The Analysis News & Opinions


Opinion


‘Abolish the clean-desk policy in your office’


According to a study by the Association for Psychological Science, a clean office can actually stifle creativity. Psychological scientist Kathleen Vohs, who undertook the study, said: “Our study found that disorderly environments seem to inspire breaking free of tradition that can produce fresh insights.” The study found that participants, who


spent time in a messy office, generated more interesting creative ideas in comparison to those generated by individuals who spent time in the clean and tidy environment. So, should you embrace the messy desk


policy? We must remember that the business world is forever getting more crowded, with businesses constantly striving to outshine each other. With this in mind, we must be more creative than ever before. This is why I strongly believe more firms


should embrace the idea of getting rid of the archaic clean-desk policy. The evidence proves you can perform better without it. Albert Einstein once said: “If a cluttered


desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what, then, is an empty desk a sign?” Business strategist Nimisha Brahmbhatt


says: “I have always been one of those people who always works in a mess. To me, mess is a sign of creativity and activity – things are actually happening. Messiness allows the brain to get visual and creative, a great source for problem solving!” If you work in an office that operates


a clean-desk policy and loathe it, hopefully this will give you enough ammunition to counter it or at a minimum open discussion.


Gareth Jones Commercial manager, Kit Out My Office


Plea for a widening of HCEOs’ remit


Senior legal collections and enforcement professionals have called for High Court enforcement officers (HCEO) to be granted wider powers to enforce on all kinds of debt. Currently, under the terms of the 1991


High Court & County Court Jurisdiction Order, HCEOs are not allowed to enforce CCJs below £600 and judgments based on Consumer Credit Act agreements. However, speaking at a debate run in association with Equita last month, Rob Thompson, partner – collections & recoveries at Brachers, said: “I think that getting enforcement right is the biggest priority for the court service today, or at least it should be. If we cannot enforce our judgments appropriately, then it is a waste of everyone’s time and money. “Certainly opening it up to High Court


enforcement is an easy fix in one area, but I think that it needs to go further, with a root- and-branch review of all enforcement. Even where there is a need to change primary legislation, they need to get on and do it.” Jayne Gardner, head of debt recovery at


Shakespeare Martineau, added: “I do think that, if we could use HCEOs for lower-value


debts, you would have a very good result because the creditors need the comfort of knowing that we can send somebody to the premises and at least get the intelligence that, in the worst-case scenario, we can persuade the creditor that ‘this is why we should not proceed, at least at the moment’. “We know that a lot of people will think


that if someone is knocking on the door, and the debt is, say, only £300, then they will make it go away. “We just need that ability, or if the


courts want to offer us a viable alterative, then great, but at the moment we do not have that.”


Tech is up for debate


At a time of intense regulatory change, lenders are to gather to discuss some of the major trends in collections, in a debate run in association with Opos. The latest of CCRMagazine’s hugely


successful debates will again see professionals share ideas, perspectives, and knowledge. Stephen Kiely, editor of CCRMagazine,


said: “In the ever-changing regulatory environment, it is crucial to be able to share experiences, and to consider whether your


view of how you see the future is shared by other industry experts. So I am very pleased to be working with Opos to provide this opportunity for knowledge-sharing.”


10


www.CCRMagazine.com


April 2018


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52