Skip to main content
Response to consultation on draft Guidelines on the assessment of adequate knowledge and experience of the management or administrative organ of credit servicers
Go backQ1: Is the section on subject matter, scope, definitions and implementation appropriate and sufficiently clear?
We believe that the section on subject matter, scope, definitions, and implementation could benefit from more specific definitions, particularly those relating to the 'Management or administrative organ' and 'Administrative or management organ in its supervisory function'. Clear identification of the individuals intended to fall within the scope of the Guidelines is crucial to prevent inconsistent application across different credit servicers and/or competent authorities.
Furthermore, in terms of the competent supervisory authorities, the drafted terms should be clearer in order to avoid national dual supervision. For instance, in Germany the debt collection agencies are supervised at the moment by the Federal Office of Justice. By contrast, a qualification assessment as defined in the Directive would suggest supervision by BaFin.
Q2: Is the section on proportionality appropriate and sufficiently clear?
While the draft Guidelines note that a proportionate approach should be taken based on several factors relevant to the size and nature of the business, we consider that more context or guidance is required. As it stands, there is significant scope for interpretation by individual credit servicers, which could lead to inconsistent application of standards and potential competitive disadvantages. We suggest that the Guidelines should provide more detailed guidance on the relative measures that would be appropriate in each case, eventually through the inclusion of certain thresholds and associated basic requirements.Q3: Is the section 2 on the suitability assessment by credit servicers appropriate and sufficiently clear?
In the section on the suitability assessment by credit servicers, we suggest that the definition of the requirements should take into account the dedicated business purpose of debt collection. Unlike banks, credit servicers primarily deal with debt collection, which implies a different weighting of reputational risk. The Guidelines should reflect this difference and provide specific guidance for credit servicers.Q4: Are the sections 3 and 4 on the individual and collective criteria for the assessment of members of the management or administrative organ appropriate and sufficiently clear?
We believe that the individual and collective criteria for the assessment of members of the management or administrative organ should take into account additional qualifications based on different country-specific authorisation requirements. This would ensure that the assessment process is aligned with the specific legal and regulatory context of each EU Member State.Q5: Are the sections 5 and 6 on the individual and collective assessment of members of the management or administrative organ appropriate and sufficiently clear?
Please see our response to Q4.Q6: Is section 7 on corrective measures appropriate and sufficiently clear?
We consider section 7 on corrective measures appropriate and sufficiently clear.Q7: Is section 8 on the assessment by competent authorities appropriate and sufficiently clear?
Please see our response to Q1.Name of the organization
Bundesvereinigung Kreditankauf und Servicing e.V.
