Licensing of collateral recovery services.
SB 295 creates a new licensing framework for collateral recovery agencies in Indiana, effectively regulating repossession businesses as a distinct occupation. It renames the existing private investigator and security guard licensing board to include collateral recovery agencies, expands the board by two governor-appointed members from the repossession industry, and places administration of the new licensing program under the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency. The bill also updates related definitions and cross-references throughout the Indiana Code to reflect the new regulated category.
The bill makes it unlawful, unless licensed, to repossess collateral, attempt repossession, hold oneself out as a collateral recovery agency, or use license plate recognition for repossession purposes. It sets application requirements, including background and business information, proof of industry training, and board review. Licensees must maintain an Indiana physical location, storage capacity for repossessed property, insurance coverage, and compliant equipment, and they must store collateral and personal effects securely while providing notice and handling unclaimed items under specified procedures.
SB 295 also addresses consumer privacy and safety concerns by requiring licensees to remove personal information from repossessed collateral when feasible and by limiting liability for compliance with that requirement. It creates a new criminal offense for threatening a collateral recovery agency employee during a repossession, with a first offense treated as a Class A misdemeanor and repeat offenses elevated to a Level 6 felony. The bill further updates existing repossession notice requirements to refer to collateral recovery agencies instead of motor vehicle repossession agents.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is regulatory and protective rather than punitive toward the industry: it appears designed to professionalize repossession work, improve oversight, and reduce risks to property, privacy, and workers. Because no committee transcript or vote history was provided, there is no recorded public debate or formal vote pattern to indicate broader support or opposition. The main points of potential contention are likely to be the new licensing burden, insurance and equipment requirements, the felony disqualification for applicants with felony convictions, and the criminal penalties for threats during repossessions, alongside the expanded authority to use license plate recognition.
The bill would add a new chapter to Title 25 governing collateral recovery agencies and amend multiple related statutes to integrate that new licensing category into Indiana’s professional licensing structure. It would also repeal the older definition of “motor vehicle repossession agent” and replace it with the new licensed collateral recovery agency framework in repossession-related notice and enforcement provisions. Affected parties include repossession businesses, towing and storage operators, lenders and other secured parties, debtors, and law enforcement agencies that receive repossession notices.
The bill’s tone is generally supportive of formal regulation of the repossession industry, with an emphasis on public safety, consumer protection, and professional standards. It does not appear to be framed as a restriction on repossession itself, but rather as a licensing and compliance regime for those who perform it. No committee discussion or vote data was provided, so there is no direct evidence of bipartisan support or organized opposition in the available record.
Likely areas of contention include whether the licensing requirements, insurance minimums, storage obligations, and training standards are too burdensome for existing repossession businesses, especially smaller operators. The felony disqualification for applicants may also be disputed as overly broad, and the new criminal penalty for threatening an employee during repossession could raise concerns about enforcement and escalation. The bill’s inclusion of license plate recognition as a regulated repossession tool may also draw scrutiny from privacy advocates or industry participants concerned about operational limits.