Tuesday, February 10, 2015
This case is another case following the growing trend in our courts which confirms that a consumer is not in willful default of his/her debt review order if the PDA fails to make payments to the creditors.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
In this case the Appeal Court considered the question whether or not a credit provider can terminate the debt review process and thus exclude his debt from debt counselling after a court application has been issued. The court found that after the 60 days have lapsed a credit provider can indeed terminate the debt review process.
In practice however very few credit providers proceed to terminate if a consumer is making regular debt review payments. The act has also been amended to ensure that a credit provider cannot terminate once a court application has been filed. This amendment has however not come into effect as of yet.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
In this case the High Court dealt with the fact where a Consumer has made his monthly payments to the PDA but the PDA did not pay the creditors correctly. The bank argued that the PDA is an agent of the consumer and the consumer is therefore liable for any act or ommission of the PDA.
The High Court disagreed and found that there is no agreement between the PDA and the Consumer. The High Court therefore found that the Consumer is not liable for the PDA's mistakes and therefore the consumer was not in willful default of the debt review court order.
Read more at
In this case the Constitutional Court found that a credit provider has to deliver the notice in terms of Section 129 of the National Credit Act in such a way that delivery can be proven. Consequently most credit providers are delivering the notice by Sheriff. The purpose of the Notice is to advise consumers of their rights to apply for debt counselling or debt review at a debt counsellor.
Read more at