-regulation, consumer compensation schemes, increased powers for ASIC and Financial Difficulty Predator Businesses.
Review of proposed changes to FOS’s Terms of Reference
Financial Rights and Consumer Action wrote a joint submission to the Financial Ombudsman Service commenting on the proposed changes to its Terms of Reference.
The submission supports the proposed new one-step lodgment process; new discretionary powers to kick out paid consumer agents; a new fast track ‘Adjudicator’ process for low value disputes; shorter objection time-frames for Outside Jurisdiction cases; increased limit for uninsured 3rd party accidents ($5000); and discretion to allow sale of asset. The submission rejects FOS’s proposal to limit its own jurisdiction for rating factors on premium/excess decisions.
Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements: Submission to the Productivity Commission
The Financial Rights Legal Centre has provided a submission to the Productivity Commission on its Issues Paper, Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements.
The key points and recommendations made in this submission are:
- Financial Rights submits that our Insurance Law Service is well-placed to act as a national insurance advice hotline and referral service in times of natural disaster.
- Consumers must be able to assess and understand their insurance coverage. The disclosure process needs to be markedly improved with research and testing to ensure consumers understand their cover and exclusions
- Independent and government funded comparison websites that compare both price and coverage are essential
- Publicly available and extensive independent information on risk (through a website) is necessary
- The NDIR review recommendations should be adopted in full, including the compulsory cover for all disaster events, premium discounting to avoid cross-subsidisation and government top ups in the event the reinsurance pool is insufficient.
- Data needs to be obtained from the insurance industry on the extent of non -insurance with the data analysed and compared to risk of natural disaster
- Consumers need disclosure about changes in pricing including compulsory disclosure of any reasons that would be relevant to a request pursuant to s. 75(1)(d) of the Insurance Contracts Act.
Access to Justice (Response to Draft Report): Submission to the Productivity Commission
Some of the key points and recommendations made in this submission are:
- Each State and Territory should fund a national referral service with a widely recognised single entry point for legal referral. However, the aim should be to evolve this national number into a multi-disciplinary team.
- We support findings by the Commission that industry ombudsmen meet legal need in a way that is fast, effective and free of charge for consumers.
- We broadly support the PC that the profile of ombudsman services should be raised, but targeting information so that it reaches people at the point they need it the most will be more effective than blanket exercises to raise awareness.
- We support the proposal to consolidate industry ombudsman schemes in appropriate cases, as long as doing so does not leave consumers without another accessible option, or reduce the level of expertise in dispute resolution.
- The PC should acknowledge that there are a broader range of scenarios in which legal representation will improve efficiency and access to justice in tribunals.
- Costs awards in lower courts should have a standard basis that is clear to parties and their advisers at the outset of litigation.
- Parties represented pro bono should be entitled to seek an award for costs. For the avoidance of any doubt it should be clarified at law that Community Legal Centres and their clients are similarly entitled to recover costs.
- We believe the lawyer acting should be the beneficiary of any cost award.
- Courts should grant protective costs orders in appropriate public interest cases, and that courts should formally outline the criteria for granting these orders. Protective costs orders should not just be available against government entities, but against private parties too.
- While there may be opportunity in alternative not-for-profit legal assistance models, we caution against any argument that self-funded services are the solution to ‘the missing middle’, or that they can replace the need for government funded services.
- We support the use of legal health checks as part of a multifaceted approach
- We suggest co-location of services and systems (like Consumer Action and CCLC’s legal and financial counselling services, together with worker advice lines) are more effective than referrals between organisations
- Emphasis in the Draft Report on the consistent application of eligibility criteria to ensure limited legal assistance funding is well targeted. However, eligibility criteria is only one part of effectively targeting services;
- Better service delivery must be informed by needs analysis. However, we submit that this analysis is best done collaboratively with services and done in a way that ensure continuous ongoing reflection on what works well for a service and why and what needs to be improved;
- We emphasise the value of strategic advocacy and law reform activities by CLCs and LACs. CLCs play a key role in identifying and acting on systemic issues and these activities are an efficient use of limited resources.
Inquiry into Debt Recovery in NSW: Submission to the NSW Legislative Assembly
Consumer Credit Legal Centre has made many prior submissions to the NSW Attorney General department regarding debt collection. We are disappointed that despite apparent support for many of our proposals, none of our recommendations were ultimately implemented. NSW currently has the lowest protections for debtors, well below the equivalent statutory protections in other jurisdictions. Summary of Recommendations in this submission:
- Debtors should be provided with notice when a court judgment is entered, and prior to enforcement action taking effect
- The protected amount debtors can retain for essential living expenses should be increased from the current level of $458.40 per week
- Courts should exercise discretion in determining the appropriate proportion of wages to be garnisheed, taking into account an individual’s particular circumstances (such as number of dependents, living expenses and other financial commitments)
- The length of time a garnishee can operate should be limited to 6 months
- There should be legislative protection against a debtor losing their job as a result of a garnishee being issued
- There should be a minimum protected amount reserved for a debtor’s essential expenses that creditors cannot access, set in line with the minimum protected amount for wage garnishees
- Courts should be given discretion as to the appropriate amount to be garnisheed, considering the debtor’s whole circumstances
- There should be greater court oversight over the use of debt garnishees in an oppressive manner, or as a fishing expedition
- The categories of personal items not available for forced seizure and sale by the sheriff, should be aligned protections provided under the federal Bankruptcy Act 1966
- Sheriffs should have discretion to seize and sell property to balance the need to avoid delay and expense with minimising hardship to the debtor or other persons.
Financial Systems Inquiry Submission
The financial system has the potential to create significant benefits for (or cause significant harm to) the community as a whole, or particular groups within it. As a service advising and assisting thousands of consumers every year, the CCLC is well placed to comment on both aspects of the system – where it is working well and where it is failing end users. Our submission strongly endorses the comments submitted by the Consumer Action Law Centre on 31 March 2014. Main recommendations in submission:
- The availability of free, independent, ASIC approved EDR should remain a key component of the financial services landscape. Any issues with the process should be addressed through the regular independent reviews required to retain such approval.
- The NCCP (Act) 2009 architecture should remain largely unchanged.
- Unfair contract terms legislation should be extended to cover insurance.
- Life insurance and TPD cover should be included as the default position in superannuation accounts (with greater regulation of life insurance).
- Better tools for consumers to compare policies
- Improved regulatory tools for preventing the systemic sale of poor value insurance products to vulnerable consumers
- The pay day lending provisions should be retained unless they are replaced with even more stringent requirements aimed at reducing repeat borrowing.
- There should be greater availability of safer, affordable small loan products.
- ASIC’s role in identifying and making recommendations to government in relation to gaps in the law should be explicitly recognised and retained. Responsibility for the enforcement of credit reporting regulation should be transferred to ASIC.
- All commercial entities involved in regulated credit advice, negotiations, credit reporting and personal budgeting/repayment services should be subject to licensing, EDR and specific tailored provisions to improve outcomes for consumers (and prevent the identified harm).
Introduction of Personal Insolvency Fees: Submission to AFSA
We strongly oppose the introduction of Debtor’s Petition fee. This new $120 fee will have very serious consequences for our clients, their creditors, and the wellbeing of their families and the health of the communities they live in. The majority of clients that we advise about filing for bankruptcy are on very low incomes, and by the time they are contemplating bankruptcy they are in severe financial hardship. Key points made in our submission:
- A scan of our casework records (including both our legal advice and financial counselling services) reveals that we have on record at least 1600 calls from low income and vulnerable clients relating to bankruptcy per year. Of those callers 62% report they are living on an income of less than $26,000 per annum (with some reporting no income at all).
- For this group of debtors a $120 fee to file for bankruptcy will be a significant financial burden.
- One of the inevitable consequences of the new fee for lodging a Debtors Petition is that fewer debtors will file for bankruptcy. This will be a terrible result for everyone from creditors, to the debtor’s family to the community at large.
- Another consequence of introducing a fee for lodging a Debtor’s Petition is that debtors will be forced to incur more debt in order to come up with the $120 fee.
- Charitable organisations will likely carry the burden
- If a fee is introduced for lodging a Debtor’s Petition, there should be a waiver for low income debtors
- The bankruptcy regime already imposes an income contribution requirement that is tied to income and number of dependents, and is recovered from post bankruptcy income rather than set up as a barrier to entering bankruptcy in the first place.
- The Realisation Charge is a more appropriate way for AFSA to recover its personal insolvency costs
Since the submission of these comments to AFSA the proposed new fee has been disallowed in the senate and removed from the Debtor’s Petition Application.
Motor Vehicle Repair Industry: Submission to the NSW Parliament
Key points made in our submission:
- Overall, complaints to the ILS about quality of car repairs is an ongoing issue. The process for getting poor repairs fixed is difficult and may involve the cost to the consumer of getting independent assessors. Consumers often indicate they have little trust or confidence in the repair industry.
- In our experience, the two biggest problems for consumers in this area are increased cost and hardship while awaiting repairs, and limited right of appeal of an assessor’s decision to write off or not write off a vehicle.
- Where a third party is claiming against an insurer for damages it needs to be clearly disclosed to the consumer that the insurer can list the car as a total loss (write off) on the register
- Consumers have little knowledge or awareness of their rights in relation to dealing with insurers and consequently their rights in relation to repairs carried out under a contract of insurance.
- Issues commonly arise in relation to timeliness of repair, quality of repair and the transparency of the decisions in relation to the assessment of the claim. Insurance contracts will often limit an insurers liability in circumstances of delay.
- Regulation and transparency of assessment in our view is key to ensure fair outcomes for consumers, whether products are vertically integrated or not.
Debt Collection Guidelines: Submission to ASIC & ACCC
The Consumer Credit Legal Centre (CCLC) supports the regular revision and updating of the Debt Collection Guideline. It is important that the Guideline is updated on a regular basis to account for changes to the law, recent decisions and ongoing improvement in practices and industry standards. The revised draft Guideline is a significant improvement on the existing version, especially the recognition of the need for additional protections for low-income debtors.
CCLC notes that the Guideline is not law, and only represents guidance. In our view, consideration should be given to the Guideline being made into law. The debt collection industry is very large and pervasive, and unfortunately not all debtors subject to debt collection activity have access to EDR. CCLC has ongoing problems with a number of smaller debt collectors who continually breach the Guideline with no consequences. Some of the breaches are very serious, including threatening the consumer that s/he will be reported to the Police. We contend that legislation is required to ensure that all consumers have adequate consumer protection when dealing with debt collectors.
Access to Justice Arrangements: Productivity Commission Submission
The Consumer Credit Legal Centre has provided a submission to the Productivity Commission on its Issues Paper, Access to Justice Arrangements.
The key points and recommendations made in this submission are:
- The service delivery model used by CCLC is a very effective and efficient method of addressing legal and related need and enhancing access to justice in relation to credit, debt and other financial services issues.
- There is still considerable unmet need in relation to credit, debt and insurance law in Australia.
- Credit legal services should be integrated with telephone financial counselling and referrals across Australia.
- Community Legal Centres can use their resources to best effect when they use the intelligence gained from casework and service provision to advocate for systemic solutions. This should be explicitly recognised and incorporated into funding models, including reporting and evaluation.
- Access to external dispute resolutions services like the Financial Ombudsman Service and Credit Ombudsman Service are vital to access to justice – and are arguably the greatest addition to consumer protection in Australia in many decades. Current problems with delays in such schemes are not insurmountable and in the process of being addressed.
- The Insurance Law Service operated by CCLC is ideally placed to perform a central role in responding to national disasters but is underfunded to do so. A greater (but still modest) contribution from the Commonwealth and a per capita contribution from each State and territory could increase funding to necessary levels.
- Filing fees and court procedures (or proposed changes to procedures) are creating barriers to pursuing public interest litigation in some cases.
Financial Services Inquiry: Submission on the Draft Terms of Reference
Consumer Credit Legal Centre commented on the Draft Terms of Reference for the Financial System Inquiry. The Terms of Reference give broad scope to address a wide range of issues of concern to our organisation. (See Press Release from Treasury)
Our comments have been made in the interests of ensuring the inquiry, which is no doubt likely to be dominated by the concerns of financial service industry participants, keeps a firm eye on the end-users of the financial system. The financial system has the potential to create significant benefits for (or cause significant harm to) the community as a whole, or particular groups within it.
Summary of CCLC’s Recommendations
- The TOR should specifically mention access to the financial system or financial inclusion.
- TOR 2.1 should be amended to recognise that competition, efficiency and innovation are not objectives in themselves, but are only beneficial to the extent that they contribute to achieving optimal end-user outcomes.
- TOR 2.3 needs to include the benefits of regulation (to consumers, the market as a whole and the public interest) in addition to its costs and impositions; whether the objectives of the regulation are being met, and whether there are alternatives (including alternative regulation) that would meet the objectives more effectively.
- There should be a panel representative with experience and expertise in consumer policy and financial inclusion.
Ban on Mortgage Exit Fees: Submission to the Treasury
Consumer Credit Legal Centre has contributed to the Post Implementation Review of the ban on mortgage exit fees. We continue to support the ban on exit fees as introduced through the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment Regulations 2011 (No 2). The fees that these regulations prohibit are anti-competitive. Key points in our submission:
- CCLC is of the view that termination fees, whether they be fees for early termination or deferred establishment has the effect of: Misleading consumers as to the cost of a loan; and Trapping borrowers in unsuitable loan products.
- Consumers often reported being trapped in high interest loans, because they could not borrow enough to cover the exit fee upon refinancing. This left some borrowers in the position where they had to sell their homes even though they could have afforded a more competitive loan with lower repayments.
- We contend that the bill has not had the anti-competitive effect that was forecasted by lenders. The bill has been effective in enabling competition in the mortgage market whilst in turn enabling open, fair and transparent terms and conditions for borrowers in making choices and comparing products in the market place. In our view, the ban has effectively removed one route for a lender to gouge a borrower without substantially affecting competition to the detriment of consumers. Rather, competition has become more transparent as consumers are able to more easily compare products and their associated costs. We also observe that a number of lenders advertise that there is a ban on mortgage exit fees to encourage shopping around for a better deal.
Independent Review of FOS
Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW) and the Consumer Action Law Centre (Victoria) have coordinated and written a joint-consumer submission to the independent review of the Financial Ombudsman Service. The submission contains contributions from twelve other organisations, and received funding from the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Contributors broadly believe that, while there is room for improvement, the Financial Ombudsman Service is providing an essential service of a high standard and should be congratulated. This view was echoed in responses to the online survey of financial counsellors.
Case delays were by far the biggest concern for organisations who contributed to the submission and, while we acknowledge that Financial Ombudsman Service is making genuine efforts to reduce delay, we have provided a number of recommendations on this topic.
Performance Review of ASIC
The Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW) has made a submission to the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into the performance of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
Summary of Submissions
• ASIC has been a very effective regulator in the consumer credit space. It has been very active in the first few years of taking over this role from the State governments in 2010 and has taken some well target activities to address areas of likely consumer detriment.
• ASIC could do more to keep the market aware of its focus and compliance activities. Industry players need to be reassured that wayward competitors are under scrutiny where appropriate so that competitive pressures do not place downward pressure on compliance standards.
• ASIC needs to respond to consumer complaints in a timely fashion and, where timeliness is not practical, keep consumers (and their advocates) informed in some appropriate way.
• ASIC needs some better regulatory tools so that it can react in a timely and effective manner to prevent consumer detriment.
• We encourage ASIC to continue to conduct and foster research, gather evidence from complaints and surveillance activity, and work with consumer advocates and industry to develop creative solutions to problems and inform government about regulatory gaps or weaknesses in their enforcement capacity.
ILS comments on Access to Insurance for low-income Australians.
The Insurance Law Service has commented on a recent paper on Insurance Access released by Good Shepherd Microfinance. ILS agrees with Good Shepherd that limited availability, access to, and understanding of, insurance are significant contributing factors in financial exclusion for many Australians. It is generally understood that insurance is vital for protecting assets and securing a resilient future. Without insurance, it is not possible to accumulate assets safely and confidently or use everyday essentials such as a motor vehicle. Non-insurance also places huge burdens on society. Good Shepherd is working on a project to insure sustainably a large number of Australians who are currently excluded from insurance or are unsure why or how the product could be of benefit to them.
In our comments to Good Shepherd we pointed out a number of insurance products that we believe are high-risk to low income Australians:
a. Funeral Insurance
b. Consumer Credit Insurance
c. Gap insurance
d. Insurance Products with Rising Premiums
We also pointed out that there are other types of insurance that disadvantage low income Australians because of their rising premiums. When someone is on a fixed low income it gets more and more difficult to afford to make rising premium payments. ILS submits that in many cases had low-income consumers known that the premiums were going to become unaffordable they would not have signed-up for the insurance policies in the first place.
ILS believes that a key issue for low income Australians and insurance is determining whether the premiums will be affordable for the required term of the insurance product. Consumers currently are not given this vital information.
Joint-consumer response to the Credit Reporting Code
The CCLC recently submitted a 43-page consumer response to the proposed Credit Reporting Code written by CCLC staff, Carolyn Bond (formerly of Consumer Action Legal Centre) and Nigel Waters of the Australian Privacy Foundation. Several other consumer advocacy groups have signed on to the submission including: Consumer Action Legal Centre, Australian Privacy Foundation, Consumer Credit Legal Service WA, Financial Counsellors of Australia, and the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network. We had many concerns regarding the proposed code including its accessibility and readability for consumers. The Joint submission made many recommendations for changes to the proposed code.
Major Recommendations:
- The CR Code must make it clear that Repayment History Information (RHI) can only be reported by credit providers licensed under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act and mortgage insurers
- The CR Code should include a commitment to fairness.
- Default listings must be removed immediately once the debt has become statute barred.
- The OAIC/Government is strongly encouraged to consult with stakeholders on the ongoing problems with credit repair companies with a view to consider further regulation.
- The CR Code should specifically require that all existing listings under $150 are removed on commencement of the Privacy Act.
- The CR Code must specifically ban:
- Multiple default listings in relation to one debt
- Listing a default again after a debt is assigned
- Updating the amount of the debt on the default listing
- The CR Code must clarify and acknowledge that CP’s are subject to a range of regulatory requirements, including other legislation and Codes of Practice/Industry Codes and these continue to apply including when they impose a higher standard than the CR Code on a particular issue. The CR Code will identify where the Privacy Act sets certain legislative time limits.
- If account numbers are going to be used this information can only be disclosed in specified circumstances, for example, to the relevant CP and to the individual but to no other party.
- Clause 5.1 of the CR Code needs to clarify what administrative information can be disclosed, including in respect of ‘identifiers’ and the Code should expressly discourage the standardisation of account numbers across the credit industry.
- The CR Code should state that the notice of an intention to list a default must be issued between 30 days and 14 days before the default is listed.
- The amount of the default as notified to the consumer must be the amount listed on the credit report.
- The code should provide that consumers have the right to fully complete the application process for a free report online.
- The CR Code should specifically state that ALL CPs must be a member of an approved dispute resolution scheme that is free for consumers.
- The grace period before default should be extended from 5 days to 14 days.
- The CR Code should be monitored by an independent CR Code Compliance Committee, not audited by CRBs, who will have a conflict of interest.
Joint Consumer Submission in relation to the Changes to Disclosure Requirements under the NCCPA
CCLC and CALC have submitted a joint response to the Treasury’s Discussion Paper regarding proposed changes to the format, content and timing of disclosure requirements under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 on both credit providers and lessors. The changes are largely based on empirical research into pre-contractual disclosure that was commissioned by the Senate. The proposals are framed by the following policy objectives:
- Making changes that will improve consumer understanding.
- Highlighting key pricing information in a new Table called the Financial Summary Table.
- Repealing existing unnecessary disclosure requirements.
Our joint submission largely supported the proposed changes that were a reflection of the empirical research presented in the recently released Uniquest Report.
Our submission includes suggested amendments to each of the following product-specific disclosure requirements:
- Home Loans
- Lender’s Mortgage Insurance
- Credit Cards
- Personal Loans (including Car Loans)
- Reverse Mortgages
- Consumer Leases
- Small Amount Loans (ie Payday Loans)
Federal Court Fee Increases
The Consumer Credit Legal Centre has made a submission to the Sanding Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The CCLC strongly believes that the dramatic increases in federal court fees since 2010 have a negative impact on low-income and vulnerable Australians and act as a barrier to accessing justice. Courts provide an essential public service and as the cost of accessing justice goes up, it is the most vulnerable parties that will suffer the consequences. The party with the least financial resources will always be the one that is the most disadvantaged in our legal system.
Our submission recommends:
- Limits overall fee increases for litigants who are persons and not companies
- Extends the General Exemption from paying Court Fees to include individuals who are represented by a Community Legal Centre (CLC) or pro bono.
- Abolishes Deferral Systems due to the administrative burden caused.
- In the alternative, if deferral systems are to be kept then the following procedure should be used:
i. All fees must be deferred for a pro bono or CLC represented party until judgment has been given, and
ii. After judgment, fees are not to be taken from a pro bono or CLC represented party if:
- Judgment is given against the party, or
- Damages are not awarded or nominal damages are awarded, and costs are not awarded in favour of the party.
- These recommendations are in line with the NSW Civil Procedure Act 2005 and the “Guidelines for the waiver, remission and postponement of fees.” Available at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/spu/ll_ucpr.nsf/pages/ucpr_publications
Independent Review of the Centrepay Scheme
The CCLC recently had the opportunity to comment on an Independent Review of the Centrepay Scheme. Centrepay is a voluntary free bill paying service for Centrelink recipients. The service helps people budget for essential living expenses like rent and utilities. It is quite popular among Centrelink recipients, and there are currently over 13,000 participating organisations that accept payments through Centrepay.
The CCLC believes Centrepay is an invaluable service provided for social security recipients. The financial counsellors as well as the solicitors in our Centre agree that Centrepay is an important financial self-management tool for disadvantaged consumers and we strongly support its continued operation. However, in light of its independent review we submitted some comments and concerns about the current administration of the Centrepay scheme.
Primary Concerns
- Centrepay should revisit its founding policy objective of assisting Customer financial self-management by enabling the payment of living expenses, which should only include certain priority goods and services.
- Retail/Consumer Lease companies for consumer goods should be removed from the Centrepay scheme or in the alternative be treated by Centrepay with increased scrutiny both in the application phase and necessary review of existing Participants.
- Other problematic Participants such as solicitors and funeral homes should be treated by Centrepay with increased scrutiny during the initial application phase as well as during subsequent reviews.
- An itemised list of all Centrepay deductions should be included on every Centrelink Statement provided to Customers whether generated automatically or after a customer request.
- There should be a better complaint mechanism for Customers and consumer advocates who have a grievance against a Centrepay Participant organisation.
- The amount of funds able to be deducted through Centrepay should not be capped.
- Centrepay should allow the deduction of mortgage repayments in limited circumstances.
National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Credit Reform Phase 2) Bill 2012 (March 2013)
The CCLC has recently had the opportunity to make submissions in relation to Phase 2 of the National Consumer Credit legislative changes. As a whole the CCLC is extremely supportive of the Phase 2 Reforms. We were particularly supportive of the anti-avoidance and private lending reforms as these are areas where systemic avoidance of applicable credit legislation has been rife, causing considerable harm to vulnerable consumers. We submitted that there were discrete changes to certain legislative language that were still needed before this bill could be passed into law.
Primary Concerns
- Anti-Avoidance provisions should be enacted as a priority, even if that means separating the other proposed sections and passing anti-avoidance legislation separately.
- We strongly support the drafting of the proposed Section 323A, although we made some minor recommendations for changes.
- We support the current amendments to Section 171 which remove the short term and indefinite lease exemptions currently in Section 171 of the National Credit Act.
- We recommended changes to the current drafting of Section 171A(3) which classify ‘Rent to Own’ arrangements as indefinite leases and not as credit contracts.
- We support the extension of the National Credit Act to regulate private lending.
- We support the extension of the National Credit Act to investment lending but we are concerned that the provisions do not go far enough in relation to protecting borrowers with Regulated product (home-secured) investment credit contracts.