Another slapdown for banks in high court
The case lays bare the 'abusive and deceptive practices' of South Africa's banks. Picture: iStock
A recent high court case in Pretoria ruled that banks have no right to cancel a loan agreement once a consumer goes under debt review.
The Banking Association of SA (Basa) tried to argue, without success, that a consumer under debt review has cancelled the original loan agreement. That would allow them to charge more interest and other charges.
This is a victory for consumers, says legal consultant Leonard Benjamin.
'While the case dealt with the application of the so-called 'in duplum' rule, it lays bare the banks' abusive and deceptive foreclosure practices and shows that for decades the banks have been selling the homes of people when they are not, in fact, in default.'
In duplum ('double') is a common-law principle that says the interest on a loan stops running when the unpaid interest equals the amount of the outstanding capital.
Read more This is how Prudential Authority cracked the whip last year
This was later written into the National Credit Act (NCA) as a way to stop lenders clocking up interest and other charges beyond double the amount that was outstanding when the consumer first fell into default.
Benjamin questions how many homes and vehicles have been repossessed in SA due to the banks' self-serving interpretation of the NCA and the in duplum rule.
ALSO READ: Court rules in favour of clients in Standard Bank home loan dispute
Debt counsellor takes action
The case was brought by debt counsellor Chantelle Scott against the National Credit Regulator (NCR), Basa, and the major lending banks.
Scott asked the court for a declaratory order that an application to go under debt review does not mean the original credit agreement has been replaced.
She argued that in duplum continues to operate while consumers are under debt review – effectively placing a cap on how much banks can charge on arrears.
Basa and the major lending banks joined forces to oppose the granting of the order, arguing that the consumer was no longer in default once placed under a debt rearrangement order (DRO).
The banks argued that in duplum, which caps the amount they can charge in the event of default, stops operating the moment a DRO comes into effect.
ALSO READ: Court reverses home repo judgment after Nedbank bungled calculations
A full bench of the Pretoria High Court agreed with Scott and granted her the order.
The banks have taken the judgment on appeal.
Benjamin contends that they may not realise they are shooting themselves in the foot if they succeed in reversing the judgment.
'The banks' argument, in fact, relies on arrears capitalisation, a debt relief measure commonly used to eliminate arrear repayments. It involves an adjustment to the existing repayment plan to allow arrears, made up of overdue repayments, to be repaid over the term of the loan as part of an adjusted repayment amount.'
Adjusted repayment are commonly used in credit agreements, particularly where variable interest rates are involved.
ALSO READ: Gauteng man takes Absa to court over alleged unlawful car repossession
'When the interest rate changes the credit provider is obliged to also adjust the monthly repayment amount to ensure that the outstanding balance, together with interest at the new rate, will be repaid over the remaining term of the loan,' says Benjamin.
'In effect, a new repayment schedule, which supersedes the previous one, is set up each time the interest rate changes. Since the outstanding balance will include any arrears, the arrears are purged, and the consumer will no longer be in default.'
The banks argued that a repayment plan that is put into place under debt review typically involves a term extension. A longer term results in a lower, and more affordable, monthly repayment.
However, arrears can be purged without extending the term. The debt will also be repaid by increasing the monthly payment amount instead of the term.
Arrears capitalisation occurs by adhering to the terms of the agreement when there is a change in interest rates.
ALSO READ: Standard Bank told to pay back the money
Benjamin says most banks automatically recapitalise any arrears amounts each time there is a change in interest rates, spreading the arrears over the remaining term of the loan.
But in many instances, banks continue to hound customers over alleged 'arrears' when in fact the bank has purged the arrears through recapitalisation – spreading the arrears over the remaining term of the loan.
What's happened in practice is that customers in arrears are being charged a new, higher monthly instalment while the banks also bring legal action for recovery of the now non-existent arrears – a practice known as 'double-dipping'.
In other cases, banks specifically exclude arrears in determining the new monthly repayment method since they appear to be aware of the double-dipping trap. Benjamin says this exclusion violates the banks own loan agreements. 'In the many years that I have looked at loan agreements, I have yet to come across one that allows for this.'
ALSO READ: FNB home repossession goes horribly wrong
Impact on term extension on monthly repayments
Assume a loan agreement says the consumer must pay back a loan of R1 000 over 10 months. In other words, a monthly repayment of R100 is required.
The consumer makes the first three payments and then falls into default by failing to make the fourth and fifth payments. The outstanding balance of the debt is R700, leaving an arrears of R200.
The debt is rearranged to make the payments more affordable by reducing the monthly repayment to R70, but the term of the loan must be extended by a further five months. This means that the outstanding balance of R700 must be repaid over the next 10 months.
The rearrangement means the consumer will no longer be in arrears. In the Pretoria High Court case, the banks tried to argue otherwise.
Arrears can also be purged without extending the term. The debt will also be repaid by increasing the monthly payment amount instead of the term. In the above example, if the instalment is increased to R140 a month, the outstanding balance of R700, which includes the arrears of R200, will be repaid over five months.
This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
2 days ago
- The Citizen
Court cancels loan that ballooned from R500k to R2m in 7 months
The lender was not registered as a credit provider and was charging interest at 20% per month. Here's a case of a loan that ballooned from R500 000 to R1.93 million in just seven months, with interest on arrears charged at 20% monthly. Great business if you can get away with it. Fortunately for the borrower, Phek Engineering and Suppliers, the Mafikeng High Court in North West Province was having none of it. The court dismissed the lender Baletsema of Johannesburg's application to recover the loan after finding that it was not registered as a credit provider under the National Credit Act (NCA). The loan agreement was signed on 16 January 2023, with Phek's sole member, Motlhopesi Phekola, signing as surety and offering seven vehicles and a farm as collateral. The loan was for R500 000, with R100 000 repayable a month later and R600 000 less than two months later. On this basis, Baletsema would make a R200 000 return on the loan in less than two months. ALSO READ: Credit and the law: Here are the rights you must know about The respondents missed the repayment deadlines, resulting in Phekola signing a R1.2 million acknowledgement of debt in early April 2023. The debt had to be paid on or before 31 May 2023. Failure to pay meant the outstanding loan amount would thereafter attract interest at 20% a month. When the payment deadlines were missed, lawyers were brought in, dispatching letters of demand on 6 April 2023 and again on 6 August, by which time the certificate of balance reflected an amount of R1.93 million. In October 2023, Baletsema took the matter to court. Phekola filed an answering affidavit arguing that the acknowledgement of debt was a credit agreement under the NCA and that the size of the loan amount meant the lender should have registered as a credit provider. On this basis, the acknowledgement of debt was unlawful. Phekola further argued that the lender failed to conduct an affordability assessment, as required by the NCA. The borrower also raised the in duplum ('double') rule, a common law principle that says the interest on a loan stops running when the unpaid interest equals the outstanding capital. ALSO READ: Is the interest on your personal loan within legal limits? Here's how to find out Baletsema argued that it did not have to register as a credit provider under the NCA because the borrower was a juristic person (an organisation rather than a natural person) with a turnover and assets in excess of R1 million. Acting Judge Winnie Malane of the Mafikeng High Court disagreed, ruling that the acknowledgement of debt established a credit agreement between the lender and borrower. 'In terms of the NCA, a credit agreement is unlawful if, when it was concluded, the credit provider was unregistered. The requirement to register as a credit provider is applicable to all credit agreements once the prescribed threshold is reached,' reads the judgment. The court found that the acknowledgement of debt signed by Phekola fell under the NCA and was therefore unlawful and must be treated as void. It thus dismissed the lender's attempts to use the court to compel its debt payment. ALSO READ: Consumers warned about 4 000 credit providers with lapsed registration: Here's how to check It remains to be seen if this ruling is appealed because the original acknowledgement of debt was (arguably) not subject to the NCA, and whether the lender was obliged to register as a credit provider. Consumer legal advisor Leonard Benjamin says there might also be grounds to appeal on the basis that the NCA does not apply in this case as it is a 'large agreement' – more than R250 000, even when the borrower is a juristic person with a turnover of less than R1 million. 'However, the in duplum defence certainly seems to be viable,' says Benjamin. 'I also think that the interest being levied is so usurious that it offends against public policy.' This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
eNCA
6 days ago
- eNCA
Surge in ‘Buy Now, Pay Later' Services Puts SA Consumers at Risk
Microfinance South Africa (MFSA) has issued a stark warning over the explosive growth of Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) services in the country, cautioning that the unregulated credit model is pushing millions of South Africans into unsustainable debt. Speaking to the E&C Money Desk, MFSA CEO Leonie van Pletzen called on regulators to act urgently, describing BNPL as a 'disguised form of credit' that bypasses critical consumer protections embedded in the National Credit Act. 'We're seeing an alarming rise in BNPL products, and they operate largely outside South Africa's regulated credit space,' said van Pletzen. 'There's no proper affordability assessment being done, this debt doesn't show up on credit bureaus.' A Credit Trap Disguised as Convenience BNPL services are typically marketed as interest-free, short-term payment options that allow consumers to spread the cost of purchases. But van Pletzen warns that this seemingly simple payment solution often hides steep fees and penalties for missed payments, which can quickly spiral out of control. 'It's marketed as an interest-free option, but the reality is quite different,' she explained. 'Consumers are drawn in by the promise of no interest, but there are high late fees, account charges and penalties if you do default on these payments It acts like credit, but it isn't credit and it isn't regulated as such.' Because BNPL providers fall outside the National Credit Act, consumers using these products are not protected by the National Credit Regulator or the Financial Ombud. This creates a gap in legal recourse, particularly in the event of default or dispute. There are critical consumer protections items missing due to the lack for regulation. Pletzen explains 'if a consumer defaults, there's no protection of, say, for instance, the National Financial Ombud, because it's not seen as a credit agreement. There's no protection by the National Credit Act or the National Credit Regulator. A consumer can apply for 50,000 Rand, you can actually not afford it'. A Blind Spot in the Credit System One of the MFSA's biggest concerns is that BNPL debt is not reflected on credit bureaus, meaning traditional lenders have no visibility into a consumer's full financial obligations. 'We have members who are registered lenders flying blind,' van Pletzen said. 'Consumers come in for loans, and their BNPL obligations aren't visible anywhere. In some cases, people have six to ten of these accounts running simultaneously.' Without full disclosure of liabilities, it becomes nearly impossible to conduct accurate affordability assessments, potentially exposing both the consumer and the lender to risk. Who's Most at Risk? According to MFSA, lower- and middle-income earners are the most vulnerable. These groups often turn to BNPL to make ends meet, particularly in a high-inflation, low-growth economic environment. But without regulation, they're exposed to exploitation and mounting debt. 'We are urgently asking for regulation to ensure proper oversight and to protect the South African consumer from slipping further into over-indebtedness,' van Pletzen concluded. Regulatory Response Needed
TimesLIVE
6 days ago
- TimesLIVE
Trump revokes Biden-era order on competition, White House says
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday revoked a 2021 executive order on promoting competition in the US economy issued by his predecessor Joe Biden, the White House said. The move by Republican Trump further unwinds a signature initiative by Biden, a Democrat, to crack down on anticompetitive practices in sectors from agriculture to drugs and labour. The justice department welcomed Trump's revocation of the order, saying it was pursuing an 'America First Antitrust' approach focused on free markets instead of what it called the 'overly prescriptive and burdensome approach' of the Biden administration. It said it was also making progress in streamlining the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR) review process of mergers and reinstating more frequent use of targeted and well-crafted consent decrees. Biden signed a sweeping executive order in July 2021 to promote more competition in the US economy as part of a broad push to rein in what his administration described as a pattern of corporate abuses, ranging from excessive airline fees to large mergers that raised costs for consumers. The initiative, which was very popular with Americans, was championed by top Biden economic officials, many of whom had previously worked for or with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who played a key role in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under former President Barack Obama. Trump has attacked that agency since taking office, announcing plans to shrink its workforce by 90%. Those moves have cost Americans at least $18bn in higher fees and lost compensation for consumers allegedly cheated by major companies, according to an analysis released in June by the Student Borrower Protection Center and the Consumer Federation of America. Hannah Garden-Monheit, who was the director of competition policy under Biden, said Trump's move undercuts his promise to protect the Americans who need it the most. 'This shows President Trump's claim he would 'Make America Competitive Again' was a sham. Instead of enforcing the competition laws, he's throwing Main Street businesses and workers under the bus while doing favours for the rich and powerful,' Garden-Monheit said.
