The Future of Debt Advice

For those who couldn’t attend, this is a summary of the Institute of Money Advisers (IMA) Conference panel discussion that I participated in on Weds 12th June, along with all the things I would have said if I had thought of them at the time.

Taking part in a discussion panel on a stage in front of an audience of my peers is a daunting prospect. I see a microphone, I think it’s karaoke time and feel the urge to stand and deliver my own unique take on ‘Rotterdam’. It was terrifying even when the seats were empty.

Debt advisers don’t often get seats at the Table though, so I felt it was important to take part and I was genuinely grateful to have been invited along. My fellow panellists were Anna Hall from Money and Pensions Service and Judith Wood-Archer, Citizens Advice Gateshead. We were genially steered through the discussions by Andy Shaw of the IMA —(if you haven’t done so already, please seek out and listen to Debt Reckoning, the podcast which Andy and Antonio Pupino have produced. 2 episodes so far, and they’re really good!)

This could be Rotterdam, or anywhere, Liverpool or Rome. But was in fact Birmingham.

There were five questions, which we had already seen, (and which my infinitely more professional colleagues had prepared answers for), and then some questions from the audience.

Question 1 How important is it that debt advice services are representative of the communities they serve?

The answers from Anna and Judith were broadly similar — that it is essential that debt advice services are representative and that positive steps are taken to ensure that clients can obtain advice from advisers who maybe ‘look like’ them, possibly sound like them etc. I repeat that this was said to be an essential requirement.

What I said: My first comment after hearing the responses was that if this is such an ‘essential’ element of debt advice, then how can any remote advice service or national helpline – where you can’t see your adviser – possibly hope to provide it? And if they can’t, should they be delivering advice at all? The answer was, of course, that, yes, national remote services can deliver advice, and, for people who would rather not ‘see’ a debt adviser at all, they might even be preferable - but I wonder if this means that community representation in reality is downgraded to ‘desirable’ rather than essential. It’s either essential or it isn’t? Or is the requirement only for community-based advice and, therefore, are they acknowledging that community-based debt advice is quite a different beast to the remote version?

I went on to say that the bigger issue at present is that we don’t have enough debt advisers in the first place, so community representativeness might well be an issue. We need to do some work to demonstrate how rewarding a career in debt advice can be and make it more desirable, which would encourage more people to consider it. I also wondered if there was any research to suggest that the advice sector has a diversity problem?* I’d be genuinely interested in seeing this if anyone knows of any? Equally interested to hear from anyone who has experienced any form of discrimination in the debt advice workplace. If it’s happening, it needs a big light shining on it. (Do comment below or DM me on Twitter.)

*Edited to add: OK I’ve seen some stats. Debt advisers are 80% white. My brilliant colleague will hopefully publish his research so we can all see it. It’s pretty shocking.

Aren’t we all fighting for our clients, trying to get justice for them, trying to make their lives better no matter who they are, and quite frankly, no matter who we are?

What I should have said: I spoke to some debt advisers afterwards and one, a gentleman I work with, had recoiled at the idea that a client might ask for a debt adviser who ‘looks like’ them and here’s why. We had a white male client once, who wasn’t happy to see my colleague because he is Asian. We told him to go elsewhere for free debt advice if he wasn’t happy with the ethnicity of the adviser.

We have also had clients who actively, vehemently even, did not want to see an adviser with the same ethnic background as themselves, because they carried with them a sense of shame, somewhat entrenched in their culture, about being indebted and an adviser of the same ethnicity felt too familiar. They feared a judgment which would never have happened, but the fear was real enough to become a barrier. There is still far too much unnecessary shame burdening people in debt.

We always try to deliver debt advice in a way that best suits the client, depending on their particular needs. If it’s remote access they want, that’s fine. If they want to see us in person, with an interpreter, a sign-language interpreter, on a Tuesday, not before 11am, etc, we will absolutely do our best. And it should not matter what the adviser looks or sounds like because the advice should always be the same, high quality, dependable, independent advice.

There can be issues with gender, too. We have had clients who have been in violent relationships and absolutely don’t feel safe with an adviser of a particular gender. We accommodate this as best as we can, but it can be difficult for small teams with scant resources to achieve.

The issue we face, and which clients face, is that we don’t have enough advisers, which leads to long waiting lists, disengagement and clients seeking advice from charlatans on TikTok. I am a little concerned that some organisations place great emphasis on ensuring that they comply with their company policies on diversity, but then fail to look after their clients and employees. That might be a bit controversial to say. What I mean is, it’s no use ticking all the boxes on representativeness if your service doesn’t deliver and your employees are miserable and devalued.

So, yes, inclusivity is important and we should welcome every client and every person who wants to be a debt adviser and do what we can to encourage people in debt to get advice and people looking for a career in advice to our enter this profession. And then let’s actually look after clients and cherish advisers. It’s equally important that we make drastic improvements to the pay and conditions of debt advice work, because we need talented people to see debt advice as a desirable career and join the advice sector urgently.

Caption that!

Question 2: With case complexity rising and no sign of demand slowing, how do we safeguard adviser well-being?

Big question, this one.

My fellow panellists had a lot to say on this subject. Judith talked about the flexibility of a 4-day working week (I’m unsure if this was compressed hours, or an actual 4 day week with no loss of pay), which has been successfully implemented at Gateshead (an option for advisers, not compulsory) and adviser down-time, together with Employee Benefits programmes that offer retail discounts etc. There was also mention of new and improved, lighter-touch quality checking with the removal of the Debt Advice Peer Assessment Scheme, unfondly known as ‘DAPA’. It was also mentioned how important adviser-wellbeing is in general.

What I said: Unfortunately, what I hear from a large number of debt advisers is that, even with DAPA gone, the quality checking schemes that have sprung up in its place are just as bad if not worse. And I don’t think we can blame MaPS for this anymore. Pop the bonnet and look under the hood and you’ll possibly discover that an organisation’s own quality-checking regime is responsible for the stress and strain that advisers are feeling, and no amount of discounted goods or downtime is going to make up for this constant denigration of an adviser’s work. The fact that they work hard, help people and deal with some really complex issues ought to mean that they are celebrated and supported to do that job, but instead they are still being taken to task over the most nit-picky things. And the overly long confirmation of advice letters are still an issue, despite the fact that we know clients don’t read them and advisers don’t want to write them.

What I should have said: There is a culture of silence within some advice organisations and it is so damaging. If any employer worth its salt really cares about adviser wellbeing then stop this nonsense now.

Let advisers speak. Let them talk to each other, feel supported by each other and learn from each other. Let us flag up things that don’t make sense to us (DAPA for instance) and then work together to make it better. All we want to do is the best for our clients and to make a meaningful difference to their lives. That’s what we’re here for.

If we make a mistake, help us put it right, constructively. Don’t score us out of 10 and reprimand us about potential – in a parallel universe – but completely unrealistic ‘detriment’ to clients. Don’t target us — we’re grown-ups. We want to get our clients the best outcomes we can and we can’t do that if you don’t allow us the time and space to do the work. Trust us.

Don’t make us overload clients with lots of irrelevant information they don’t need. It took a lot for them to come and talk to us and we don’t want them to be put off. Give us the equipment to do the job, and let us attend the Money Advice Groups, the conferences and the training. Invest in us and you won’t be disappointed.

Personally speaking, my employer also has an employee benefit scheme. It offers, among other things, debt advice from a commercial company (!) and discounts on the high street for things I can’t afford, so I don’t use it. I tell a lie — I did get money off at the opticians once because I needed glasses for VDU use, but that’s it. All the bells and whistles don’t make up for a lack of fair pay and decent working conditions, and, on behalf of all of my debt advice colleagues who are genuinely fearful of being hauled up infront of a disciplinary panel if they dare to complain that their employer’s working practices are making their lives a misery, please stop with the oppressive management and sinister reluctance to ever be openly criticised.

Criticism is good. Listen to it. Consider it. Maybe your employees have a worthwhile point to make and you could improve their wellbeing overnight if you acted on it. Maybe?

Or, if this is offensive, don’t then tell us how important adviser well-being is. We’re telling you what makes us unwell and you’re not listening. You may as well save your breath.

Question 3: How can technology support a changing debt advice sector? How do we avoid the perception that technological developments will ‘replace’ advisers or make their roles obsolete?

I said: Technology can help us be more efficient — a good case management system makes all the difference. Think about the things that take up a lot of time — ringing energy companies, arguing the toss about whether we have authority or not (even if we sent you signed authorisation in the post 3 months ago). How about creating an authorisation portal for us? We could upload one form of signed authorisation, input the client’s details, input the creditors and then they can speak to us without fear of the GDPR that they so often quote with minimal understanding — and yes, I mean you as well Department for Work and Pensions.

On the subject of Artificial Intelligence, and risking a ‘that aged well’ follow-up at some point, I ‘opined’ (it’s my opinion) that AI can’t do legal advice, and can’t therefore do debt advice. Maybe one day AI will read expressions on client’s faces, showing when they disagree with something or don’t understand, or just aren’t too sure they heard what you said. Maybe AI will ask uncomfortable questions that may or may not be relevant, but it will have had an inkling that there may be financial abuse at play, or a gambling addiction, or a mistake with a DWP benefit, or a brand new scheme that only started last week, but for now, I say, debt advisers will continue to be the only reliable source of debt advice. HAL 2000 has a way to go yet.

There are some agencies already touting advice by AI, and I can’t help wondering why? Because it’s cheaper and you don’t have to worry about your bot’s well-being? Because it will auto-DAPA itself and switch itself off and on when it rounds down instead of up? Because it’s just great for desperate people in debt to have as little interaction with human beings as possible?

I’m going through a legal thing at the moment (coughs — divorce!) and I actually asked Chat GPT a legal question. I did this because I know that asking a solicitor is going to cost a lot of money — (£350 per hour + VAT — a certain specialism is required that doesn’t come cheap). You know what Chat GPT said? It said — this is complex, go and see a solicitor. We still need humans who know things about complex areas of law — debt is one of these areas. AI for information. Proper debt advisers for debt advice.

I’ll be honest, I can’t remember much about what my fellow panellists said on this but I think we largely agreed on this one. I said all I wanted to say.

Question 4: What could a salary benchmarking system do for the sector? How practical would it be to implement in an environment of multiple funders?

I said: Very difficult to implement given the number of funders with competing requirements and smaller organisations less able to compete with the big guns. There is, however, worrying levels of disparity in salaries across debt advice and sometimes even within the same national organisation. The fact is, debt advice (yes, I know, broken record) is a complex area of law and debt advisers do a really difficult job that can change people’s lives. Why then, are some debt advice jobs advertised with rates of pay less attractive than a shelf-stacking job at Aldi? Why aren’t we paid better? We’re legal professionals, we study, we qualify, we maintain 16 CPD per year, we’re approved, we’re regulated, we’re file reviewed to within millimetres of our sanity — it’s time the big funders recognised this and paid us a decent salary!

I might have added, that despite the issues with funders, CEOs always seem to do very nicely thank you. Maybe that was controversial. It’s also true.

There was common ground with MaPS I think — this is, after all,something they are already looking into, but we acknowledged it could be tricky for them to implement as a commissioner of services. On the other hand, who better to implement it than the largest commissioner of debt advice services?

I also thought about Legal Aid, and back in the day we were paid per hour, and then per case (cheaper), but this still allowed for management, administrative support and decent pay. When this was discontinued, our admin support disappeared, and this made the job harder. Then there is the great watering down of debt advice — open banking can complete financial statements (no, it can’t), and customer service operatives, backed up by online information systems, can do bits of debt advice and signpost/refer/signpost etc. Go online and find the information yourself. Here’s a template letter, bye now. (Not debt advice.)

Wouldn’t it be great to go back to having proper support, enough time to do the job thoroughly and see a case through from start to finish?

Question 5: How important is it that debt advice services are integrated with other advice services a client may need, such as housing and welfare rights? How can this be implemented?

I said: Having multiple complimentary services under one roof (so to speak) is great. Debt advice and welfare rights is the rhubarb and custard of the advice world. Housing advice, cost of living support, adult social care and other advice — having all these disciplines working together is great, because knowledge is shared and knowledge is power. Clients can be better informed, and can have access to other support and advice if they want it.

BUT

It must not come from the already very limited debt advice funding pot. Additional funding will be required. And joined up thinking with local authorities to ensure all communities (yes! Even rural communities!) have adequate advice provision, rather than the postcode lottery we have now.

Community debt advice was dealt quite a blow in the last MaPS commissioning episode and we must not see a repeat of that; we have already lost advisers who were forced out by redundancy or the threat of it.

Holistic, local advice services (in particular, those that are not MaPS funded) can and do provide ‘Rolls-Royce’ standards of advice and support, and each client that can get their benefit and debt issues sorted out, while also being able to deal with the sources of these issues, will no doubt save the public purse money down the line.

We don’t need lots of national, remote services competing with each other. We need one service, perhaps, catering for those that can and prefer to go online or talk on the phone, or, God forbid, input some information into a 30-second online debt test.

So again, yes, it’s important to have these services working together, but we still need more advisers (across the board, to be honest). More welfare rights, more housing, more debt. Social welfare law needs to be rebranded as a professional, rewarding, desirable and well paid career, or I fear we will disappear altogether.

I definitely rattled on about IVA lead generators on TikTok more than I’ve alluded to above. I think I pondered why non-profit debt advisers are held to such a high standard in terms of over-regulation, when there are idiots prancing about in short-form videos, misleading people with outright nonsense while financial regulators look the other way.

I think it was a good discussion, and I met a few people during the rest of the conference who told me they had enjoyed it, and one or two even thanked me for saying some of the stuff I had, so I hope this means my sentiments were somewhat representative. I met a couple of new debt advisers, one a law student who had just started his traineeship a few weeks ago and he seemed really fired up and inspired about debt advice, which was heartening.

There is reason to be optimistic about the future of debt advice I think, and God knows it will continue to be needed, but we can and must keep driving for better working conditions and pay. We must also keep banging the drum for better debt advice — for people in debt and for debt advisers. There is still much to be done, but if anyone can do it, it’s us lot.