Fin24

ConCourt ruling favours debt defaulters

2012-06-07 11:03

Johannesburg - Defaulting debtors must receive notice before creditors take action against them, the Constitutional Court ruled on Thursday.

Mashilo Shadrack Sebola and his wife applied to the Constitutional Court for rescission of a default judgment on the basis that they had not received a notice from their creditor, and succeeded.

The creditor, Standard Bank Group [JSE:SBK], had issued a notice advising them of their rights, including the option to refer the agreement to a debt counsellor.

They were in default of payment under a credit agreement.

The notice did not reach the address to which it was sent and they did not respond. The bank obtained the judgment.

The couple applied for its rescission on the basis that they did not receive the notice. The High Court in Johannesburg found that proof of dispatch was enough.

The Sebolas maintained that the National Credit Act, properly interpreted, requires them to have received the notice.

Three friends of the court were admitted - the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of SA, the National Credit Regulator and the Banking Association of SA.

Justice Edwin Cameron handed down the court's judgment by ordering that leave to appeal was granted, their appeal succeeded, the order of the High Court was set aside and the application for rescission was granted with costs.

Standard Bank must pay the Sebolas' bank costs.

 

Comments
  • Tony Lapson - 2012-06-07 11:13

    At least now I know I can lie about receiving a letter of warning. Great justice for dodgy people everywhere!

      Thandile - 2012-06-07 11:23

      and what proof do you have that they received the letters. and you concluded that they are dodgy because of what?Stop being small minded and grow up

      Thandile - 2012-06-07 11:24

      and what proof do you have that they received the letters. and you concluded that they are dodgy because of what?Stop being small minded and grow up

      Henk - 2012-06-07 11:26

      Thandile, you feeling guilty?

      Deon - 2012-06-07 11:34

      No wonder some people refuse to accept registered letters or letters from the sheriff of the court. It only buys you some time, your problems or debts don't dissapear.

      Tony Lapson - 2012-06-07 11:41

      Old school business owners had NO excuse. It is YOUR duty to make sure your details are correct. People have it too easy now. Are you a business owner Thandile?

      Charles-Bronson - 2012-06-07 11:44

      Great.. Banks this must be a lesson.. your greedy pigs!

      leon.puth - 2012-06-07 11:58

      go read his comment again. he said it is now clear that one can pretend you did not get the notice. nowhere did he say the black couple are lying. "white man opens mouth --> white man must be racist"

      Rob - 2012-06-07 12:25

      leon.puth: What are you saying? Looks like you believe that pretending is something different from lying. Or am I misinterpreting your comment?

      Saleé - 2012-06-07 12:26

      Hi Tony. This is definitely open to abuse, but I think that despite this ruling, the National Credit Act should still allow for "deemed receipt", meaning that if the creditor can show that the notice actually did reach the address to which it was sent, the debtor will be deemed to have received the notice. Registered mail or using a courier company is usually sufficient for this. The problem with the case in article was [quote] The notice did not reach the address to which it was sent and they did not respond [unquote]. If you send the notice to the address indicated by the debtor in the credit agreement and you do this by registered mail or courier, you should be fine.

      Saleé - 2012-06-07 12:26

      Hi Tony. This is definitely open to abuse, but I think that despite this ruling, the National Credit Act should still allow for "deemed receipt", meaning that if the creditor can show that the notice actually did reach the address to which it was sent, the debtor will be deemed to have received the notice. Registered mail or using a courier company is usually sufficient for this. The problem with the case in article was [quote] The notice did not reach the address to which it was sent and they did not respond [unquote]. If you send the notice to the address indicated by the debtor in the credit agreement and you do this by registered mail or courier, you should be fine.

      Saleé - 2012-06-07 12:27

      Hi Tony. This is definitely open to abuse, but I think that despite this ruling, the National Credit Act should still allow for "deemed receipt", meaning that if the creditor can show that the notice actually did reach the address to which it was sent, the debtor will be deemed to have received the notice. Registered mail or using a courier company is usually sufficient for this. The problem with the case in article was [quote] The notice did not reach the address to which it was sent and they did not respond [unquote]. If you send the notice to the address indicated by the debtor in the credit agreement and you do this by registered mail or courier, you should be fine.

      Rob - 2012-06-07 12:35

      leon.puth: What are you saying? Looks like you believe that pretending is something different from lying. Or am I misinterpreting your comment?

      Nosiphom - 2012-06-07 12:38

      If the notice was not delivered to you in person and you did not sign for it, then you did not receive it. Why do you think SANRAL was so in a rush to pass legislation that would make the dispatch enough proof of notification? If they leave on your front door stoep, it is not delivered!If it is not sent by registered mail you have not received it - hence AARTO is failing. I am not paying all the fines they send by normal mail for example and they can do squat until they "deliver" them to me, then I act!

      Nosiphom - 2012-06-07 12:38

      If the notice was not delivered to you in person and you did not sign for it, then you did not receive it. Why do you think SANRAL was so in a rush to pass legislation that would make the dispatch enough proof of notification? If they leave on your front door stoep, it is not delivered!If it is not sent by registered mail you have not received it - hence AARTO is failing. I am not paying all the fines they send by normal mail for example and they can do squat until they "deliver" them to me, then I act!

      Nosiphom - 2012-06-07 12:39

      If the notice was not delivered to you in person and you did not sign for it, then you did not receive it. Why do you think SANRAL was so in a rush to pass legislation that would make the dispatch enough proof of notification? If they leave on your front door stoep, it is not delivered!If it is not sent by registered mail you have not received it - hence AARTO is failing. I am not paying all the fines they send by normal mail for example and they can do squat until they "deliver" them to me, then I act!

      Tony Lapson - 2012-06-07 12:40

      Hi Leon, you might be replying to someone who has deleted their comment, but I thought I would also let you know that I am a coloured man, product of a rainbow nation... and maybe a white mans lust for chocolate (proudly married for 28 years though). Either way, I have often been accused of being a white, racist, DA supporting imperialist for simply expressing what I know to be the truth, by people who create their own truths.

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-07 12:43

      The letters should be delivered by hand - like a parcel - that is signed for. There is no other way around it.

      Rob - 2012-06-07 12:50

      leon.puth: What are you saying? Looks like you believe that pretending is something different from lying. Or am I misinterpreting your comment?

      Chris - 2012-06-07 12:59

      @Tony: Personally I think it's fair. I have a number fines that when in a road block came as a surprise and then they can through you into the back of a police van. Registered post, really not that difficult or expensive.

      Rob - 2012-06-07 13:16

      leon.puth: What are you saying? Looks like you believe that pretending is something different from lying. Or am I misinterpreting your comment?

      Bartho - 2012-06-07 14:26

      Surprised the High Court didn't allow the application in the first place. It's a rescission of judgment - if they didn't receive the notice, they should be allowed an opportunity to defend the claim. Doesn't mean that they'll succeed, if they are unsuccessful in the main case judgment can again be granted. It just gives them a chance to explain whether the owe the money or not.

      Bartho - 2012-06-07 14:26

      Surprised the High Court didn't allow the application in the first place. It's a rescission of judgment - if they didn't receive the notice, they should be allowed an opportunity to defend the claim. Doesn't mean that they'll succeed, if they are unsuccessful in the main case judgment can again be granted. It just gives them a chance to explain whether the owe the money or not.

      Konstabel - 2012-06-08 09:33

      I agree that the creditor must take all reasonable action to notify the debtor however it is the debtors responsibility to notify the creditor when they change their address or other contact details. If they don't then the debtor is at fault and the creditor should not have to hunt them down.

  • denis.delaport - 2012-06-07 11:13

    mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, UGLY!!!!

      pmalungana - 2012-06-07 11:38

      WOW! I have many questions, This is very ugly. The cause and effect is going to result in the breakdown of the "FORMAL" lending industry and the rise of an "INFORMAL" solution, loan sharks and criminals.

  • cindy.deutschmann.5 - 2012-06-07 11:18

    The People 1 Credit-Givers 0!

      cindy.deutschmann.5 - 2012-06-07 11:47

      This ruling makes perfect sense when seen in the context of the Credit Act guys.... all the thumbs down in the world won't change that

  • Vusi - 2012-06-07 11:25

    nice, from now on I am running from all those that I owe, they won't do Sh*t about it lol

      joy.termorshuizen - 2012-06-07 14:24

      Such a responsible attitude. It is people like you who are ruining this country!

      joy.termorshuizen - 2012-06-07 14:24

      Such a responsible attitude. It is people like you who are ruining this country!

  • mphotant.thelejane - 2012-06-07 11:27

    Good news

  • 1CRAZYONE - 2012-06-07 11:27

    If you know you owe money, do you really need a letter or a notice telling you? Stop the games and stop living beyond your means!

  • Frans - 2012-06-07 11:28

    All it will do is to make it more difficult and expensive to get credit. As they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

      Nosiphom - 2012-06-07 12:44

      Remember they ask for the proof of physical address during the credit application. The article does not say whether the couple changed their residential address without letting the credit give know, which might be in contravention of the credit agreement. The credit giver bungled the case.

      Nosiphom - 2012-06-07 12:44

      Remember they ask for the proof of physical address during the credit application. The article does not say whether the couple changed their residential address without letting the credit give know, which might be in contravention of the credit agreement. The credit giver bungled the case.

  • 1CRAZYONE - 2012-06-07 11:28

    If you know you owe money, do you really need a letter or a notice telling you? Stop the games and stop living beyond your means!

      derekneilmaclachlan - 2012-06-07 13:21

      533 thumbs down on this comment....seems we have a lot of dodgy people out ther who owe money and are running away from paying it back!!!

      derekneilmaclachlan - 2012-06-07 13:39

      533 thumbs down on this comment....seems we have a lot of dodgy people out ther who owe money and are running away from paying it back!!!

  • Frans - 2012-06-07 11:28

    All it will do is to make it more difficult and expensive to get credit. As they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

      afrikeni - 2012-06-07 11:40

      The beauty of it is money in the vaults of banks is liability to them - they also need to lend to survive. So it cuts both ways, if it becomes expensive or they limit lending - they will be shooting themselves in the foot - i will simply postpone borrowing.

  • Henk - 2012-06-07 11:29

    Now all the people with no legitimate addresses will be debt free! So I can stay in a shack and drive a SL -Merc Mahala! Brilliant!!!!

  • Sean - 2012-06-07 11:32

    Very poor reporting. when a rescission is granted with costs. Standard bank has to pay the Sebola's legal costs not their bank costs...

      afrikeni - 2012-06-07 11:43

      Sean, why do you comment on the obvious. It's an exception to find an error free article on News24 website.I gave up long ago - read between the lines, you will be fine...lol.

  • Sean - 2012-06-07 11:32

    Very poor reporting. when a rescission is granted with costs. Standard bank has to pay the Sebola's legal costs not their bank costs...

      paul.maarman - 2012-06-07 11:40

      +1

      paul.maarman - 2012-06-07 11:40

      +1

  • Jackie - 2012-06-07 11:45

    they are dodgy because they are black, thats tony lapson,s take on this

      leon.puth - 2012-06-07 11:57

      no thats a lie. go read his comment again. he said it is now clear that one can pretend you did not get the notice. nowhere did he say the black couple are lying. "white man opens mouth --> white man must be racist"

      leon.puth - 2012-06-07 11:57

      no thats a lie. go read his comment again. he said it is now clear that one can pretend you did not get the notice. nowhere did he say the black couple are lying. "white man opens mouth --> white man must be racist"

  • langebaan.bike - 2012-06-07 11:52

    Great it’s time the banks got nailed, they charge exorbitant rates and we are at their mercy and we can do nothing, THINK AGAIN.

      Deon - 2012-06-07 12:02

      If you can not afford the charges, rather not take the credit. No one forced us to make credit, rather saves money and buy cash or rent.

      ian.d.samson - 2012-06-07 12:40

      Good! Well done Edwin Cameron! Standard Bank is far too arrogant and needs to be taught a few lessons.

      ian.d.samson - 2012-06-07 12:40

      Good! Well done Edwin Cameron! Standard Bank is far too arrogant and needs to be taught a few lessons.

  • rickvcooper - 2012-06-07 11:57

    Defaulters are so often dishonourable - I think the law really does have to be adjusted to protect business from scum who don't want to meet their financial obligations, and, who then try to destroy the business's reputation simply to get out of paying what is actually due by them.

  • Carl - 2012-06-07 12:16

    With respect! To all the "have nots"... You will never ever have! You have done it to yourselves. You will be blacklisted till the day you die until you do something to settle your dept.I used to work in a Company that had a list of over R1.2 mill in garnishing orders every month. It was too easy to get credit 12yrs ago. This is the main cause why employees are always so miserable and go on strike every year 'cause they working to pay their debts!

  • Carl - 2012-06-07 12:18

    With respect! To all the "have nots"... You will never ever have! You have done it to yourselves. You will be blacklisted till the day you die until you do something to settle your dept.I used to work in a Company that had a list of over R1.2 mill in garnishing orders every month. It was too easy to get credit 12yrs ago. This is the main reason why employees are always so miserable and go on strike every year 'cause they working to pay their debts!

  • Zighom - 2012-06-07 12:21

    As a lawyer I know from experience that the poor and vulnerable have had their properties sold under their noses. This judgment must be read within the context of levelling the playing field between the banks who have money, and consumers who don't have money to fight in court. Not long ago the high court ordered that a property can't be auctioned unless there is proof that the debtor received the summons. For many reasons, debtors don't receive legal documents including summonses and warrants of attachment. For example if the debtor has changed residence the sheriff can leave the document at the door and it gets blown by the wind. There are endless tales of debtors who never received court documents and lost out, so this judgment must be read protecting bona fide consumers and not deliquents. It doesn't cost the banks an arm and a leg to make sure a debtor receives a document so any arguments of pity in their favour are misplaced. The banks don't need protection, the consumer does.

      cindy.deutschmann.5 - 2012-06-07 12:22

      Agree 100% Zig

      Anthony - 2012-06-07 12:35

      I agree. I almost lost a great deal of money because the summons was delivered to my neighbours domestic and she tossed it. Fortunately the Law Society came to my rescue and shat on the attorney for not following up.

      Nosiphom - 2012-06-07 12:47

      Fully agree - they take chances by leaving documents at your door step and deem them delivered. Or leave them in an open post box on the fence and when the rain comes,the docs are destroyed. I like the ruling - registered post, courier, physical hand delivery!

      pur.pleibus - 2012-06-08 14:19

      Absolutely correct. A friend of mine bought a cottage on a small piece of land for over R1M but shortly afterwards was retrenched. His bond was with Standard Bank and he explained his dilemma. After three months he got a commission only job and battled to pay a portion of the bond repayments, and after another few months Standard Bank instituted an action to repo the property for the R850K still owing. An offer was then made to my friend to buy the place for the outstanding amount. In a meeting with Standard Bank, they refused to consider this option. The Durban property was then auctioned in Standard Bank's Head Office in Johannesburg and sold to the only bidder, who was an employee and nominee of Standard Bank, for R500K. So my friend still owes them R350K where he could have owed nothing! I know for a fact that Standard Bank refused a firm offer of R750K for the property which was ultimately sold to someone with a "connection" in the Standard bank for R400K. Standard Bank is crooked through and through and deserves to get taken for a ride whenever possible.

      pur.pleibus - 2012-06-08 14:19

      Absolutely correct. A friend of mine bought a cottage on a small piece of land for over R1M but shortly afterwards was retrenched. His bond was with Standard Bank and he explained his dilemma. After three months he got a commission only job and battled to pay a portion of the bond repayments, and after another few months Standard Bank instituted an action to repo the property for the R850K still owing. An offer was then made to my friend to buy the place for the outstanding amount. In a meeting with Standard Bank, they refused to consider this option. The Durban property was then auctioned in Standard Bank's Head Office in Johannesburg and sold to the only bidder, who was an employee and nominee of Standard Bank, for R500K. So my friend still owes them R350K where he could have owed nothing! I know for a fact that Standard Bank refused a firm offer of R750K for the property which was ultimately sold to someone with a "connection" in the Standard bank for R400K. Standard Bank is crooked through and through and deserves to get taken for a ride whenever possible.

  • stefan.vanderspuy - 2012-06-07 12:21

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it Standard Bank!!

  • stefan.vanderspuy - 2012-06-07 12:21

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it Standard Bank!!

  • stefan.vanderspuy - 2012-06-07 12:22

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it Standard Bank!!

  • Sakhiwo - 2012-06-07 12:23

    Very brave couple

  • Richard - 2012-06-07 12:25

    It makes life impossible for a Creditor. I am in the legal profession and I am fully aware of how many notices get sent out via registered mail that is simply not collected and yet the NAtional Credit Act does not even require Registered mail but only requires normal mail. Every Debtor will deny that they ever received a notice.

  • Faizel Mahomed - 2012-06-07 12:29

    This is a sad ruling. Def a mistake

      JohnLove123 - 2012-06-07 16:50

      Good afternoon Faizel. Whilst i understand your point of view, time has come for the major financial institutions, and in this instance Standard Bank, to stop reckless lending practices for the mere sake of bottom line profit. No person is granted any loan without meeting face-to-face with the Bank, why should it be made easier for the Bank to collect if they made a wrong lending decision?

      JohnLove123 - 2012-06-07 16:50

      Good afternoon Faizel. Whilst i understand your point of view, time has come for the major financial institutions, and in this instance Standard Bank, to stop reckless lending practices for the mere sake of bottom line profit. No person is granted any loan without meeting face-to-face with the Bank, why should it be made easier for the Bank to collect if they made a wrong lending decision?

  • catherinne.louw - 2012-06-07 12:31

    Excellent news. There are just too many companies who used to get away with this, but will not any more. I’ve been in the credit business for 15 years. If you as supplier ensure that your credit control procedures and policies are in place, and you actually follow it, you should have no problem. Most of the time though, the company takes the easy way out, and simply hand over the debt for collection. Of course the legal department/attorney wants their money ASAP, and do not inform the debtor of the final demand. They simply send a summons to the last known address, and could not be bothered. Viola, 14 days later they make a beeline for the court to obtain a judgement. Too easy guys......the days of “sharking” is over. If you extend credit, take responsibility for getting your money. Complaining about people not honouring their debt is not going to make it go away. It will NEVER change. We’re not living in Utopia, so get over it. What are you doing in the credit business if you don’t know this? Also, why are some companies even considering credit if they cannot afford it? It’s simple really, NO CREDIT allowed then. Credit is 2 sides of the same coin: do not extend credit, and do not become indebted, if you cannot afford it.

  • catherinne.louw - 2012-06-07 12:32

    Excellent news. There are just too many companies who used to get away with this, but will not any more. I’ve been in the credit business for 15 years. If you as supplier ensure that your credit control procedures and policies are in place, and you actually follow it, you should have no problem. Most of the time though, the company takes the easy way out, and simply hand over the debt for collection. Of course the legal department/attorney wants their money ASAP, and do not inform the debtor of the final demand. They simply send a summons to the last known address, and could not be bothered. Viola, 14 days later they make a beeline for the court to obtain a judgement. Too easy guys......the days of “sharking” is over. If you extend credit, take responsibility for getting your money. Complaining about people not honouring their debt is not going to make it go away. It will NEVER change. We’re not living in Utopia, so get over it. What are you doing in the credit business if you don’t know this? Also, why are some companies even considering credit if they cannot afford it? It’s simple really, NO CREDIT allowed then. Credit is 2 sides of the same coin: do not extend credit, and do not become indebted, if you cannot afford it.

      John - 2012-06-07 12:49

      This is nonsense. No attorney will get default judgment on a credit agreement unless he allege and prove that a section 129 letter has been sent. Every attorney knows that if they do not send that section 129 demand letter out, the summons is premature and the court will send it back, refusing default judgment. The "last known address" argument also does not fly. If a debtor chooses an address where they want to accept legal documents (domicillium citandi et executandi) and they move from that address, it should be the responsibility of the debtor to inform the creditor of the change of address. This is what caused the problem. The debtor not complying with their responsibility. This does not only affect the banks, but every business that sells goods on credit as well.

      John - 2012-06-07 12:49

      This is nonsense. No attorney will get default judgment on a credit agreement unless he allege and prove that a section 129 letter has been sent. Every attorney knows that if they do not send that section 129 demand letter out, the summons is premature and the court will send it back, refusing default judgment. The "last known address" argument also does not fly. If a debtor chooses an address where they want to accept legal documents (domicillium citandi et executandi) and they move from that address, it should be the responsibility of the debtor to inform the creditor of the change of address. This is what caused the problem. The debtor not complying with their responsibility. This does not only affect the banks, but every business that sells goods on credit as well.

      graham.hood.58 - 2012-06-07 13:48

      John is right - no registrar will grant judgment if your letters go to an address other than that of the last chosen by the consumer in the agreement (which should be annexed to the summons). Please read section 96(2) of the act (if you've worked in credit for 15 years you should know it) - the responsibility is on the consumer to keep the bank updated with his chosen domicilium address. the bank cannot be expected to chase the millions of clients that they have to keep their records up to date.

      martin.snyman2 - 2012-06-07 14:43

      I thik we all know that the major banks especially do not record the address changes done by a client at the nearest branch when they hand the file over to an attorney. Bulk of these matters are send to address on the agreement to ensure that the magistrate grants an order. My opinion is that this ground breaking judgement of today have eliminated this "quick and easy" collections practice.

  • Carl - 2012-06-07 12:33

    With respect! To all the "have nots"... You will never ever have! You have done it to yourselves. You will be blacklisted till the day you die until you do something to settle your dept.I used to work in a Company that had a list of over R1.2 mill in garnishing orders every month. It was too easy to get credit 12yrs ago. This is the main reason why employees are always so miserable and strike every year 'cause they working to pay off all their accounts!...and because of that, it makes it more difficult for EVERYONE to get any credit at all!!No excuses.

  • Carl - 2012-06-07 12:35

    With respect! To all the "have nots"... You will never ever have! You have done it to yourselves. You will be blacklisted till the day you die until you do something to settle your dept.I used to work in a Company that had a list of over R1.2 mill in garnishing orders every month. It was too easy to get credit 12yrs ago. This is the main reason why employees are always so miserable and strike every year 'cause they working to pay off all their accounts!...and because of that, it makes it more difficult for EVERYONE to get any credit at all!!No excuses.

  • ian.d.samson - 2012-06-07 12:37

    Good! Well done Edwin Cameron! Standard Bank is far too arrogant and needs to be taught a few lessons.

      JohnLove123 - 2012-06-07 16:54

      Good afternoon Faizel. Whilst i understand your point of view, time has come for the major financial institutions, and in this instance Standard Bank, to stop reckless lending practices for the mere sake of bottom line profit. No person is granted any loan without meeting face-to-face with the Bank, why should it be made easier for the Bank to collect if they made a wrong lending decision?

  • ian.d.samson - 2012-06-07 12:38

    Good! Well done Edwin Cameron! Standard Bank is far too arrogant and needs to be taught a few lessons.

      JohnLove123 - 2012-06-07 16:54

      Good afternoon Faizel. Whilst i understand your point of view, time has come for the major financial institutions, and in this instance Standard Bank, to stop reckless lending practices for the mere sake of bottom line profit. No person is granted any loan without meeting face-to-face with the Bank, why should it be made easier for the Bank to collect if they made a wrong lending decision?

  • graham.hood.58 - 2012-06-07 12:40

    If you're pro-consumer and you think you've won a victory here you're sadly mistaken.. The harder the Courts make it for the credit providers to collect their debt the harder it will become for consumers to borrow money, even if the credit involves secured debt. All that the banks are going to do to protect their rights under credit agreements now is raise their interest rates which at the end of the day hurts the poor consumer, again. It also leads to a more inaccessible credit market which completely flies in the face of the purpose of the NCA, and ultimately, will have negative effect on the economy. I'm not saying that the banks should be free to do and collect as they please without limitations, but that the further reaching consequences of such binding judgments should be taken into account as well. All that this leads to is a vicious circle in the fight to balance the rights of credit providers and consumers in post June 2007 South Africa, and it will always be the consumers who come off second best.

  • graham.hood.58 - 2012-06-07 12:43

    If you're pro-consumer and you think you've won a victory here you're sadly mistaken.. The harder the Courts make it for the credit providers to collect their debt the harder it will become for consumers to borrow money, even if the credit involves secured debt. All that the banks are going to do to protect their rights under credit agreements now is raise their interest rates which at the end of the day hurts the poor consumer, again. It also leads to a more inaccessible credit market which completely flies in the face of the purpose of the NCA, and ultimately, will have negative effect on the economy. I'm not saying that the banks should be free to do and collect as they please without limitations, but that the further reaching consequences of such binding judgments should be taken into account as well. All that this leads to is a vicious circle in the fight to balance the rights of credit providers and consumers in post June 2007 South Africa, and it will always be the consumers who come off second best.

  • John - 2012-06-07 12:44

    The nett result of this is that I will now have to serve my Section 129 letters through the Sheriff of Court, since this will be the only way I can prove that they did receive the letter. This, in turn, will result in an extra about R 50 per letter of demand that will be added to the account of the debtor. This does not sound much, but this will mean that, if a creditor has 1 000 credit agreements in default, the cost to send out Sec 129 letters will mean an expense of R 50 000, excluding the costs of the physical letter.

      graham.hood.58 - 2012-06-07 13:31

      no that's incorrect - read paragraph 76 & 77 of the judgment - you will just have to plead in your particulars of claim that it was delivered to the receiving post office & annex the "track and trace" printout which is available from the post office website. mere proof of despatch is no longer sufficient

  • Patanke - 2012-06-07 12:46

    Creditors will harass you,until you get money somewhere to get them off your back and it make the situation worst

  • Fanie - 2012-06-07 12:51

    Great, now everybody will play hide & seek. What if you emigrate? Then Standard Bank would not find you either?

  • Carl - 2012-06-07 13:01

    With respect! To all the "have nots"... You will never ever have! You have done it to yourselves. You will be blacklisted till the day you die until you do something to settle your dept.I used to work in a Company that had a list of over R1.2 mill in garnishing orders every month. It was too easy to get credit 12yrs ago. This is the main reason why employees are always so miserable and strike every year and demand unrealistic increases 'cause they working to pay off all their accounts!...and because of this, its made it more difficult for EVERYONE to get any credit at all!!No excuses. Its scary actually, this new ruling just opens the door even wider to criminals and corruption and ye, dodgy people too...

  • Carl - 2012-06-07 13:03

    With respect! To all the "have nots"... You will never ever have! You have done it to yourselves. You will be blacklisted till the day you die until you do something to settle your dept.I used to work in a Company that had a list of over R1.2 mill in garnishing orders every month. It was too easy to get credit 12yrs ago. This is the main reason why employees are always so miserable and strike every year and demand unrealistic increases 'cause they working to pay off all their accounts!...and because of this, its made it more difficult for EVERYONE to get any credit at all!!No excuses. Its scary actually, this new ruling just opens the door even wider to criminals and corruption and ye, dodgy people too...

  • Allan - 2012-06-07 13:22

    SANRAL as a private company and will also need to comply with these provisions if eToll's continues. With the majority of people refusing to pay eToll's the cost of trying to recover these debts has just gone up. BYE SANRAL!!

  • Gavin - 2012-06-07 14:43

    What if all the bank does now is formulate a document that waivers your right and has you select a domicilium. Surely if you sign that then POOF!!

  • martin.snyman2 - 2012-06-07 14:48

    Consider this scenario: Client enter into loan agreement and his address is chosen as domicilium. 2 Years go by and client relocate to another city. At the new city he change his address at the local lenders' branch. Few months later he defaults on payment. Lender instruct attorney to collect. Attorney send S129 to domiciled address because ledner failed to update the written contract with the changed address. S129 is send but never received. Summons is prepared and sheriff serve by attachment. Warrant of execution/emolument attachement order is obtained. Three months later consumer receive no salary because his employer deduct it from his payslip to pay the lender, or sheriff pitch up at his house and write up all assets for execution sale? Where is the justice in this? My opinion..... Banks must learn to keep their addresses updated and not take the easy way out of a domiciled address. This judgement is exactly preventing future by lenders to push matters tthrough the court without giving the consumer a change to react.

  • david.lebethe - 2012-06-07 14:49

    The judgment must be extolled by those who were haunted by creditors like me. My creditors must kiss my money good-bye and so are debt collectors who were breathing heavily on my neck.

  • david.lebethe - 2012-06-07 15:24

    The judgment must be extolled by those who were haunted by creditors like me. My creditors must kiss my money good-bye and so are debt collectors who were breathing heavily on my neck.

  • John - 2012-06-07 16:55

    Warning to all current and potential SA Homeloans clients. All banks want to avoid debt review process like the plague. But the reality is that economy and life deals even the most honorable people an unforeseen blow. BUT BE WARNED AND WARN ALL YOU CARE ABOUT!! SAHL will pretend to engage with distressed home owners all the while said home owner will find out months later that SAHL actually applies for the judgement very soon into the negotiations and very much WITHOUT TELLING THE client. They try this time and time again (not sure how they circumvent procedure) and sometimes they succeed actually - pray you have a judge that can see through their scams as it will be your only protection while you are not aware of their schemes. Lawyers they employ also negotiate on reduced terms at their free will, and will lecture clients on 'ethics' if you try to engage with SAHL on the rude and inconsistent lawyer that simply extort more money from already distressed human beings. STAY AWAY FROM SAHL!!!

  • John - 2012-06-07 16:55

    Warning to all current and potential SA Homeloans clients. All banks want to avoid debt review process like the plague. But the reality is that economy and life deals even the most honorable people an unforeseen blow. BUT BE WARNED AND WARN ALL YOU CARE ABOUT!! SAHL will pretend to engage with distressed home owners all the while said home owner will find out months later that SAHL actually applies for the judgement very soon into the negotiations and very much WITHOUT TELLING THE client. They try this time and time again (not sure how they circumvent procedure) and sometimes they succeed actually - pray you have a judge that can see through their scams as it will be your only protection while you are not aware of their schemes. Lawyers they employ also negotiate on reduced terms at their free will, and will lecture clients on 'ethics' if you try to engage with SAHL on the rude and inconsistent lawyer that simply extort more money from already distressed human beings. STAY AWAY FROM SAHL!!!

  • John - 2012-06-07 16:56

    Warning to all current and potential SA Homeloans clients. All banks want to avoid debt review process like the plague. But the reality is that economy and life deals even the most honorable people an unforeseen blow. BUT BE WARNED AND WARN ALL YOU CARE ABOUT!! SAHL will pretend to engage with distressed home owners all the while said home owner will find out months later that SAHL actually applies for the judgement very soon into the negotiations and very much WITHOUT TELLING THE client. They try this time and time again (not sure how they circumvent procedure) and sometimes they succeed actually - pray you have a judge that can see through their scams as it will be your only protection while you are not aware of their schemes. Lawyers they employ also negotiate on reduced terms at their free will, and will lecture clients on 'ethics' if you try to engage with SAHL on the rude and inconsistent lawyer that simply extort more money from already distressed human beings. STAY AWAY FROM SAHL!!!

  • John - 2012-06-07 16:56

    Warning to all current and potential SA Homeloans clients. All banks want to avoid debt review process like the plague. But the reality is that economy and life deals even the most honorable people an unforeseen blow. BUT BE WARNED AND WARN ALL YOU CARE ABOUT!! SAHL will pretend to engage with distressed home owners all the while said home owner will find out months later that SAHL actually applies for the judgement very soon into the negotiations and very much WITHOUT TELLING THE client. They try this time and time again (not sure how they circumvent procedure) and sometimes they succeed actually - pray you have a judge that can see through their scams as it will be your only protection while you are not aware of their schemes. Lawyers they employ also negotiate on reduced terms at their free will, and will lecture clients on 'ethics' if you try to engage with SAHL on the rude and inconsistent lawyer that simply extort more money from already distressed human beings. STAY AWAY FROM SAHL!!!

  • John - 2012-06-07 16:56

    Warning to all current and potential SA Homeloans clients. All banks want to avoid debt review process like the plague. But the reality is that economy and life deals even the most honorable people an unforeseen blow. BUT BE WARNED AND WARN ALL YOU CARE ABOUT!! SAHL will pretend to engage with distressed home owners all the while said home owner will find out months later that SAHL actually applies for the judgement very soon into the negotiations and very much WITHOUT TELLING THE client. They try this time and time again (not sure how they circumvent procedure) and sometimes they succeed actually - pray you have a judge that can see through their scams as it will be your only protection while you are not aware of their schemes. Lawyers they employ also negotiate on reduced terms at their free will, and will lecture clients on 'ethics' if you try to engage with SAHL on the rude and inconsistent lawyer that simply extort more money from already distressed human beings. STAY AWAY FROM SAHL!!!

  • John - 2012-06-07 16:57

    Warning to all current and potential SA Homeloans clients. All banks want to avoid debt review process like the plague. But the reality is that economy and life deals even the most honorable people an unforeseen blow. BUT BE WARNED AND WARN ALL YOU CARE ABOUT!! SAHL will pretend to engage with distressed home owners all the while said home owner will find out months later that SAHL actually applies for the judgement very soon into the negotiations and very much WITHOUT TELLING THE client. They try this time and time again (not sure how they circumvent procedure) and sometimes they succeed actually - pray you have a judge that can see through their scams as it will be your only protection while you are not aware of their schemes. Lawyers they employ also negotiate on reduced terms at their free will, and will lecture clients on 'ethics' if you try to engage with SAHL on the rude and inconsistent lawyer that simply extort more money from already distressed human beings. STAY AWAY FROM SAHL!!!

  • JohnLove123 - 2012-06-07 17:02

    Congratulations Judge Cameron. Whilst it will make the cost of lending more expensive, fact of the matter remains that financial institutions need to be more circumspect in granting loans. The days of repossessing properties without the home owner having been informed, or even being aware of the process is hopefully gone forever. Thank you Standard Bank! for abusing your role as a responsible corporate citizen...this resulted in the subject matter being brought to justice! There are yet a few more matters of reckless practices to be dealt with before the sun sets on the year 2012..

  • John - 2012-06-07 17:33

    Warning to all current and potential SA Homeloans clients. All banks want to avoid debt review process like the plague. But the reality is that economy and life deals even the most honorable people an unforeseen blow. BUT BE WARNED AND WARN ALL YOU CARE ABOUT!! SAHL will pretend to engage with distressed home owners all the while said home owner will find out months later that SAHL actually applies for the judgement very soon into the negotiations and very much WITHOUT TELLING THE client. They try this time and time again (not sure how they circumvent procedure) and sometimes they succeed actually - pray you have a judge that can see through their scams as it will be your only protection while you are not aware of their schemes. Lawyers they employ also negotiate on reduced terms at their free will, and will lecture clients on 'ethics' if you try to engage with SAHL on the rude and inconsistent lawyer that simply extort more money from already distressed human beings. STAY AWAY FROM SAHL!!!

  • pages:
  • 1
  • 2