The Namibian Competition Commission has cleared RedForce Debt Management of favoritism allegations after a comprehensive investigation into municipal debt-collection tenders. Social media claims suggesting the agency secured most local government contracts through unfair means prompted a thorough review of the company's procurement practices.
Following a detailed examination, the commission determined that RedForce met all tender requirements and submitted more financially attractive proposals compared to competitors. Authorities investigated whether the company held a dominant market position and whether its practices violated competition regulations.
The commission found RedForce's tender awards transparent and compliant with procurement laws. Their financial proposals emerged as more appealing than alternative submissions from other potential contractors. Municipal officials had previously terminated RedForce's services, resulting in a lost court battle last year.
Investigators scrutinized the company's fee structure, discovering they charge between 10% and 12% commission on total debt transferred from local authorities. These fees are directly passed to debtors, effectively increasing their outstanding balances. Despite acknowledging potential financial strain, the commission could not classify these charges as price manipulation.
The report emphasized protecting vulnerable populations from excessive financial burdens. Commission experts stressed that debt related to essential services should not impose punitive interest rates or penalties that could further complicate residents' economic circumstances. Their analysis focused on supporting debtors' ability to manage and repay municipal obligations.
Ultimately, the commission concluded that RedForce's collection fees remain unregulated and do not constitute overcharging under existing competition law. Although the additional fees potentially burden residents, legal frameworks currently prevent direct intervention. The investigation highlighted the need for potential future regulatory updates addressing debt collection practices.
Following a detailed examination, the commission determined that RedForce met all tender requirements and submitted more financially attractive proposals compared to competitors. Authorities investigated whether the company held a dominant market position and whether its practices violated competition regulations.
The commission found RedForce's tender awards transparent and compliant with procurement laws. Their financial proposals emerged as more appealing than alternative submissions from other potential contractors. Municipal officials had previously terminated RedForce's services, resulting in a lost court battle last year.
Investigators scrutinized the company's fee structure, discovering they charge between 10% and 12% commission on total debt transferred from local authorities. These fees are directly passed to debtors, effectively increasing their outstanding balances. Despite acknowledging potential financial strain, the commission could not classify these charges as price manipulation.
The report emphasized protecting vulnerable populations from excessive financial burdens. Commission experts stressed that debt related to essential services should not impose punitive interest rates or penalties that could further complicate residents' economic circumstances. Their analysis focused on supporting debtors' ability to manage and repay municipal obligations.
Ultimately, the commission concluded that RedForce's collection fees remain unregulated and do not constitute overcharging under existing competition law. Although the additional fees potentially burden residents, legal frameworks currently prevent direct intervention. The investigation highlighted the need for potential future regulatory updates addressing debt collection practices.
