SINGAPORE – A licensed debt collection company broke the law when its employees turned up at a debtor’s home and shouted insults and threats, and when they visited her husband’s workplace to collect a private debt that had nothing to do with his work.
Protection from Harassment Court Judge Gregory Gan said that while debt collectors could legally pursue debts, their licence did not give them “carte blanche” to break the law.
He found that the debt collectors had contravened the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) on four occasions.
He granted the woman a protection order against the collection agency, whose employees had repeatedly visited the woman’s home and her husband’s office in December 2024 and January 2025.
In the grounds of decision released on Aug 19, the judge noted that while it is neither necessary nor possible to draw up a comprehensive list of prohibited conduct in debt collection, there are clear boundaries.
“As a general rule, turning up at the alleged debtor’s home and shouting insults or abuse is impermissible,” he said. “So is visiting the alleged debtor’s workplace to collect a private debt that has nothing to do with his or her work.”
The identities of the debt collection company, its employees and the alleged debtor were redacted in the judgment.
Threatening behaviour during visits
The licensed debt collection company had been engaged by two renovation contractors on Nov 25, 2024, to recover an alleged debt of $102,937 from the woman and her husband.
The collection agency sent the couple a letter of demand stating that its “debt enforcement team” would personally call on them to demand payment and make a house visit if they did not pay within seven days.
On Dec 1, 2024, the couple responded in writing to dispute their liability.
Two employees of the debt collection company nevertheless visited the couple’s home on Dec 3.
They rang the doorbell and shouted the names of the woman and her husband.
The woman called the police and spoke to one of the debt collectors through the intercom. She then went outside to explain why she was not paying the contractors.
The debt collector, however, repeatedly interrupted her and demanded payment. He also hit the railing outside the home several times while shouting.
At one point, he shouted: “CEO also no money ah, ai yah CEO ah, talk cock CEO,” referring to the woman’s husband, who was a chief executive officer.
He also threatened to go to the husband’s office.
The debt collector then pasted a “red notice” at the main gate stating the couple’s names, the amount allegedly owed, the woman’s address and the creditor’s name.
Judge Gan said video recordings showed three breaches during this visit.
The neighbourhood was “quiet and relatively peaceful”, he said. Against that background, the debt collector’s hitting of the railing and loud demands for payment amounted to threatening behaviour.
The phrase “talk cock CEO” was plainly abusive or insulting, while the threats to visit the husband’s office were also threatening, the judge found.
“Any reasonable person, in my judgment, would be alarmed or distressed by these actions,” he said.
The company argued that its conduct was reasonable because the woman had refused to communicate with it, its employees were responding to her shouting, and they had to raise their voices because she was initially inside the house.
Judge Gan rejected these arguments.
The woman had already responded to the company’s letter of demand in writing, he noted.
There was also no need for the employees to shout because the home’s intercom was working, and they could have communicated through it.
The judge said the company’s response suggested it was not prepared to accept written correspondence as a proper way of engaging with the couple. Its employee had told the woman that it was “not up to (her) to decide how to correspond”.
Two days after the first home visit, employees went to the husband’s office on Dec 5 and left another red notice with office staff.
Neither the husband nor the woman was there.
Although the visit itself was peaceful, Judge Gan found that it breached POHA because it was an implied threat to embarrass the husband over a private debt.
The debt concerned renovation works and had nothing to do with the husband’s job.
“There was thus no reason for the respondent’s employees to visit (his) office, thereby informing (his) staff of (his) private matter,” the judge said.
He found that the office visit was deliberately designed to exert pressure on the husband by embarrassing him in front of his staff.
The debt collectors returned to the couple’s home on Dec 11.
One shouted for the couple to “come out and talk”, accused the husband of cheating the contractors and said that, as a CEO, he earned money by “cheating a lot of customers”.
Another told the couple: “Your children on top watching, not very nice leh.”
The woman again called the police and remained inside.
The couple’s two young children were watching from the second storey of their home.
The debt collectors also mocked the couple. One was heard singing at the start of a video taken by the debt collectors, while another imitated a police call, saying: “Hello police ya, this is [redacted], renovate the house and don’t want to pay.”
The judge found that the way one of them had gestured towards one of the children was threatening under the circumstances.
He added that the debt collectors’ words and actions were designed to “shame the claimant and (her husband) into paying the alleged debt”.
The debt collection company’s employees returned to the husband’s office a second time on Dec 19 and again handed the staff a red notice.
The judge found that this second office visit was also an implied threat to embarrass and pressure the couple, and was not reasonable because the debt was a private matter unrelated to the husband’s work.
Putting up ‘red notice’ not unlawful
The judge did not find sufficient evidence that the company had breached POHA during three other visits to the couple’s home on Dec 19 and 24, 2024, and Jan 8, 2025.
The couple were not home during those visits, and there was no direct evidence from witnesses or video recordings showing what happened. He also said that merely putting up a red notice about an outstanding debt was not, by itself, unlawful.
Nevertheless, Judge Gan said further breaches were likely because the alleged debt remained outstanding and the debt collectors had repeatedly visited the couple’s home and the husband’s office.
He therefore granted a protection order prohibiting the company and its representatives from using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the woman or her family.
It also specifically prohibits them from visiting the husband’s workplace to collect the alleged debt.
Judge Gan stressed that the order was not intended to prevent lawful debt collection.
“There was nothing inherently wrong with debt collection,” he said, reminding licensed debt collectors to take heed of the legal boundaries under POHA and other applicable laws.
“Those who fail to do so run the risk of having to defend against applications for protection orders and bearing the attendant costs of court proceedings,” he added.
