Select committee refuses to allow submissions

Today I was advised that the Parliament (house of representatives) has refused to accept my submission and have cancelled the video link I was to read out a summary of it on the 31st July. They gave no valid reason why they refused to allow me to submit.

Here is my submission in full:-

SUBMISSION TO CREDIT CONTRACTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

I would like to read my submission to the committee via video link if I can.

This is a submission to the credit contracts legislation amendment bill

Regarding this submission - as a bankrupt there is nothing in this submission that is confidential or private. Please publish it in full and without blackouts or deletions.

Evidence - I have referred to my situation as examples. If you wish to see actual evidence then I can let you know the police file number and you can obtain correspondence and court documents from their servers.

For many of us any changes to be made to financial institutions has come too late. Let me explain why changes are needed to the way debt is provided to consumers and what is wrong with your debt laws, be it credit contracts acts or any other law that governs debt and the collection of it. I use reference to the bankruptcy brought against me by BNZ to support my claims. I tell you my story through to the bankruptcy because its still the result of a debt contracts I had with BNZ and ANZ banks, and I am still legally liable for what I owed them, even in bankruptcy. They have both put claims into the bankruptcy for a dividend. The IRD has as well. In 2017 I was bankrupted by BNZ. When I was paying back BNZ on a voluntary basis (because they refused to accept any payment arrangement), they were secretly passing the money I was making to them to their debt collector EC Credit Control NZ Ltd who on BNZ's behalf falsified the tribunal evidence which I tried to counterclaim. This fabrication continued with the banks solicitors, who have tried claiming further costs and applying GST to the outstanding debt which was originally bank penalties and interest of around $6200. That debt has now turned in $14,600. BNZ referred to three separate terms of trade because they did not know which version of the credit contracts act applied to the credit card debt I had with them.

I know you have read my earlier submissions, so I won't go over that all again, but what I will say is that you need to address the issue of debt that the banks onsell to debt collectors. You seem to be missing this important loophole, because it is when a person becomes in default of debt the banks or lender then moves the debt to another party a collection agent, who either purchases the debt or collects on behalf of the original creditor and acts as their agent.

Let me spell out the loophole you seem to be missing, and I will use the banks as an example. When a person becomes in default of debt, the debtor loses any rights they had with the bank they borrowed money from. The terms of lending whether it is by loan or general terms and conditions of a credit card already don't have any protections for borrowers.

Once BNZ passed the debt that I owed them to their debt collectors EC Credit Control NZ Ltd (ECCC), BNZ then refused to deal with me. Every contact I made to them was met with them advising that I must deal with the debt collectors directly, this has even continued more than a year into the bankruptcy. BNZ also stated that they had passed my entire file they hold with the bank to EC Credit Control. This was one of the red flags, and I questioned who I was really in debt to once they took over the debt collection. And it is this fact that has called into question who BNZ's lending products actually belong to. Also ECCC had wanted me to pay them 60% of my weekly income to them, without consideration as to my financial position or my other creditors. Debt collectors are owned or backed by international corporations like Encore Capital group. NZ has a global place as a substantial subprime borrowing market, meaning we have a lot of tailored debt products lent to subprime borrowers like me - low income and lacking basic financial literacy skills. Debt collectors are key participants in the debt markets and so are the courts and the insolvency officers, and including, banks, solicitors and industry resellers of debt products.

EC Credit Control were able to state that they were only collecting on behalf of BNZ as agents. But yet the hardship form they wanted me to complete was not BNZ's but on EC Credit Controls company header. Had I signed, I would now have obligations to them. This I believe is the reason for harrassment by debt collectors - to force a borrower into a new contract with the debt collector, which then removes the legal liability of the bank or original creditor and moves the debt into the unregulated collection markets, where the same debt can be further sold.

In the debt I had with ANZ bank, there were three different entities collecting it, ANZ bank, Baycorp and Collection House and their lawyer Turner Hopkins and another lawyer for Baycorp. This is one reason why I made a complaint to the Law Society regarding Turner Hopkins Solicitors (Michael Robinson) because they gave me a week to appear in person to their offices and it was just continuing the harassment that ANZ and Baycorp started. Mr Rex Maidment - I'm sure you know him, actually appeared in the District Court on behalf of Mr Robinson who never bothered to show up for the hearing. This is another red flag in your debt collection regime. The law society also confirmed that third parties cannot bring claims against another solicitor for misconduct. I never got the contract I asked for, because I had no rights being in default of debt. Even though the complaint went ahead, because I was in default of debt meant that Turner Hopkins did not have to respond to the complaint or show up in the court.

The disputes tribunal application with BNZ as the applicant was signed by Mr Mark Austin in his personal capacity on behalf of BNZ. He falsified three of the invoices. And provided evidence that was unreadable and made false claims of a contract I had supposedly declared online. BNZ never found it, because it never existed. That was another red flag. The next red flag was a representative from BNZ appeared at the tribunal - Ms Karen Taylor-Edwards - although I cannot be sure because she was not in any BNZ uniform. She tried to say that Mark Austin made a mistake, but I have an email confirming he altered the invoices. I had put in a counterclaim because I did not believe BNZ should have been allowed to falsify the evidence no matter whose name was on the form. The tribunal referee allowed BNZ's application, and because I had agreed to having a credit card with BNZ, my counterclaim was dismissed. I was now a judgment debtor which now allowed me to be bankrupted without any court accepting my defence. His Honour Judge Osbourne in the High Court said to me clearly that a judgement debt cannot be looked behind or undone.

Before the first high court hearing I tried to appeal the tribunal decision because I didn't believe it was right that BNZ should be allowed to submit such an application without penalty. In a 10 minute teleconference with a district court judge, I was simply asked if I owed the debt to BNZ, I said yes and that was the end of the conference. What a huge shock to not be given any rights at all, because I was in default of debt. The teleconference was attended by not BNZ but their solicitors Turner Hopkins (initially Michael Robinson but later changed to Marie Green), yes the very same law firm that ANZ used to try and collect the debt I owed them. I expect Turner Hopkins given they acted for both banks probably know a lot more about the debt now than I do since they acted for both banks. I have asked the official assignee to contact Turner Hopkins and conduct a full investigation into the bankruptcy. But they refuse to do so. I believe I have the right to know who I am legally in debt to and why EC Credit Control was allowed to not only falsify the tribunal evidence but to also hide some of the money I was paying to BNZ. This came out at the court, and BNZ's solicitors had to confirm what money had been paid to the Judge. Prior to the court appearances, BNZ refused to accept any payment arrangement, and I found out later that they were passing the money I paid BNZ (who would only accept it voluntarily) to ECCC secretly. Mark Austin ended up creating two separate accounts for the same debt and after the tribunal hearing actually back dated nearly two thousand dollars in interest. Even though the amount agreed to at the tribunal hearing BNZ had agreed to not add any interest. A debt collector or their solicitors should not be allowed to bring a bankruptcy claim to the high courts against a debtor. This is also what has ruined the credibility of your debt regimes.

What does it say about the integrity of a bank, when they won't even stand in front of a high court judge. I attended all hearings myself and had to represent myself. All I asked for was a fair hearing and for ANZ and BNZ to put right what they made wrong, and accept the repayment offers I presented. And still I keep getting screwed over.

After the tribunal BNZ knew about my counterclaim. I received an email from Ms Karen Taylor-Edwards and that email stated that ECCC no longer acted for the bank. But that turned out to be a lie, because months later ECCC was able to bring the claims to the High Court in BNZ's name so I could be bankrupted. And who signed the court documents - none other than Mr Mark Austin. Another lawyer comes into the picture - Carlile Dowling - Ms Carol Hall. They are located in Napier. She actually confirmed in writing that she acts for both BNZ and ECCC in the debt against me. Her name is on the claim proof in the bankruptcy, and that original debt of $6,200 has now turned into $14,600 and Carlile's have deemed a portion of it to have a GST component, even though the original debt was only ever interest and penalties. This is another red flag. So now a huge shadow hangs over your law society.

Standing in front of the High Court Judge I learned that Carliles had actually obtained a sealed judgement without me knowing about it. I just could not believe such a terrible injustice could be done to me all under BNZ's name.

Before the high court hearings I thought there was to be a financial assessment hearing. I actually asked the courts if we could have one. But given only a couple of weeks notice of the hearing date, I asked for an extension of time, BNZ cancelled it.

In two High Court appearances I again tried for justice, and asking for my rights to be considered and also the rights of my creditors be considered. After all that has happened what a shock to receive a memo in BNZ's name stating that I have abused the courts process and I am stalling the process to force further costs onto BNZ. What a ridiculous statement, given that BNZ are quite aware that the bankrupt is liable for all costs of creditor action in the bankruptcy. They have put in a claim three times the size of the original debt.

What I do agree to is that I did wish to set aside the bankruptcy, because I believed my legitimate creditors had a right to be paid back the debt I owed them. With the costs of the bankruptcy far greater than the initial debt means other legitimate creditors no longer would be able to be repaid in full. So today the bankruptcy is still disputed and I continue paying back the creditors who are owed debt, outside of the bankruptcy regime. I do not believe Carlile Dowling (Carol Hall) or Mark Austin should have a claim in the bankruptcy when they can get away with falsifying the evidence and corrupting the entire bankruptcy regime, which clearly they have done, all because I had debt with BNZ.

This is why I am campaigning to change our laws. Because no one will address the issues that have clearly ruined the banking and debt industries. But I will keep asking that they be resolved. Changes first to the Human Rights Act will at least stop thousands being discriminated against because they are in default of debt or in financial hardship.

I don't know if changes you want made to the credit contracts legislation will address the way debt equity is treated. One or two sections in the Property Law Act actually allowed for the courts to enquire who owned the legal rights to debt. I tried to use that in my defence but the courts wouldn't consider any defence, nor allow me any time to bring a proper claim against the banks. In fact your Judge Mathews actually called what I was doing Bizarre.

I speak out against the insolvency regimes, because I am just in shock still, as to how you can be so cruel. I have even learned that your laws allow you to continue publishing our financial hardships, including people who have committed suicide because you bankrupted them. Are you people actually not grasping the seriousness of the harm you are causing us. If you are serious about wellbeing and trying to make a more equal balance between lenders and borrowers, you need to dig a lot deeper. You can see why I contacted the Royal Commission in Australia because you either do not have the skill to understand the issues, or you are refusing to address them because you fear the banks will pull their products from the markets. All I can say to that is I hope they do, because debt is offered to people like me who the banks know are insolvent. Had I understood the banks lending models and their debt collection methods, there is no way I would be bankrupt today. In fact my life today is different, not just because of the bankruptcy but because I know the truth. I have put a statement on my credit report that makes sure lenders will never offer me money again, ever.

Credit reporting is another area you need to address. There is no formal dispute process. Credit scoring has a substantial impact on peoples lives. It governs how banks lend to customers and including whether banks even accept new customers, based on their credit scores. Equifax who hold the credit scores and credit histories, have had class action law suits against them in the past for privacy breaches and their US servers have been substantially hacked recently. Credit reporters are unregulated and take on the roll of enforcing debt contracts that customers have with lenders. I know because Equifax (Veda) were able to refer to clauses in contracts I had with the banks, when I tried to raise a dispute, because ANZ refused to deal with the issues. As a result of my enquiries, The same debt I held with ANZ bank is now listed twice on my credit report and Equifax actually changed the ageing of the credit report so to affect the score. I have a letter from Equifax (Veda) perhaps you would like to see it.

Credit reporting is part of the debt collection process. It needs to be factored into your law changes. Do you see why now that your law changes don't address the entire issues with lending and debt. Its not just about changing the credit contracts act. Its about revamping the whole lending industries and bringing back some integrity into the system.

Once a person becomes in default of debt no existing laws give the borrower any rights or any protections. If ANZ and BNZ can already continue to breach existing laws and use criminal actions to collect on the debt, without any consequence, how are your changes going to address that. Already the draft bank conduct document of the reserve bank has stated they are powerless to do much to effect bank conduct or any services that retail banks offer to its customers.

You need to stop banks onselling debt to debt collectors. You need to make urgent changes to the ACC Act and NZTA acts that allow you to outsource debt to the very same debt collectors that are corrupting the system in the name of the banks.

Mr Kris Faafoi wrote to me and advised he listened to what I and others have said about what needs to change. But that is not reflected in your Credit Contracts Amendment Bill. With regards to certification of fit and proper person, your changes only require that a person is a creditor under a consumer credit contract. Debt collectors are not creditors under consumer credit contracts. If they act as agents on behalf of another then they are supposed to act and conduct themselves as if they were the principal. But what they are doing is purchasing the debt from the banks and legally becoming the new creditor, but telling the debtor that they are only acting in an agent capacity. I will try and familiarise myself with as much of the certification process because I fear the wrong people will end up becoming certified and corrupt the industry further.

Your clauses about providing the debtor with "adequate information", show your contempt for our intelligence. Debtors need to know at all times who has the legal right to the debt that is owed. That is why judges won't allow us any defence because they don't know who legally owns the debt either. You can quite clearly see that in the ruling of Judge Osborne in the High Court judgment against me. High Court judges in creditor adjudication hearings have done a huge injustice to the people who have been made bankrupt, and in order to fix that you need to do a royal commission of enquiry, even more so than any royal commission you might do against the banks.

I am hoping the parliamentary ombudsman will get to the truth about it, because literally I have no rights and no one is prepared to resolve the issues, instead they use the bankruptcy to claim matters are resolved. I don't see anything in your laws that address those issues, which came out of a credit contract I had with BNZ. Bankrupts don't have the legal right to bring claims against another party including creditors without the consent of the official assignee. Even if they agreed, where would we get the money? The official assignee would claim it for their admin costs. In order to try and get to the truth about the bankruptcy against me I have had to lodge a complaint with the parliamentary ombudsman, because no one will address or resolve the issues. The debt I was paying back prior to the bankruptcy has now more than doubled and I am still legally liable for the whole lot, but there is no dispute process that is available to me. The official assignee has refused to acknowledge the dispute. I did not sign the statement of affairs, but still that didn't make a scrap of difference.

Bankrupts literally have no rights in law and have no rights in privacy either. From the conduct of the banks and their debt collectors, clearly I also had no rights even prior to becoming bankrupt.

Your bill doesn't deal properly with assignment of debt. What does that mean in law anyway? Do debtors not have the right to know what the legal consequences of a debt assignment are? High Court judges don't understand debt assignment either. I was forbidden by Judge Osborne from presenting the case law I had that dealt with debt assignment and agency.

Baycorp who I believe are a member of the financial complaints service, did actually alter ANZ's bank statements, and also claimed to be acting as an agent for ANZ. I was told later by ANZ that Baycorp actually purchased the debt from ANZ and they do so in bulk. Baycorps own inhouse lawyer actually prepared court documents against my company in ANZ's name. The document server (who I found out also serves documents for the IRD) actually phoned me up and wanted me to meet him "in a public place". The whole thing was completely dodge and put the fear into me. But we did meet at the court house with the document server doing his best to cover his face. By this time quite literally I feel like I am in a money laundering crime movie. The whole thing is just too bizarre. If you read my earlier correspondence you will know that the banking ombudsman actually told me I need to make arrangements with Baycorp. I would be interested to know how the new changes will affect what the banking ombudsman tells people, when complaints are debt related.

NZ needs properly trained financial advisors who can actually help people get out of debt and stay out of debt for good. Its a shameful embarrassment for NZ that we do not have any organisations who do this for people. How do I know we don't, because I have people asking me for financial advice and I am bankrupt. I have also approached some of the budget advisory services. My current financial position was outside of their skill set. I even had Christians Against Poverty telling me they are not skilled enough to help me with the debt I had and they suggested I give up my work and go on a benefit.

It scares me that some of the organisations that are set up to help people with their financial issues are actually just sales people for other loan types. Low interest and no interest loans are still debt. It was ANZ's no interest loan money offer that was the catalyst for me becoming bankrupt. The Salvation Army step-up loans come from BNZ. Do they sell that debt to ECCC I ask? How does your lending legislation address those loans. Debt is still debt regardless of where it comes from or who the lender or debt collector is. The judgement debt made against me in the disputes tribunal was $6,200. The bankruptcy has turned that debt into $14,600. That makes the courts and the insolvency office nothing more than the very loan sharks you claim are taking advantage of people. You can't get a better example of unreasonable fees that what the courts and insolvency office can add to a debt. As an undischarged bankrupt, I am still legally liable for that debt including bankruptcy administration costs on top of it all.

How is disclosure going to be governed, if banks can onsell the debt however they like and to whom ever they like. Mark Austin who falsified the claims against me in BNZ's name actually calls himself a litigation assistant! Do you people have any idea what actually goes on in the debt industries? Why are you turning a blind eye to it all? Banks and government agents have agreements with the unregulated financial markets to move debt into that sector which actually makes the persons financial situation a lot worse. Your bill does not address that.

Your bill mentions enforcements and penalties. People in financial hardship who have been screwed over by the lenders, banks and their debt collectors cannot afford the court system! Debtors are liable for all costs. Read the case laws and you will see no judge will rule in favour of a debtor. Your clauses that state debt collectors are required to disclose key information, yes I agree to that, but I question what purpose its for because that disclosure won't give a debtor any more rights than before and they can still be forced into a new contract with a debt collector.

Reading over this submission, I still cry when I read my story. I cry for the fool I have been to have taken on debt in the first place. I cry for the others who have suffered because of debt and who have been forced into bankruptcy because of corruption in the lending and banking sectors. I cry for the people who have committed suicide that you continue to make public through the insolvency register. I cry for the thousands you will continue to keep bankrupting and denying rights to every year. In exchange for debt you and the banks took our lives. We can't ever get our lives back, but you can and do recoup what debt remains unpaid. People who are in debt, spend years in financial hardship and insolvency, while lenders and the banks reap millions in profits. How on earth do you justify that being a feature of our society?

And it all started with a debt contract we had with the banks.

Having even basic financial literacy in today's society means a lot more than just knowing the basics of being able to do simple things like creating and sticking to a budget, estimating tax obligations, and understanding the full cost of borrowing along with being able to earn enough income to cover at least six months loss of income without having to borrow money for household expenses and vehicles. If you can only do those things, at the very least you might just be able to keep your head above water. To be able to live even a basic life with a few simple pleasures, that limited financial knowledge is not going to get you there. Today I continue working in the chartered accounting industry to try and get enough financial literacy skills to keep me living for the rest of my life. Prior to becoming bankrupted I knew the very basics but it wasn't enough to keep me from being bankrupted.

Regards

Lisa Cowe

A Victim of Collective Corporate Bullying in NZ