[ad_1]
Controversy generated the aggression suffered by a young man by a worker from a collection company who went to his home to report the debt.
Francisco Jorquera, a victim of violence, told CHV that after not being able to pay the nearly 300 thousand pesos he owed, he began to receive constant phone calls from said company, until an official arrived at the young man’s home and tried to beat him when he was He refused to sign the notification document. All this was recorded in the home security cameras.
Credit: CHV News
Remesa, the company to which the accused worker belonged, pointed out that what happened “is not part of the protocol and procedures of our company and is not identified with the spirit of work of this company”, for which they initiated an internal investigation that resulted in the separation of the person allegedly responsible for the act.
Along with reporting this, they explained that the subject was not a collector, but “a verifier of address, who does not know the debt of the young person”, an action that is carried out “when the debtor is unlocatable, as happened in this case and event that in the future there is a legal action, thus preventing third parties from being harmed, in the event of seizures or legal actions “.
“In the case in question, all protocols and procedures were met, address was verified, the address registered by the student was attended, during a business day and time, asking directly for him, to personally inform him of the existence of a debt. This action is due to the fact that it was never possible to contact him by phone, there being a record of it, “they add.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the company ruled that “nothing justifies the acts of violence, which we repudiate and attribute to a personal problem that could have arisen among those involved at the time of the visit.”
From Remesa they also assured that “as a company policy, we always seek to provide a solution to the personal burden that being in debt means for clients.”
Office to study house
Due to this incident, the superintendent Jorge Avilés ordered the institution to present within a maximum of five business days “the copy of the contract for the provision of services entered into between the university and the collection company involved; then, a report containing the actions adopted by the institution, to know the details of the aforementioned incident, and to prevent this from happening in the future, because it could affect another student “.
“Finally, the detail of the actions carried out by the institution, in order to become internalized in the situation of the affected student, and of the accompaniment and protection measures that have been arranged for his benefit,” he added.
The UNAB, meanwhile, defended itself by ensuring that all collection management is carried out by external companies, such as Remesa, and that in this particular case, “we want to be emphatic in pointing out that respect for our students and any member of our community is a fundamental part of the institution and its values, so we categorically reject any procedure contrary to these principles, which may have been carried out by the external company “.
“Given the above, the University has made the decision to end the contractual relationship with the collection company Remesa and is evaluating all corresponding legal actions to prevent situations like these from happening again,” adds their statement, where they add who made the legal support team available to the affected student
N. of the R: this note was updated with the final version of the statement sent by the company involved
[ad_2]
