Licensed debt collectors in S’pore broke law with threats, insults & visits to debtor’s home & husband’s office

Employees of a licensed debt collection company breached the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) on four occasions while attempting to recover an alleged private debt, including by shouting insults and threats at a debtor’s home and visiting her husband’s workplace.

The debt collectors also returned to the husband’s office to hand staff notices about the debt, even though the alleged debt was unrelated to his job.

Contravened POHA on four occasions

In the grounds of decision released on Aug. 19, Protection from Harassment Court Judge Gregory Gan said debt collectors could legally pursue debts, but their licences did not give them "carte blanche" to break the law.

He also acknowledged that while it is not necessary nor possible to draw up a comprehensive list of prohibited debt collection conduct, certain boundaries are clear.

"As a general rule, turning up at the alleged debtor’s home and shouting insults or abuse is impermissible. So is visiting the alleged debtor’s workplace to collect a private debt that has nothing to do with his or her work," he said.

The woman was ultimately granted a protection order against the debt collection company after its employees repeatedly visited her home and her husband’s workplace in December 2024 and January 2025.

The identities of the debt collection company, its employees, and the alleged debtor were redacted in the judgment.

Shouted at couple's home

The dispute began after the woman and her husband engaged two renovation contractors on Dec. 5, 2023.

On Nov. 25, 2024, the contractors engaged the licensed debt collection company to recover an alleged debt of S$102,937 from the couple.

The company then sent the couple a letter of demand stating that its "debt enforcement team" would personally call on them and visit their home if they failed to make payment within seven days.

The couple responded in writing on Dec. 1, 2024, disputing their liability.

Two days later, on Dec. 3, 2024, two employees of the debt collection company turned up at their home.

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 employees through the intercom.

The employee demanded that she pay the contractors and repeatedly hit the railing outside the main gate while shouting.

The woman subsequently went outside to explain why she was not making payment, but the two employees repeatedly interrupted her and continued shouting.

At one point, the employee who had hit the railing threatened to go to the husband’s office.

He also 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.

The employees later 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.

Gan found three breaches of POHA arising from this visit.

He said video recordings showed that the neighbourhood was "quiet and relatively peaceful".

As such, the debt collector’s repeated hitting of the railing and loud demands for payment amounted to threatening behaviour.

The use of the phrase "talk cock CEO" also "plainly constituted abusive or insulting language", while the threat to visit the husband’s office was threatening behaviour, the judge found.

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 as she was inside the house initially.

However, these arguments were rejected by Gan.

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 as the home’s intercom was working and they could have communicated through it.

The judge said the company’s response suggested that it was not prepared to accept written correspondence as a proper way of engaging with the couple.

One of its employees had told the woman that it was "not up to (her) to decide how to correspond".

Visited husband's office

Two days after the first home visit, employees went to the husband’s office on Dec. 5, 2024, and left another red notice with office staff.

Neither the husband nor the woman was at the office

Although the visit itself was peaceful, Gan found that it breached POHA as it amounted to an implied threat to embarrass the husband over a private debt.

"Considering this visit together with the first visit to the claimant’s home, I concluded that the office visit was deliberately designed to exert pressure on [the husband] by embarrassing him before his staff," he said.

Additionally, the debt concerned renovation works and had nothing to do with the husband’s job.

"Your children on top watching, not very nice leh."

The debt collectors returned to the couple’s home on Dec. 11, 2024.

One of them 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 couple’s two young children were watching from the second storey.

The woman remained inside her home and called the police.

Gan found that the way one of them had gestured towards one of the children was threatening under the circumstances.

The employees 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 said the employees’ words and actions were designed to "shame the claimant and (her husband) into paying the alleged debt".

On Dec. 19, 2024, the employees returned to the husband's office for a second time and again handed office staff a red notice.

Gan found that this second office visit was also an implied threat to embarrass and pressure the couple.

It was not reasonable because the alleged debt was a private matter unrelated to the husband’s work, he said.

"Red notices" not unlawful on their own

For the other visits to the couple’s home on Dec. 19 and 24, 2024, and Jan. 8, 2025, the judge did not find sufficient evidence of POHA breaches.

The couple were not at home during those visits, and there was no direct evidence from witnesses or video recordings showing what had happened.

Gan also said that merely putting up a red notice about an outstanding debt was not, by itself, unlawful.

However, 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 said.

As such, he 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.

The order also specifically prohibits them from visiting the husband’s workplace to collect the alleged debt.

"Licensed debt collectors must take heed of the legal boundaries as set out in the POHA and other applicable laws," Gan said. "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."