www.debtcounsellingsa.co.za

DebtfreeSouth Africa’s debt counselling magazine

February 2010

Wow, well February certainly started with a bang, didn’t it? The new PDA fee structure; the new rules engine and...what else? Lets think...oh yes... Wesbank v Pipier!If you are a consumer under review with your matter set down at court or a DC with piles of termination letters on your desk this judgment is going to change your life. Read more about it in our page by page review from Attorney Brett Carnegie. Read it, get to know it, learn to quote it...and then be sure to ask for costs in all matters where you are defending a summons which was served on a client who’s

EDITOR

CONTENTSEditors notes

News

What’s going on

Tips for reducing costs

Tips for borrowing

Wesbank v Papier

Working on fire

Service directory

02

03

08

10

12

13

24

27

matters were already set down at Mag Court for restructuring. Remember there is now a clear line between Debt review by a DC (for 60 days) and an application for debt restructuring by the court. You may feel that the current termination moratorium is a waste of time (See our readers poll) but consider this: why are so few matters for debt restructuring set down (see the numbers news article)? Where are all the other thousands of debt restructuring applications?Now it may be that your DC is not doing his job and has not set the matter down. Well, if so, the NCR will “fix” him like it has recently done to several “naughty” DC’s recently. (see our news section). This should be a wake up call to DC’s to do their jobs well or face deregistration.Feeling the pinch of the increasing cost of living? Well check out our savings tips article for simple but easily manageable savings tricks.So, get out there and ...conquer debt. Get Debtfree! We hope you really enjoy this issue.

http://twitter.com/Debtfree_DIGI

NEWSWesbank V PipierThe High Court full bench which was considering the Papier Vs Wesbank case has handed down a judgment in favour of Mr Papier and the NCR. This is great news for all Debt Counsellors and consumers with debt review applications pending at court. The judgment compares allowing a Credit Provider to terminate [86(10)] a Debt Review when it has already been set before a court for a restructuring order to “providing the consumer with an umbrella and then snatching it back the moment it starts raining”. The Summary Judgment application was refused and the matter was referred back to the Magistrates Court where the restructuring application is being held. The essence is that Credit Providers cannot issue termination letters to clients who are paying and have matters set before a Magistrates Court for a Debt Restructuring Order. See our in depth look at the judgment in this issue.

National Credit Regulator de-registers a Debt Counsellor, Christopher Bornman of PBC effecting over 4500 consumers.In response to an application brought by the NCR, the National Consumer Tribunal (NCT) cancelled the registration of a debt counsellor, Mr. Christopher Bornman (“Bornman”) with immediate effect from 13 December 2010.The NCR conducted an investigation into the debt counselling practices of Mr. Christopher Bornman as a result of numerous complaints

which the NCR received from consumers. Much of the unhappiness of these complainants stemmed from the fact that even though they were under debt review with Bornman as their DC, their credit providers were still harassing them and some of the complainants have “lost their assets in this way”, says Adv. Jan Augustyn, Manager for Investigations & Enforcement at the NCR. The investigation revealed that Bornman, who is also a practising attorney also, had two other companies, namely Bornman & Associates Attorneys and Prosperitas Bene Carpe CC (“PBC”) which were utilizing the National CreditRegulator’s registration number for Bornman on their websites and in doing so, holding themselves out to be registered debt counsellors.Adv. Jan Augustyn further added that the investigation also revealed that Bornman wasshockingly charging consumers a ten percent (10%) collection commission prior to Bornmanpaying monies intended for credit providers to the Payment Distribution Agent (“PDA”). He further added that Bornman did not conduct debt counselling “in the manner set out in the National Credit Act” and in so doing has “brought both debt counselling and the NCR into disrepute”.The number of consumers affected by this application is approximately 4 808 (four thousand eight hundred and eight). “This is quite a substantial number in comparison to other debt counsellors”, adds Adv. Jan Augustyn.

INDUSTRY CONSUMER

The DC was ordered to refund consumers’ debt counselling fees where it was found that he has not referred matters to court and also refund all the 4 808 consumers’ 10% collection commission which he had levied.Bornman was further ordered to surrender all his consumer files to the NCR for handing over to a new DC.Bornman and Associates and Prosperitas Bene Carpe CC (known as PBC) were ordered by the National Consumer Tribunal not to hold themselves out to be debt counsellors or offering debt counselling services, concluded Augustyn.This is either a huge blow or huge victory for the reputation of the industry. Either way, the ones to suffer could be those clients who are out of pocket or face legal action from creditors dealing with their matters. The NCR will try to assist these consumers as much as possible.

Debt Review Advisory Committee (DRAC)The NCR has appointed Dr. David Lewis, who is the ex-chairperson of the Competition Tribunal to chair the Debt Review Advisory Committee. DCASA has been asked have a member represent them on this committee. In fact, DCASA was offered two seats and one further seat has been held open for another DC representative body.The mandate of this committee is broadly to develop, implement and monitor the effectiveness of the debt review process on an ongoing basis. It will also oversee the implementation of codes of conduct for credit providers, DC’s and PDA’s in order to regulate their conduct. Other responsibilities include ensuring the integrity of the proposals made by DC’s, overseeing the accreditation of the debt

counselling software systems and overseeing the implementation of industry-agreed rules of debt restructuring in order to facilitate more consensual resolution of debt review cases.

Debt Review NumbersThe NCR inform Debtfree DIGI that so far barely over 20,000 cases have been resolved through the courts; with a further 26,000 cases (and climbing) still on the roll. This is a sadly a small portion of the over 200 000 people registered with the NCR since the NCA came into effect. Many DC’s will want to take advantage of the temporary “Termination Moratorium” to get their matters set down. Consumers should ask their counsellors if they have done so.

On the 2nd of March 2011 the National Executive Committee of DCASA will meet and formally accept the proposed debt counsellors Code of Conduct. All DCASA members will then be asked to accept the code. While accepting the Code is not compulsory, the NCR are trying to encourage it by posting on their directory of Debt Counsellors who has and has not signed the code. The NCR have also said they will only make recommendations of those DC’s who have accepted to callers inquiring about debt counselling. It has also been said that possibly when DC’s have to sign their new conditions of registration with the NCR, a new clause regarding belonging to a association (such as DCASA or the SDC) along with having signed a code of conduct will be included.The NCR are promoting accepting the Code of Conduct to assist the Credit Ombudsman in handling debt counselling related disputes

Credit Ombud now ready to receive your complaints As of 1st of February 2011 the Credit Ombudsman has officially opened it’s doors to complaints relating to debt review matters. In reality however the Ombud is waiting on DCASA to formally accept the proposed Code of Conduct and will no doubt be waiting for a similar document from the SDC. Please remember the correct complaints procedure of dealing direct with the organisation first, then their association and finally the Ombud.

DCASA grows in 2011Since January 1st DCASA has had 35 new members join the association. Many say this is because of their new fee structure.

ABSA’s Debt Review client account goes country wide. In 2010, ABSA piloted a transactional account for customers under Debt Counselling with selected Branches and Debt Counsellors. The ABSA Solution Account is a basic transactional/savings account, tailor made for customers under debt counselling. It is a cost-effective account, which provides the customer with an alternative banking solution for the debt review market.ABSA have seen an increasing number of accounts being opened from the inception of the pilot in 2010, outlining the demand for such an account. Ally Mafunzwaini the General Manager of Customer Management at ABSA now confirms that with effect from 01 March 2011, the Absa Solution account will be available at every branch nationally.To open account, the following is required:

1. Green bar coded ID Document, 2. Original/ certified copy of utility bill, no older than 3 months, indicating your residential address, 3. Form 17.1 issued by the Debt Counsellor, as proof that client has been accepted for Debt Review, 4. R50 minimum deposit at time of opening account.The features to this account at a fee of R75 per month are: ABSA ATM cash withdrawals ABSA ATM cash deposits ABSA ATM balances enquiries and mini statement Electronic fund transfers and Electronic account payment All point-of-sale transactions Debit and stop orders Notify me fees. ABSA want to make sure that all Debt Counsellors know that no “set off`s” can be applied to this specific account. It remains to be seen if the R75 price tag seems of more value to consumers than Capitec’s R4.50 basic account fee.

Debt Counselling in the NewsIndependent Newspapers are going to publish a special survey on Debt Counselling on the 25th of February. The Special Survey in Business Report will appear in The Star, Pretoria News, Cape Times and Mercury.

SDC disappointed by NCR The SDC have expressed their dismay in regard to dealings with the NCR on their website. (see below)As per the SDC website: “An SDC delegation recently met up with Gabriel Davel and Peter Setou in Randjiespark in an attempt to gain more clarity on various contentious issues surrounding the debt counselling environment. Various issues were discussed, but none more so than the infamous industry Code as we have

come to know it.In response to a question from the SDC as to how such code can be implemented (bear in mind this meeting took place before the 2nd of December without the full support of majority of the debt counsellors), his answer was simple: The NCR was not willing to undo, as Mr Davel put it, the many hours of work already done by the Task Team and in particular Mr Paul Slot (DCASA).It was made clear that the findings and recommendations of the Task team was considered cast in stone and that the industry would have to abide by it.Mr Davel did however point out that no debt counsellor would be compelled to apply the formula as devised by the Task team ‘to the T’. In other words, a debt counsellor whose client does not fit into the categories created by this industry code will be no better off than before these developments arrived.On a question posed by the SDC as to representation on a new body consisting of credit providers and debt counsellors it became apparent that DCASA would have a seat on this body.It was further made known that the NCR would rather see DCASA and the SDC join forces or alternatively create a federation consisting of representatives from both organisations.It is with the above in mind that the SDC regretfully voice its disappointment towards the manner with which the NCR excluded the debt counsellors from what is effectively law. If you do not comply with these rules, you are ‘out in the cold’. Rules you, as an industry player, had no say in.To say that a given rule is valid, it must be recognized that it has passed all the tests provided by the rule of recognition. The rule of

recognition arises out of a convention among officials whereby they accept the rule’s criteria as standards that empower and govern their actions as officials.We, the debt counsellors, are the protectors of the consumer utilizing our expertise. If we have no say in this industry then the ordinary consumers’ rights will fall foul in terms of debt counselling. This is especially so in an industry already dominated by the major banks.Ultimately, debt counsellors should abide by the law set out in the National Credit Act. The NCA provides that an over-indebted consumer, with all the exceptions noted, has the right to be protected against his creditors. The Act assigns no particularity to the kinds of agreement which may be covered by debt counselling. There is also no minimum threshold prescribed for proposed amounts creditors.From the above it is clear that the rights (to be protected in terms of the NCA) of an over-indebted consumer who is under debt review, is more or less absolute and should not be violated.We will most probably never reach parity when it comes to steering of the industry and we anxiously anticipate the surprises held by an ever promising 2011!” To visit the SDC’s website go to: www.sdc-sa.co.za

DCRS rules engine goes liveThe much discussed and debated BASA central web based engine (called DCRS) went live on the 1st of this month (February) It is now available to all the PDA associated calculation programs to use. Some of the calculation programs have already integrated this new option into their systems and others are busy doing so. The predictions where that the DCRS

system would provide a solve rate of about 60% of cases. Some DC’s are reporting that they are seeing a solve percentage closer to 30%. The various banks have promised to co-operate and speed things up if DC’s use their calculation engine (if the calculations solve, of course). Some DC’s have commented that not all the banks have the system up and running on their side.

New PDA fee structure approved by NCRFrom the first of February this year the various PDA’s will be changing their fees. The fees will now be based on a 3% charge of the consumers distributed amount A min payment of R50 per consumer will come into effect and a maximum fee of R500 will be in place regardless of distribution amount.PDA’s have put these changes onto their systems with some PDA’s offering the option to convert clients from the old charges to the new. The various PDA’s will now also have to reflect the new charges in the documentation generated for court use. DC’s should remember to disclose these fees to their clients up front and include this information into your client contracts. Obviously clients have no choice but to distribute via a PDA but it is best to keep them informed as to the costs.

Some important dates past and future to keep in mind:

1 Feb 2011Wesbank V Pipier judgment handed down. The pivotal judgment in regard to termination of review matters which are set down at court was handed down in favor of the consumer. (see our in depth article in this issue)

BASA rules engine goes live

9 Feb 2011DRAC Meeting

DCASA Meeting: W Cape

16 Feb 2011NDMA conference in Cape Town

17 Feb 2011Credit Ombud Board to meet with DRAC

18 Feb 2011New issue of Debtfree DIGI

24 Feb 2011DCASA Meeting: Eastern Cape

25 Feb 2011Debt Counselling Article in Business Report (in The Star, Pretoria News, Cape Times and Mercury)

2 March 2011DCASA National Executive Committee meeting

9 March 2011DCASA Meeting: Gauteng

WHAT’S GOING ON!

So Debt Counsellors want specialised ATTORNEYSwho can sort out all their DEBT COUNSELLING needs...

RM Brown& associates

www.rmbrown.co.za

Take sandwiches to work for lunch.

When shopping at the supermarket, compare prices. Buy newly launched or “no-name” brands, and “specials”

Make sure that there are no unnecessary lights on in your home at night. If you go away for a few days, turn off your geyser. With the cost of electricity escalating, it is important to use electricity sparingly. Consider turning your geyser off during the day when not at home.

Always use your own bank’s ATM machine, to avoid paying excessive finance charges or join a bank which does not charge you to use it’s machines.

Share travel expenses with colleagues. Lift clubs go a long way towards saving fuel and money.

Want to eat out? Don’t spend lots of money to do so. Many restaurants run promotions or have specials like “two for one Mondays”. Taking advantage of these can help keep the costs down considerably.

When buying gifts, ask the receiver for a list of things he or she would like, and don’t be embarrassed to stipulate a budget. Apart from saving you money, this approach will ensure that you give a gift that will be appreciated.

When last did you try growing vegetables in your garden? Using good compost almost guarantees good results, and home-grown veg saves money.

If you plan to go to movies, go on a night when the price is reduced or use an affiliate card which gets you a discount but costs you nothing. Maybe you could have some friends around and watch a DVD instead.

TIPS FOR REDUCING COSTS

CONSUMER

Limited Cover Plan

When you are under debt review, you enjoy protection from your creditors, to the extent that the bank cannot repossess your vehicle. The only instance where you are not protected, though, is when that vehicle is not insured.The bank is then legally entitled to repossess the vehicle, as you are in breach of contract. The problem is that normal insurance is expensive. Our solution is motor vehicle insurance with limited cover. The outstanding balance owed on the vehicle is covers for total loss only (through theft and accident).This means that you are not covered for smaller accidents where the car is not written off. Because of the limited cover, the premium is considerably less than comprehensive insurance, in fact, about a third of normal insurance.You might ask whether such insurance will be acceptable to the bank?The answer is a definite yes, since all the banks are selling a similar product to their clients.Remember, if your car is not insured, it is nót protected under debt review.

DrivePlan

DrivePlan is an affordable car rental pool for people who have lost possession of their cars. Once you are under debt review, you are not allowed to finance another vehicle. In the event that you lose your vehicle due to an accident or theft, your insurance will only settle your account with the bank, still leaving you without transport.

DrivePlan will rent a car or motorcycle to you, subject to availablity. A huge advantage of a rental vehicle is that your instalment includes insurance plus 3500 km free per month.

DrivePlan Deposit Cover

A long term rental as explained above require a substantial deposit initially. For a car this might be up to R5000. Our Deposit Cover allows you to plan ahead for such an event. If you take our DrivePlan Deposit Cover at the time when you go under debt review, this policy will pay your deposit in the event that you lose your transport. This will only cost you R49-50 per month. if you don’t have this cover, you will have to pay the deposit from your living expenses.

When taking a loan (if you are not already under debt review) then make the loan term as short as possible - Avoid paying over too many months as it will cost you more in the end;

Don’t be tempted by attractive deals on new credit cards such as not paying fees for a set period of time for the card or offering you points and benefits the more you spend on your card. All debt carries a cost eventually. Calculate the cost.

Take advantage of the low interest rates to pay off as much debt as possible. Prioritise your home loan during this time. You could save thousands in interest costs over the longer term.

Shop around and compare interest rates and other costs from different credit providers before entering into an agreement, use the pre-agreement statement and quotation to

assist you to compare.

Read the small print. Understand each clause and ask for help if you don’t understand certain terms and conditions. Be aware of “no deposit”deals, which can work out to be highly expensive over time. Remember it’s your right to be given documents in a plain and understandable language. This means that the contents, meaning and importance of the document must be easy to understand.

Be aware that interest and fees are regulated by law, so check the interest rate you are being charged.

Start saving consistently and seriously for your retirement years from the day you start working. It is advised that you put aside at least 15% of your income every month in a safe investment.

TIPS FOR BORROWING

CONSUMER

WESBANK V PAPIER

On the 1st of February 2011 judgment was handed down in the Wesbank v Papier matter. This is a case which involved a Credit Provider trying to get summary judgment at the High Court, when a Debt Counsellor had already set the matter down at Magistrates CourtThe full bench decided in favour of the consumer and sent the matter back to the Magistrates Court. All DC’s should get to know this judgment and the arguments that were presented. Debtfree

DIGI brings you a page by page review with helpful comments by Attorney Brett Carnegie. Since this judgment was handed down many summary judgment cases have been heard and this precedent has been mentioned as part of the consumers defense. In many cases costs were now awarded against the Credit Provider who brought the summary judgment applications which provided great relief to the consumer. On the 17th of February 2011 another ground breaking case in the Western Cape was held in regard to a summary judgment application by a Credit Provider who had issued a termination letter to a consumer under debt review. The consumers legal team (including Brett Carnegie) argued against the summary judgment using the now famous Wesbank V Papier case. In this article you will find helpful comments from Attorney Brett Carnegie about the Wesbank v Papier judgment and comments on how the Roziers case differed. Note: In the Rozier case the Credit Provider had issued a termination notice before the matter was set down and the court still found in favour of the consumer.Debtfree DIGI will be interviewing Brett Carnegie about the matter and will bring you more information on that case soon.

INDUSTRY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)

Case No 14256/10

In the matter between:

WESBANK, a division of FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Plaintiff

and

DEON WINSTON PAPIER Defendant

and

THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR Amicus curiae

Court: TRAVERSO DJP, GRIESEL J and DLODLO J

Heard: 5 November 2010

Delivered: 31 January 2011

JUDGMENT

GRIESEL J:

[1] This is an opposed application for summary judgment arising from a credit agreement governed by the provisions of the National Credit Act. Because some of the provisions of the Act have given rise to difficulties of interpretation and conflicting judgments in different courts, the Judge President has directed that the present matter be heard by a full court.

[2] At the commencement of the hearing before us the National Credit Regulator (‘NCR’) applied for and was granted leave to intervene as amicus curiae. In this regard, the court is indebted to counsel for the NCR, as well as counsel for the par-ties, for the full and helpful argu¬ments addressed to us, which assisted greatly in

This is the decision of the full bench in the Western Cape High Court. What the judgment clearly and unequivocally decided was that provided that the debt counselor had launched the application to have the debt restruc-turing made an order of the Magistrates Court prior to receipt of the notice of termination in terms of section 86(10) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005, then the consumer would be protected from further legal proceedings instituted by the credit provider. However, as will appear more fully from my comments below, what the judgment also did was create an ambiguity which could be exploited by the consumers and debt counselors alike and in so doing, come to the rescue of consumers whose debt counselors had not yet brought the application to the magistrates court. I was involved in just such a case today, the 17th February 2011, where the ambiguity was utilized by the consumer to encourage the High Court to stay a sale in execution of immovable property on an urgent basis. The matter was argued before Judge Kirk Cohen AJ in the matter between Roziers and First Rand Bank (case number:3050/2011)

Ironically, this judgment will no doubt give rise to difficulties of interpreta-tion and result in conflict-ing judgments in different courts

Friend of the court

Nice to see the NCR playing such an active role in the development of our jurispru-dence

clarifying the issues.

Factual background

[3] The credit agreement in question was entered into on 27 March 2007 between the defendant, Mr Deon Winston Papier, as ‘consumer’, and the plaintiff, as ‘credit provider’. It relates to the lease of a 2003 Mazda 6 motor vehicle. In terms of the agreement, the defendant was obliged to pay to the plaintiff an ‘initial rental’ of R13 157,89, followed by 53 consecutive rentals of R2 772,90 each, payable on the first day of each month, with a final instalment payable on 26 September 2011.

[4] By September 2009 the defendant encountered financial diffi-culties and on 29 September 2009 he applied to a debt counsellor in Vredenburg for debt review in terms of s 86(1) of the Act. The debt counsellor, on 2 October 2009, sent notices as contemplated by s 86(4)(b)(i) of the Act to all the defendant’s creditors, inform-ing them of the defendant’s application for debt review. This was followed, on 30 October 2009, by a further notice from the debt counsellor, informing all creditors that the defendant’s application for debt review was successful; that the defendant was over-indebted as contemplated by s 79(1) of the Act; and that ‘the debt obliga-tions were in the process of being re- structured’. This notice was accompanied by an ‘instalment offer’, pro-posing a rearrangement of the debts in question. The proposal entailed that an amount of R5 300 per month would be distributed on a pro rata basis among the defendant’s creditors. This would mean, in the case ofthe debt owing to the plaintiff, that the latter would receive monthly instalments of Rl 762,44, instead of R2 772,90 per month, as originally agreed.

[5] The plaintiff did not make a counter-proposal to the suggestions of the debt counsellor, nor did it respond at all to the debt counsellor’s notices. The defendant thereupon proceeded to make monthly payments to the debt counsellor, which were distributed among the various creditors - including the plaintiff - in accor-dance with the earlier proposal.

[6] On 12 March 2010 the debt counsellor launched an application in the magis-trate’s court of Vredenburg, citing the defendant and his wife, together with their various creditors (including the plaintiff) asrespondents. The application is head-ed, somewhat misleadingly, ‘Notice of Motion: Application by consumer to court for debt review in terms of section 86(10) and 86(11) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005’. It is apparent from the relief sought, however, that what was intended was a proposal for re-arrangement, as contemplated by s 86(7)(c)(ii) of the Act. In the notice of motion, the respondents were informed that application would be made to the court on 11 June 2010, inter alia, for an order that the defendant and his wife are over-indebted as set out in s 79 of the Act; ordering that the defen-dant’s ‘debt obligations be restructured’ in accord¬ance with a proposal annexed

These are all steps taken by the debt counselor in

the restructuring process. These steps are extremely

important and formed the basis of our challenge

before Kirk-Cohen AJ as they form part of the steps

as envisaged by Section 86(7)(c). Go on, have a look

at this section in the Act. All debt counselors and

credit providers should be familiar with this section.

This is extremely important in respect of our challenge

and which was picked up by Kirk-Cohen AJ, namely

that the parties had entered into a tacit agree-

ment of sorts because the bank accepted the

payments

In the Papier matter the debt restructuring ap-

plication was issued in the Magistrates Court prior to termination in terms of section 86(10) by the

Credit provider. In our matter before Kirk-Cohen AJ the debt restructuring

application was not in court before the termina-

tion letter.

to the papers; and ordering credit providers who had given notice to terminate the debt review process to resume the debt review in terms of s 86( 11) of the Act.

[7] Exactly one week before the scheduled hearing, however, on 4 June 2010, the plaintiffs attorneys notified the defendant by registered post that the plaintiff ter-minates ‘the pending debt review with regard to the above agreement as contem-plated in s 86(10) of the Act’. They further pointed out that the defendant was at that stage in arrears in the amount of R40 982,78 in respect of the credit agreement in question and that he had been in arrears for more than 20 business days. They accord¬ingly demanded immediate payment of such arrears. The letter concluded as follows:‘Should you fail to (1) pay the arrears mentioned above in full; or alternatively (2) return the vehicle as contemplated in s 127 of the Act; within 10 business days of transmission of this letter, our client intends to cancel the agreement and to pro-ceed to take legal action to enforce its rights in terms of the agreement.”

[8] On 29 June 2010 the plaintiff launched the present action, seeking to enforce the credit agreement. In its particulars of claim the plaintiff alleged that the debt re-view process had been terminated by the delivery of its notice in terms of s 86(10), more than 60 business days after the defendant’s application for debt review, and that the defendant had been in default in terms of the agreement on the date when the said notice was delivered. The plaintiff further alleged as follows:

‘12.5 The agreement is therefore not subject to pending debt review as contem¬plated in s 86 of the NCA as:12.5.1. The defendant has not surrendered the vehicle to the plaintiff as contem-plated in s 127 of the NCA;12.5.2. There is no matter arising under the agreement and pending before the Na-tional Credit Tribunal that could result in an order affecting the issues to be deter-mined by the court.13.The matter is not before a Debt Counsellor. Alternative Dispute Resolution Agent, Consumer Court or the Ombud with jurisdiction.

13.1 The defendant has not:13.1.1. agreed to a proposal made in terms of sl29(l)(a) of the NCA or acted in good faith in fulfilment of such agreement as no such agreement has been reached;13.1.2. complied with an agreed plan as contemplated in sl29(l)(a) of the NCA as no such plan has been agreed; or13.1.3. brought the payments under the credit agreement up to date, as contem-plated in sl29(l)(a) of the NCA.13.2. More than 10 business days have passed since the delivery of the above notices in terms of s86(10) of the NCA;13.3. The defendant has been default [sic] under the agreement for more than 20 business days.’

Here the credit provider seeks to terminate the debt restructur-ing application just before the hearing. In the Rozier matter the termination took place before the debt restructuring application was launched in the Magistrates Court

Good faith is an integral part of the jurisprudence created by the Na-tional Credit Act. In terms of section 86(5) of the Act the parties are required to Act in good faith. In the Papier matter it was the Bank who failed to respond to the proposal made by the debt counselor (see [5] supra), yet they disingenuously claim that it was the Defendant who had not act-ed in good faith for not reaching agreement.. Quite bizarre!

[9] The plaintiff accordingly asks for judgment for (a) confirmation of cancellation of the agreement; and (b) delivery of the goods to the plaintiff, together with costs. (The plaintiff also claims payment of damages, together with interest, but only prayers (a) and (b) are relevant for purposes of the present application for summary judgment, with the balance of the relief to stand over for later determination.)

[10] The defendant gave notice of his intention to oppose the claim, which prompt-ed the present application for summary judgment. In his opposing affidavit, the defendant drew attention to the process followed by him and the debt counsellor, as outlined above. He also drew attention to the application that had been issued on 12 March 2010 and set down for hearing in the magistrate’s court on 11 June 2010. The defendant accordingly pointed out that his application for debt re¬arrangement had been issued and set down prior to the issue of summons by the plaintiff herein.

[11] The defendant also stated:‘Ek wil verder onder die Hof se aandag bring dat daar tydens die aanhoor van hier-die aansoek geargumenteer sal word dat in terme van die bepalings van art 86(11) van die Nasionale Kredietwet, ek die reg het om aansoek te doen vir die herlewing van my aansoek om skuldberading. Ek is meegedeel dat tesame met die liassering van my formele aansoek daar ook aansoek gedoen sal word vir die implimentering van die bepalings van art 86( 11) van die Nasionale Kredietwet.*

[12] The crisp question raised by the defendant’s opposing affidavit is whether it is competent for a credit provider to terminate a debt review process in terms of s 86(10) after an application has been lodged with a magistrate’s court for an order restructuring a consumer’s debts as envisaged in s 86(7)(c) of the Act but before an order has been made in terms of s 87(1). As will appear more fully below, this question has received different answers from different courts.

Discussion[13] The Act is aimed at drastically restructuring the legal landscape insofar as consumer credit is concerned. One of its principal aims, as contained in the long title, is ‘to promote a fair and non-discriminatory marketplace for access to con-sumer credit’. Another aim is ‘to protect consumers’, inter alia, by ‘addressing and preventing over-indebtedness of consumers, and providing mechanisms for resolv-ing over-indebtedness based on the principle of satisfaction by the consumer of all responsible financial obligations’. In order to achieve the aims of the Act, it has limited a credit provider’s right to enforce a credit agreement where a consumer defaults under the agreement. In a nutshell, the Act has drastically changed the traditional legal debt collection procedures.

[14] It is ironic that a piece of legislation that was passed with such laudable inten-

When you oppose sum-mary judgment it is only

necessary to set out a defence that on the face

of it will stand. If summary judgment is successfully

opposed then the matter would in the normal

course proceed to trial. In the Western Cape Division

that could be some three years away. For this reason

the credit providers are anxious to succeed at

summary judgment level. The Defendant is required to show that he or she has

not entered the defence purely for the purpose of

delaying the inevitable outcome.

This is what persuaded the full bench to find that

Papier had a defence to the action brought by

the Bank. As mentioned previously, in the Rozier

matter, the court went even further and if I have

interpreted Kirk-Cohen AJ’s judgment correctly, this was based primarily on the fact that the Na-

tional Credit Act has been established to protect the

interests of the Consumer.

This is an application for the reinstatement of the

debt review. The court found here that because

they had determined that the termination was

invalid there was no need to consider the necessity

for reinstatement.

This distinguishes the mat-ter completely from the Rozier matter that I was

involved with today.

This is what Kirk-Cohen made mention of in his

judgment in respect of the Rozier matter.

Quite so, it may be a bit early to say, but it would

appear to me that it would be in the Credit Providers

interest to work in good faith with the Debt Coun-

sellor in trying to solve the consumers indebtedness so that all the consumers

financial obligations are ultimately met in full. What

a fantastic saving for the Credit Provider! They will

have the Debt Counsellor doing their debt collection

for them. The Credit Pro-vider therefore would not

tions has become, within a few months after its promul¬gation, a ‘fertile ground for litigation’, as it was described in one of the plethora of cases in which its provi-sions were considered by the court. Be that as it may, save to the extent as set out below, it is unnecessary for purposes of this judgment to undertake a comprehensive overview of the Act and the appli-cable regulations.

[15] Of particular relevance to the present enquiry is Chapter 4, under the heading ‘Consumer Credit Policy’. Part D of that chapter (ss 78-88) introduces the novel concepts of ‘over-indebtedness and reckless credit’ and makes elaborate provi-sion for re-scheduling a consumer’s debt payments where either of those situations pertains. The object of this part of the Act is to provide protection and assistance to an over-indebted consumer in an environment that encourages participation in good faith by both parties. The mechanisms provided by the Act are contained in ss 85-88 and consist of debt review, on the one hand, and debt re¬arrangement, on the other.

[16] Subsection 86( 10) provides as follows:

‘If a consumer is in default under a credit agreement that is being reviewed in terms of this section, the credit provider in respect of that credit agreement may give notice to terminate the review in the prescribed manner to—(a)the consumer;(b)the debt counsellor; and(c)the National Credit Regulator,at any time at least 60 business days after the date on which the consumer applied for the debt review.’

[17] The subsection contains no limitation on a creditor’s right to give notice of termination, save for the two jurisdictional requirements postu¬lated, namely (a) the consumer must be in default under the credit agreement; and (b) at least 60 business days must have elapsed after the date on which the consumer applied for the debt review. In the present instance, it is common cause that both these require-ments have been met: the defendant was already in default when he applied for debt review on 29 September 2009. On 4 June 2010, ie more than 60 business days later, the plaintiff gave the requisite notice in terms of s 86(10). Moreover, more than 10 days have elapsed after the plaintiffs notice before summons was issued, as required by s 130(1). The plaintiff, relying on a literal interpretation of s 86(10), accordingly submitted that it is entitled to enforce the terms of the credit agreement in question by claiming summary judgment.

No doubt the litigation will follow, but is it not time for the Credit Providers to work with the Debt Counsellors? The Papier and Rozier judgments cer-tainly suggest that this would be the correct approach. For a long time now Debt Coun-sellors have been on the receiving end of constant attack from Credit Providers and the Consumers alike. I am hopeful that we have now reached a turning point and that Debt Counsel-lors can get on with the job of restructuring over –indebted consumers debt. In my view, it should be as simple as that!

I have dealt with a number of these judgments in previous issues of Debtfree DIGI!

I have not come across much case law dealing with reckless credit. It seems to me that Debt Counsel-lors are afraid of declaring credit reckless. I suggest that now is the time for Debt Counsellors to be more forceful about this. It is indeed part of their statutory mandate!

Good faith is once again empha-sized.

I have yet to come across reference to the’ prescribed manner’. Its cer-tainly not set out in the regulations to the Act.

[18] In support of its interpretation, the plaintiff relied, inter alia, on the judgment of Eksteen J in Fir strand Bank Ltd v Evans, where it was held that ‘the credit provider’s rights to give notice in terms of s 86(10) and to legitimately terminate the debt review process continues until the magistrate’s court has made an order as envisaged in s 87’.

[19] On the other hand, there is another line of cases, where the opposite view was taken and where it was held that it was not competent for a credit provider to give notice in terms of s 86(10) of the Act where the debt counsellor has already re-ferred the debt review to the magistrate’s court.

[20] It would be an unduly onerous and tedious task to analyse and discuss individ-ually the reasoning in each of the ever-growing number of judgments on the topic. Instead, I propose briefly to set out the reasons why I agree with the approach fol-lowed in the second line of cases regarding the interpretation of s 86(10).

[21] The provisions of s 86(10) appear, on the face of it, to be clear and unambigu-ous. However, as pointed out by Ngcobo J in Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minis-ter of Environmental Affairs:

“The emerging trend in statutory construction is to have regard to the context in which the words occur, even where the words to be construed are clear and un¬ambiguous. Recently, in Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association v Price Water-house the SCA has reminded us that:“The days are long past when blinkered peering at an isolated provision in a statute was thought to be the only legitimate technique in interpreting it if it seemed on the face of it to have a readily discernible meaning.” ‘

[22] Having regard to the context in which they appear, it is clear to me that a lit-eral interpretation of the provisions of s 86(10), read in isolation, would amount to a ‘blinkered’ approach which could easilylead to the wrong answer. Those provi-sions deal with one aspect of an elaborate process described in the heading to s 86 as ‘Application for debt review’. The process commences with an application by the consumer ‘in the prescribed manner and form’ to a debt counsellor to have the consumer declared over-indebted. The debt counsellor is thereupon required to notify all credit providers listed in the application as well as every registered credit bureau. The consumer and each credit provider must thereafter ‘participate in good faith in the review and in any negotiations designed to result in responsible debt re-arrangement’. A debt counsellor must determine within 30 days whether the consumer appears to be over-indebted.

[23] Should the debt counsellor determine that the consumer is not over-indebted, then the counsellor must provide the consumer with a ‘letter of rejection’ contain-ing the prescribed information. Among other things, the consumer must be ad-

The full bench discerns between a literal interpre-tation of section 86(10) as

postulated by the Credit Provider and a Purposive interpretation postulated

by the National Credit Regulator.

This is the interpretation accepted by the full bench.

This interpretation was rejected by the full bench.

This is the important judg-ment upon which the full bench relied to accept the

purposive approach.

These steps, taken in accordance with the provi-

sions of section 86(7)(c), were integral to our suc-cessful argument before

Kirk-Cohen AJ in the Rozier matter argued today.

vised of his right ‘to approach the court . . . within 20 business days’ for an order, inter alia, that he or she be declared over-indebted.

[24] However, if the debt counsellor concludes that the consumer is indeed over-indebted, the procedure described in s 86(7)(c) must be followed. This means that the debt counsellor ‘may issue a proposal’ recommending that the magistrate’s court make an order, inter alia, that one or more of the consumer’s debts be ‘re-arranged’ in one or more of anumber of specified ways. (In the National Credit Regulator case, supra, these provisions were interpreted to mean that the debt counsellor must refer the matter to the magistrate’s court, which referral takes the form of an ordinary application regulated by Magistrates’ Courts rule 55. )

[25] Thus, s 86(7)(c) sets in motion a ‘debt re-arrangement by the court’, as op-posed to a ‘voluntary re-arrangement’ in terms of s 86(8)(a). Unlike the position with regard to s 86(9), the Act as well as the regulations are silent as to the time period within which the debt counsellor may (must) issue the requisite ‘proposal’ in terms of s 86(7)(c). However, if one has regard to the context, then the answer to the question posed above becomes clear. The process of ‘debt review’ requires of the debt counsellor to determine, within 30 business days, whether or not a con-sumer is over-indebted. If not, the debt counsellor must advise the consumer of his or her right ‘to approach the court’ within a further 20 business days for the neces-sary order. This leads me to the conclusion that the period of 60 business days re-ferred to in s 86( 10) was introduced with the abovementioned timeframe in mind so as to allow the consumer and/or debt counsellor sufficient time to ‘approach the court’ for the necessary relief in terms of s 87.

[26] Once a debt re-arrangement order has been granted, the consumer is pro-tected from litigation by his or her creditors - at least for the time being. But what about the situation where a debt re-arrangement order has been applied for but not yet granted, which is the problem that confronts us in this application? Given the fact that a consumer has a period of 50 business days, calculated from the date of his application to the debt counsellor, within which to ■approach’ the magistrate’s court for an order in terms of s 87, it could never have been contem-plated that the rest of the process - including a hearing before the magistrate and a re¬arrangement order in terms of s 87 - should all be finalised within the remaining ten business days. Clearly, in the majority of cases, this dead¬line would be unat-tainable. As Blignault J correctly observed in Dunga’s case, supra:

“Experience has shown that the typical debt review takes longer than 60 business days, often much longer, before it results in an order by the Magistrate’s Court in terms of section 87. By terminating the debt review after 60 business days the credit provider may be able to derail the entire debt review process by way of a single unilateral act. regardless of the reasonableness of the conduct of the con-

This is crucial, in Rozier matter we successfully argued that steps had been taken in accordance with the provisions of section 86(7)(c). In our case we argued that proposals had been made and the debt coun-selor had issued a rehabilitation amount which the consumer had dutifully paid. Kirk-Cohen AJ suggested that an agreement had been reached be-cause the Credit Provider did not reject the offer and continued to accept the pay-ment made by the Consumer.

This is important

Ie only 10 days to approach the court! This has, as all those involved in the industry are aware, proved impossible. Not with the numbers of consumers who are over-indebted throughout South Africa.

I have dealt with this case in a previous issue of Debtfree DIGI.

sumer or his own conduct.’

[27] It follows that, even where the consumer does everything ‘by the book’, there will inevitably be a large number of cases where the period of 60 days will have elapsed without an order as contemplated by s 87 having been obtained.[28] On the interpretation advanced on behalf of the plaintiff herein, the position is quite simple: the credit provider would be entitled, in each case where a period of 60 days has elapsed without a re-arrangement order in terms of s 87 having been made, unilaterally ‘to derail the entire debt review process’.

[29] In his opposition to this line of argument, the NCR, in his application to be joined as an amicus curiae herein, has placed evidence before the court indicat-ing how some credit providers are circumventing and undermining the statutory process of debt review by following the literal interpretation advocated on behalf of the plaintiff herein. Thus, according to the NCR, some credit providers termi-nate the debt review process in terms of s 86(10) as soon as the period of 60 days has expired, even where a debt counsellor has already indicated (as here) that the application for debt review was successful; or where (as here) the consumer is making regular payments in terms of a proposal submitted to credit providers by the debt counsellor; or where (as here), a date for a hearing of the consumer’s ap-plication for relief in terms of s 87 has already been obtained in the magistrate’s court. Some credit providers obtain a postponement of the hearing of the applica-tion before the magistrate and immediately thereafter deliver a notice terminating the process, followed by the issue of summons in the High Court and an applica-tion for summary judgment. On the credit providers’ inter¬pretation, they may, and do, put an end to the debt review process even where the consumer and the debt counsellor have taken all necessary steps to invoke and implement the relevant provisions of the Act.

[30] I agree with the NCR that such conduct on the part of credit providers is inconsistent with the Act. In my view, this is a strong indicator that a literal inter-pretation should not be followed. It would be counter-productive and contrary to the whole purpose of the Act to allow a credit provider unilaterally to terminate the consumer’s protection at the precise moment when he or she may need it the most. It would be like providing the consumer with an umbrella and then snatch-ing it back the moment it starts raining. This approach would mean that only those consumers fortunate enough to apply for debt review at a favourable time or in a jurisdiction without a long backlog will succeed in having their debts re-arranged by the magistrate’s court.

[31 ] The plaintiffs approach also tends to overlook the fact that in the present instance the application for debt review has found favour with the debt counsellor and may likewise have found favour with the magistrate, had it not been for the untimely notice of termination in terms of s 86(10).

As mentioned previously, the National Credit Regula-

tor have really provided valuable input in this juris-

prudence.

This was the case in the Rozier matter.

This was the case in the Rozier matter.

This did not happen in the Rozier matter.

In the Rozier matter the consumer and Debt

Counsellor did not take all necessary steps!

This sums up precisely how some Credit Providers

have been conducting themselves in the litigation

arena. I must also make the comment that I have

seen in certain circum-stances, Credit Providers

not only snatching the umbrella away from

the consumer, but also unilaterally and without

the legal costs being taxed, simply adding the

Credit Providers legal costs incurred directly onto the

consumers outstanding loan account. This is done

without the consumers consent and means that the Credit Providers are

charging the consumer for legal fees to fight against

themselves. These are legal fees that the Credit

Provider should be paying themselves. On the other

hand, the consumer , who is already over-indebted, is expected to find funds

to pay his or her own legal fee in the High Court (Everyone knows that this

is extremely expensive). This conduct by the Credit

Providers cannot be seen to be acting in Good Faith!

I wonder if the Credit Providers shareholders and

indeed their clients are aware of this practice!!!

[32] The plaintiffs interpretation further ignores the fact that the magistrate’s court before which the application for re-arrangement is pending has become seized with the matter. In this regard, it is significant that s 86(10) does not require notice of termination to be given to the magistrate or to any of the other parties to the pending application. Thus, one may find the incongruous situation (on the plain-tiffs interpretation) that the magistrate in question, having heard an application in terms of s 87, may be in the process of preparing a judg¬ment or order, blissfully unaware of the fact that one of the respondents in the matter before the court has in the meantime unilaterally and extra¬judicially terminated the whole process sim-ply by giving notice in terms of s 86(10). In the result, an existing judicial process becomes contingent upon the mere sending of a letter between private parties. In my view, this absurd result could not have been intended by the legislature.

[33] The NCR points to a further absurdity that results from a literal interpretation: by allowing termination of matters that have been referred to the magistrate’s court for re-arrangement, this encourages premature enforcement in the High Court of credit agreements that were being reviewed in the magistrate’s court. This will inevitably drive up the costs of litigation at the expense of those least able to afford it, as the present case illustrates.

[34] To sum up, applying a purposive approach to the relevant provisions, and hav-ing due regard to the context in which they appear, I am satisfied that, on a proper interpretation of subsec 86(10), the consumer is protected against enforcement proceedings by the credit provider, not only once a re-arrangement order has been made by a magistrate in terms of s 87, but also while proceedings for such an order are pending. The corollary is that delivery of a notice of termination by a credit provider in terms of s 86( 10) is not competent once any of the steps referred to in ss 86(7)(c), 86(8) or 86(9) have been taken. Obviously this impediment will cease to exist, once a magistrate’s court has dismissed the application for re-arrangement or the application has been withdrawn or abandoned.

[35] In the present case, the plaintiff purported to terminate the process of debt re-view a week before the application for an order interms of s 87 was due to be heard in the Vredenburg magistrate’s court. In the light of the conclusion to which I have come above, it follows that such purported termination was invalid. It follows, further, that it is to that court that the parties should return in order to pursue their respective rights and remedies in terms of the credit agreement in question. At the hearing before the magistrate, the plaintiff will have adequate oppor¬tunity to state its attitude with regard to the application. I am accordingly of the view that the cur-rent action should be stayed so that the debt review process can take its course in the magistrate’s court.

[36] In view of these conclusions, it follows that it is not necessary, for purposes of this case, to consider the provisions of subsec 86(11), or to pronounce on the cor-

It is for this reason that the full bench rejected the Credit Providers argument.

I have already touched on this.

So to sum it up we have a literal approach put for-ward by the Credit Provider and pur-posive approach put forward by the NCR. The pur-posive approach was successful!

One final com-ment is that in the Rozier case the property which was going on sale in execution was not the consum-ers primary resi-dence, but rather an investment property.

rectness or otherwise of the interpretation attached to those provisions in Dunga’s case, supra.

Conclusion[37] For these reasons, an order is granted in the following terms:(a) The application for summary judgment is stayed, pending a final determination of the proceedings referred to in para (b) below;(b) It is ordered that the debt review that was pending in the magistrate’s court for Vredenburg under Case No 1012/10 is to resume;(c) The clerk of the court is directed to set the above application down for hearing at the earliest available date, after due notice to the parties;(d) The costs of the application for summary judgment shall stand over for later determination.

B M GRIESEL Judge of the High CourtTRAVERSO DJP J: I agree. It is so ordered.

J H M TRAVERSO Deputy Judge President

DLODLO J: I agree.

D V DLODLO Judge of the High Court

This is the part of the judg-ment that is crucial to the

case of the consumer. In Papiers case the matter was

already properly issued in the Magistrates Court before

the termination letter was received. However in Roziers case we successfully argued that as proposals had been made by the debt counsel-

lor and regular payments made by the consumer this

constituted steps as envis-aged by section 86(7)(c).

Kirk-Cohen AJ agreed with this, but he went even fur-

ther than we proposed ! HE SUGGESTED THAT THE MERE

DETERMINATION BY THE DEBT COUNSELLOR THAT

THE CONSUMER WAS OVER-INDEBTED CONSTITUTED A

STEP AS ENVISAGED BY SEC-TION 86(7)(C) and that this may well render the 86(10)

notice invalid.This, in my view , will have a huge impact on those many

debt counselors who have not taken the consumers

matters to the Magistrates Court. YOU NOW HAVE LE-

GAL AUTHORITY THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE TO BRING

THE APPLICATIONS TO THE MAGISTRATES COURT IN

ORDER TO AVOID A SECTION 86(10) TERMINATION.

Please remember that this is only one judges decision in

the Western Cape, but none-theless it is a judgment of

a judge. He may indeed be wrong in his interpretation (I naturally don’t think so!), but

all those debt counselors who are being attacked by the consumer for failing to

comply with the Act can now say that you have!

I would therefore strongly urge all debt counselors

who have not brought the consumers application be-

fore the magistrates court to do so WITHOUT DELAY. Here

is your chance to remedy what you most probably

thought was a terminal situation

During January 2011 Debtfree DIGI tied in with the Working on Fire project to help educate some of their staff in the advantages and dangers of credit use. A great time was had by all out at Fisantakraal. If you don’t know about the Working on Fire Project they help develop and implement integrated fire management practices and use community members (especially those previously disadvantaged) to help fight and prevent fires. They help provide services to Fire Protection Associations, land-management and jurisdictional agencies. Their vision is to “ enhance the sustainability and protection of life, livelihoods, ecosystem services and natural processes through integrated fire management in order to contribute to economic empowerment, skills development, social equity and accelerated service delivery.” It is not all about flying around in helicopters and having fun though. This is serious “putting yourself in harms way” work.Many on the teams (who are a fun loving, hard working bunch) due to their previously disadvantaged background do not have an

extensive knowledge of the credit industry. Debtfree would like to ask for your help in volunteering to go visit one of the local teams in your area and giving a short lecture about the NCA and Credit in general. (Maybe some of the staff could even benefit from debt counselling, who knows?) This might take half the day but is well worth it.

For the moment we are focusing on the Western Cape region at the following locations: Silvermine, Newlands, False Bay, Ceres, Tulbagh, Piketburg, Paarl, Jonkershoek, Grabouw, Hermanus, Bredasdorp, Robertson and Swellendam. Each team has about 25 fire-fighters.

If you would like to volunteer (like DRS George has already done) please email: magazine@debtcounsellingsa.co.za

CONSUMER EDUCATION- WORKING ON FIRE

The NDMA have been traveling the country during February to help educate various role players as to the NDMA’s new role in the industry. While, in the past the NDMA held itself out to be an alternative to the debt counselling process they have now been asked to fill the roll of a representative body for Credit Providers. At present, though there are still many smaller Credit Providers who are not members, NDMA members represent over 90% of the credit which has been extended in SA.

Workshops have now been held in Gauteng, KZN and Cape Town. Many Credit Providers and DC’s attended. Magauta Mphahlele (the CEO of the NDMA) who has played a part in the formation of both the NCA and CPA chaired the meeting with presentations given by NCR Task Team members Johan de Ridder (of the BASA), Paul Slot (DCASA) Angus Herselman and Sue Hatton.

Much of the conference was similar to the NCR Task Team road show in content and

continuous mention of the new Debt Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) was made. There was a presentation by Ms Mphahlele about the NDMA, it’s role, duties and processes. If you were unable to attend one of the workshops you will soon be able to download the presentation directly from the NDMA’s website (www.ndma.org.za)

Later, after information from Sue Hutton regarding the new standardized documentation (like CoB’s and Proposals), there was a brief presentation by Angus Herselman (ex African Bank and NDMA rule set computer guy) about the new DCRS (BASA rule set) system and how it works. For most, of course their interaction with the DCRS system will simply involve clicking a button on their debt restructuring calculation software. However it was heartening to hear that 2 of the PDA’s already have this system in place as an option in their calculation software. Other PDA’s are slated to have the system in place to try use by march 31st 2011.

NATIONAL DEBT MEDIATION ASSOCIATION WORKSHOP

You will recall last month we posed the question: Who is the best and worst Credit Provider to work with?

Here are the results (from most votes to least votes):

Best Creditor: Here we had a tie:ABSA and Std Bank came in first place (both with 36%)Nedbank (18%) FNB (9%)

Worst Creditor:FNB (35%)Nedbank (29%)Std Bank (23%)ABSA (11%)

By comparing both votes it seems that ABSA just edge out Std Bank as the best to work with overall.

This month our Poll is:Is the BASA Termination Moratorium a total waste of time?

the options are:• Yes, (because of the Wesbank V Pipier judgment)• No, i told all my clients about it.• What is that?• Banks should not dictate terms to DC’s

Email: magazine@debtcounsellingsa.co.za or visit our Blog to voteBlog: http://debtcounsellingsouthafricamagazine.blogspot.com/

READER POLL

DEBT COUNSELLING

AA Debt Counselling CentreAnthea JohannesNCRDC531Tel: +27 (0) 21 982 0522Cell: +27 (0) 84 402 7032

Alan Watts NCRDC 962NCR registered Debt Counsellor Tel: 084 4448439 Fax: 086 6501954alan@active-debt-counselling.co.zawww.active-debt-counselling.co.za

Central SA Debt Counsellors082 950 7806Fax: 086 563 1621

Consumer AssistAndre Snyman Tel: 0861 628 628

Credit Matters021 431 9100info@creditmatters.co.za

Darran ManikamNCRDC704debt@mailbox.co.za

Debtbusters0861 663 328 (NO DEBT)

DebtSafe0861 100 999

Durban Debt Counselling ServicesSuite 112, 1st floor Union Club Building353 Smith StreetDurban, 4001Tel: 031 301-7893Fax: 031 301-5809phumla.ngema@telkomsa.net

Debt Counselling South AfricaCape Town BranchTel: 021 919 66 94Rod De WittNCRDC831Visit: www.debtcounsellingsa.co.zaDebt Knowledge Debt Counselling082 379 2337

Debtonators041 585 0276

Fincorp debt Counsellors ccCecilia Zwarts fincorpdc@yahoo.com

Holistic Debt Counsellorsinfo@holisticdc.co.za

Helpdesk Debt CounsellorsAllan HoffmanTel: 0861 000 754

Help-U-Debt (Vaal Triangle) WanineTel: 082 445 3967

Help-U-Debt (Potchefstroom)Madra083 390 3275

Help-U-Debt (Parys)Marilouise082 920 6249

Help-U-Debt (Vanderbijlpark)Herma083 320 8303

MG Consulting For your Debt Counselling ServiceM.C. CambourisNCRDC1403Telephone: 021 919 4618082 450 7459

082 782 0595Fax: 086 622 0690Bellville

NDA Debt CounsellorsYour Trusted Debt CounsellorsGary Williams (NCRDC 143)Tel: 034 315 3880 Fax: 086 612 4112gary@ndad.co.za www.ndad.co.za

Think Green Debt CounsellingSandi Pauwsandipauw@mweb.co.zaTel : 012 991 6638Cell : 082 460 7800Fax : 086 219 2615

Incentive Debt Counselling“Paving the way to a Debt Free Tommorrow”Darran Manikam NCRDC704Tel: (031) 409 9379Fax: (031) 409 1327Cell: 0845898286Branches: Phoenix and Shallcross

Indigo debt counsellors CCTel: 087 808 9734 Fax: 086 580 8675 indigodc@iburst.co.za

Ramonti Debt CounsellingJacob Ramonti - NCR DC 932Cell : 082 962 4537Fax: 086 658 7627Email:ditsamai@yahoo.co.ukSoweto

Rihanyo Debt Counselling(012) 804 50 57

SERVICE DIRECTORY

BORDER REGION:

DRS EAST LONDONOffice: 043 7212 656

DRS KING WILLIAMS TOWNHarry LightCell: 082 573 5803Office: 043 643 3024Email: harry@drssa.co.za

DRS CRADOCKHerman Marais Cell: 082 378 3743 Fax 045 838 6572Email cradock@drssa.co.za

DRS QUEENSTOWNHerman Marais Cell: 082 378 3743 Office: 045 838 9764Email herman@drssa.co.za

DRS MTHATHAHerman Marais Cell: 082 378 3743 Office: 047-5323356Email herman@drssa.co.za

EASTERN CAPE:

DRS ALBANYOffice: 041 365 5857

DRS ALGOACraig WheetmanCell: 083 299 0311Office: 041 364 1888Email david@drssa.co.za

DRS BOND CHOICE P.E.Office: 041 393 7000

DRS CENTRAL041 586 2020Email leon@lynxsa.com

DRS DESPATCHOffice: 041 933 1189DRS HUMANSDORPOffice: 042 291 0135

DRS KIRKWOOD EXPRESSOffice: 087 8080 500

DRS PORT ELIZABETHOffice: 041 453 8961

DRS SIDWELL EXPRESSOffice: 041 451 0474

DRS SOMMERSET EASTLuther De BruynOffice: 042 243 1107

FREESTATE:

MANGAUNGZune CoetzerOffice: 051 436 4515Email zune@drssa.co.za

SOUTH FREESTATEOffice: 053 591 0734

GARDEN ROUTE:

DRS GEORGEOffice: 044 874 2820Email francoisv@drssa.co.za

GAUTENG:

DRS PRETORIA CENTRALIvan MabuthuCell: 082 266 6210Office: 012 320 8304Fax: 012 320 8388drspretoriacentral@drssa.co.za

DRS CENTURION EXPRESSOffice: 012 653 0127

DRS HARTEBEESPOORTOffice: 012 253 1231

DRS LIMPOPO CENTRALOffice: 015 297 1387

DRS PRETORIA NOORDOffice: 012 546 2187DRS ROODEPOORT EXPRESSOffice: 011 472 4171

DRS RUSTENBURG 083 740 4620

DRS ZAMBESI EXPRESSOffice: 012 7555 225

KWA ZULU NATAL:

DRS MORNINGSIDEEricah MtshaliCell: 076 578 8660 Office: 031 301 5993 email ericah@drssa.co.zaDRS DURBAN NORTH EXPRESSOffice: 031 584 6305

DRS GREYVILLEOffice: 031 309 8716

DRS KOKSTADOffice: 039 727 1430

DRS PHOENIX082 374 7040

WESTERN CAPE:

DRS BELLVILLEOffice: 021 948 8523 / 4

DRS DIAMONDOffice: 021 421 8563

DRS TYGERBERGOffice: 021 945 4062

DRS WEST COASTMarius CoetzeeCell: 082 978 4407Office: 022 713 3766Email mariusc@drssa.co.za

Debt DRS SALDANHAOffice: 022 714 3939

DRS SOLUTIONS084 586 5600

SUPPORT SERVICESU-Win Debt CounsellorsCoreli RoosNCRDC509Aliwal North, Burgersdorp, Bethulie, GariepDam, Smithfield, SpringfonteinCell:079 626 66241croos@global.co.za

Staff Line Ndizani Executive RecruitmentCell no: 083 3028163Direct Line: (011) 468 - 2150E- Mail: saki@staffline.co.za

Blank DesignFor all design and marketing needs including websites, brochures, business cards etc.Steve Rosenbergsteve@blankds.com083 700 2020www.blankds.com

DesigntimesSouth Africa’s creative resourcewww.designtimes.co.za

FINANCIAL

ABSA Customer Debt Repair Line0860 356 356

Credit Ombudsman0861 662837

Experian011 799-3400 debtcounsel@experian.co.za

Eric StresoFinancial PlannerB Juris LL B CFP MBATel: 0833273358Fax: 086 612 7912

Fair Debt0829019788 or 012-3772558ray@fairdebt.co.za

PACFIN Financial Solutions Head OfficeTel: +27 11 9757445Fax: 086536878336 Van Riebeeck roadKempton Park 1619pieter@pacfin.co.za

Monte Carlo BuildingNo 8 VoortrekkerstreetKempton Park 1619

Kempton ParkContact: Reyno CoetzeeTel: +27 11 3945363Fax: 0866048002Cell: +27 73 3690884kemptonpark@pacfin.co.za

Boksburg / GermistonContact: Armand PosthumusTel: +27 11 8921911Fax: 0865620378

NelspruitContact: Ann BakerTel: +27 13 7415559Fax: 0880 1374 15559Cell: +27 82 9024236jeleroux@telkomsa.net

SpringsContact: Wynand MclachlanTel: +27 11 8113728Fax: +27 11 8113728Cell: +27 83 2754014/5wynmc@telkomsa.net

Gooseberry Business AdvisoryTel: 012 644 0589

NedbankDebt Rehabilitation & Recoveries Services0860 109 279

STD BankDebt review HelplineTelephone: 0861 111 402

TransUnion0861 482 482

ThinkmoneyFinancial comparison websiteContact: Gareth MountainTel: 079 0996 798www.thinkmoney.co.zaWIZARD Vereeniging Making Mortgage MagicWanine SmitTel:+27 16 454 1132Fax:+27 86 686 3678 Cell:+27 82 445 3967 www.wizard.za.com

FINANCIAL PLANNING

Eric StresoFinancial PlannerB Juris LL B CFP MBATel: 0833273358Fax: 086 612 7912

LEGAL

Brett Carnegie AttorneysTel: +27 (21) 4470332 Fax: +27 (21) 4470338 Mobile: +27 (0)82 320 6099 www.carnegielaw.co.zaPhysical Address: Suite 23(B) Unit 8 Waverley Business Park Mowbray 7700

Scheepers AttorneysGerhard Scheepersschlaw@iburst.co.za

LUCID AttorneysTel: 011 880 1100Fax: 011 880 1101Email: info@lucidsa.comwww.lucidliving.co.za/attorney

Ludick Attorneysbev.ludickattorneys@gmail.com

Prinsloo & AssociatesAttorneys and conveyancersNanika Prinsloo Farm Bergamot, Paarl 7620P O Box 6199, Paarl 762014 Laing Street, Barrydale 6750Cell: 072-8558-106Fax: 086-623-5986nanika@vodamail.co.zawww.empowerlaw.co.za

RM Brown and Associates 601 Pier House, 13 -17 Heerengracht, Cape TownDocex 138 Cape Town t: 021 431 9127 f: 021 425 0875 e: lodea@rmbrown.co.za

CREDIT BUREAUS

Compuscan 0861 514 131www.compuscan.co.za

Computer Profile Bureau0861 28 7328www.c-p-b.co.za

Experianwww.experian.co.zaBusiness- 0861 63 60 70

Consumer- 0861 10 5665 Micro Lenders Credit Bureau 0861 28 7328 www.mlcb.co.za

TransUnion 0861 886 466www.transunion.co.za

XDS 0860 937 000 www.xds.co.za

OTHER

Association of Debt Recovery Agents: 011 781 3337 www.adraonline.co.za

Banking Ombud0860 800 900 www.obssa.co.za

Credit Bureau Association011 886 8519 www.cba.co.za

Credit Providers Association011 789 6825 www.cpa.org.za

Department of Trade and Industry0861 843 384 www.thedti.gov.za

Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Ombud012 470 9080 www.faisombud.co.za

Financial Services Board012 428 8000

www.fsb.co.zaFurniture Traders Association 011 789 6770

Legal Resources Centre011 836 9831 www.lrc.org.za

Long Term Insurance Ombud021 657 5000 www.ombud.co.za

Micro Finance South Africa012 345 0809 www.mfsa.netMotor Industry Ombud012 841 2945 www.miosa.co.za

National Credit Regulator0860 627 627 www.ncr.org.za

Ombud for Short term Insurance011 726 8900 www.osti.co.za

Pension Funds Adjudicator021 674 0209 www.pfa.org.za

South African Fraud Prevention0860 101 248 www.safps.org.za

The Banking Association011 370 3500 www.banking.org.za

SA FRAUD PROTECTION SERVICE (FREE SERVICE)www.safps.org.za0860 101 248

If you want to subscribe, advertise or be listed in our directory please contact us! magazine@debtcounsellingsa.co.za

Would you like your after care clients to recieve Debtfree each month? All you need to do is forward us their email address to magazine@debtcounsellingsa.co.za

www.debtcounsellingsa.co.za

DebtfreeSouth Africa’s debt counselling magazine

February 2010