Give the agent a limits matrix, not a negotiating brief. It completes an income and expenditure check first, then offers only plans inside the matrix for that balance and product, confirms the terms in writing, and sets the plan up. Plans outside the matrix, concessions on interest or fees, and customers showing difficulty or vulnerability go to a person.
What does agreeing a repayment plan involve, and who owns it?
A repayment plan replaces the contractual payments on an arrears balance with an arrangement the customer can afford. Agreeing one is a credit decision with lasting effect: it changes what the customer owes each month, how long they stay in arrears, and what is reported about them. It is also a conduct test. A plan set at the most the lender can recover, rather than what the customer can sustain, is likely to break and leave the customer worse off.
The head of collections owns the process and the matrix. The credit risk team approves the limits. A named collections team leader handles held plans. For the wider view of what agents should and should not do in banking, see our guide to AI agents in banking.
What goes in the limits matrix?
The repayment plan limits matrix sets, for each product and balance band:
- the longest plan term the agent may offer;
- the lowest instalment it may accept, as an amount;
- whether interest and charges continue during the plan;
- how many plans a customer may have had before the case must go to a person;
- which customer markers remove the case from the agent entirely.
The agent works inside the matrix. It does not stretch it, average across bands, or treat a near miss as a fit.
How does the agent agree a plan, step by step?
- Agent, depth 1: reads the account. Balance, arrears, product, previous plans, any markers. Evidence: facts used, with their sources.
- Agent, depth 1: screens for vulnerability and difficulty. Signals in the conversation or on the account send the case to a person before any plan is discussed. Evidence: screening result recorded.
- Agent, depth 2: completes an income and expenditure assessment with the customer. It records what the customer declares and checks it against account data where it can. Evidence: the completed assessment, with declared and verified figures marked.
- Agent, depth 2: calculates the affordable amount. Income less essential spending, less other priority debts. Evidence: the calculation.
- Platform: checks the proposed plan against the matrix. Term, instalment, plan count, markers. Evidence: a verdict naming the matrix version.
- Agent, depth 3: offers and agrees a plan inside the matrix. Explains the terms plainly, including what happens if a payment is missed, and records the customer's agreement. Evidence: the offer, the agreement, the call or chat record.
- Agent, depth 3: sets up the plan in the collections system and sends written confirmation. The setup itself is covered in letting an agent set up payment plans in your collections system. Evidence: plan record and confirmation sent.
- Person, team leader: decides held plans. Anything outside the matrix, any concession, any vulnerable customer. Evidence: held verdict and decision.
| Step | The agent does | Depth | Stays with a person |
|---|---|---|---|
| Read account | Gathers balance, history, markers | 1 | Nothing |
| Screen | Checks for difficulty and vulnerability signals | 1 | Any case with a signal |
| Assess | Completes income and expenditure | 2 | Nothing unless figures conflict |
| Calculate | Works out the affordable amount | 2 | Nothing |
| Check | Tests the plan against the matrix | none | Nothing; the platform decides |
| Agree | Offers and records a plan inside the matrix | 3 | Plans outside the matrix |
| Set up and confirm | Creates the plan, sends confirmation | 3 | Nothing for in-matrix plans |
| Concessions | Prepares the case | 2 | Interest or fee freezes, write-offs |
Which controls matter, and what evidence do they leave?
Affordability before amount. The agent cannot propose a plan until the assessment exists. Evidence: assessment timestamp precedes offer.
Matrix enforced at the action. Evidence: verdict citing the matrix version and the cell used.
Declared versus verified figures. A customer's stated income is declared; matched account credits are signed. Evidence: source class on each figure.
Plain terms, confirmed in writing. Evidence: the confirmation text sent, linked to the plan.
No concessions by the agent. Freezing interest, waiving fees or reducing the balance is a person's decision. Evidence: refused or held verdicts on any attempt.
Conduct duties. In the UK, the FCA's Consumer Duty expects firms to deliver good outcomes for retail customers, which bears directly on whether a plan is sustainable. Other markets have their own expectations. Evidence: plan outcomes tracked over time. This is an explanation of the rules, not legal advice; confirm how they apply to you with counsel.
What should you measure?
- Plans kept to the end, against plans broken, for agent-agreed and person-agreed plans.
- Time from first contact to agreed plan.
- Held plans, by reason.
- Complaints about plans, by who agreed them.
- Cases sent to a person at screening. A very low number suggests screening is missing signals.
Where does it usually go wrong?
The agent maximises the instalment. It treats the upper end of affordability as the target. Set the target as sustainable, not maximum.
Declared spending is challenged aggressively. Customers asked to justify every item stop engaging. Challenge only figures that conflict with account data, and do it neutrally.
Payment holidays get mixed in. A short pause is not a repayment plan and carries different consequences; see whether an agent can agree a payment holiday or forbearance plan.
Due date changes are treated as plans. Moving the date is a smaller change with its own route; see handling requests to change a repayment due date.
Broken plans are re-agreed automatically. A second broken plan is a signal, not a retry. The matrix should cap the count.
Questions people ask
Can the agent negotiate with the customer?
Within the matrix it can offer options, such as a shorter term at a higher instalment or a longer one at a lower instalment. It cannot go outside the matrix or offer concessions, however reasonable the request.
What if the customer cannot afford any plan in the matrix?
The case goes to a person. That is exactly the situation where forbearance, debt advice referral or other options need judgement.
Should customers know they are dealing with an agent?
Yes. Tell them, and tell them how to reach a person. Under the EU AI Act, people must be told when they interact with an AI system, and the principle is sound everywhere.