Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

National Consumer Tribunal

Denny v Nedbank Limited (NCT/78050/2017/141(1)) [2017] ZANCT 138 (10 December 2017)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that Nedbank had conducted a proper assessment of the Applicant's income and expenditure prior to granting the loan. The evidence showed that the Applicant had sufficient income to afford the repayments, including additional income sources. The Applicant failed to provide substantial responses to the Respondent's assertions and did not demonstrate that Nedbank engaged in reckless lending. The Tribunal concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success for the Applicant's claim and refused leave to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal.

Court disposition

Application for leave to refer the complaint directly to the Tribunal is refused.

Orders

  • The Applicant's application for leave to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal is refused.
  • There is no order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Lorette Mary Denny

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent Counsel: Tania Abbotts

Amounts and remedies

  • Loan Amount Granted: ZAR 22,940
  • Total Monthly Instalment: ZAR 923.75
  • Total Instalments Including Fees, Interest and Insurance: ZAR 55,420.2
  • Interest Rate: ZAR 31

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Complaint to Tribunal Under Section 141(1)(b) of the National Credit Act

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Applicant alleges that Nedbank failed to conduct a proper affordability assessment when granting her a personal loan, resulting in reckless lending. She claims her living expenses and debt obligations were not properly considered and that Nedbank employees did not accurately capture the information she provided.
Respondent
Nedbank contends that it conducted a thorough assessment of the Applicant's income, expenditure, and debt obligations before granting the loan. The Respondent provided internal documentation and affidavits demonstrating that the Applicant had sufficient income and that all necessary procedures were followed. Nedbank argues that the Applicant under-declared her expenses and that the loan was a consolidation of existing debts.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    National Credit Act 34 of 2005, Sections 79-82

    A credit provider must take reasonable steps to assess a consumer's understanding of the risks, costs, rights, and obligations under a credit agreement, as well as the consumer's financial means, prospects, and obligations.

  2. 02

    Coertze and Burger v Young (NCT/2666/2011/141(1))

    In applications for leave to refer, the Tribunal must consider the applicant's reasonable prospects of success and the substantial importance of the matter to the parties.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that Nedbank had conducted a proper assessment of the Applicant's income and expenditure prior to granting the loan. The evidence showed that the Applicant had sufficient income to afford the repayments, including additional income sources. The Applicant failed to provide substantial responses to the Respondent's assertions and did not demonstrate that Nedbank engaged in reckless lending. The Tribunal concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success for the Applicant's claim and refused leave to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal.

Obiter and limits

  • The loan application occurred before the new NCA affordability assessment regulations came into effect on 13 September 2015.
  • Both parties demonstrated the substantial importance of the matter, with the Applicant pursuing the complaint and the Respondent defending against allegations of reckless lending.

Court disposition

Application for leave to refer the complaint directly to the Tribunal is refused.

  • The Applicant's application for leave to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal is refused.
  • There is no order as to costs.

Source and reliance status

National Consumer Tribunal

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

National Consumer Tribunal

Judgment

[2017] ZANCT 138

IN

THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL

HELD

IN PORT ELIZABETH

Case number: NCT/78050/2017/141(1)

In the matter between:

LOREITE

MARY

DENNY

APPLICANT

And

NEDBANK Limited

RESPONDENT

Coram:

Mr. X May· Presiding Member

Date of Hearing - 31 October 2017 (Port Elizabeth)

JUDGEMENT

AND REASONS

APPLICANT

1. The Applicant is Lorette Mary Denny, (hereinafter referred to as "Denny or the Applicant") an adult female Consumer residing at Hofmeyer, in the Province of the Eastern Cape. At the hearing the Applicant represented herself.

RESPONDENT

2. The Respondent is Nedbank Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Nedbank or Respondent"), registered with the National

Credit Regular (hereinafter referred to as the "NCR" or "Regulator") as a Credit Provider under registration number NCRCP16. At the hearing the Respondent was represented by Tania Abbotts from Hammond Pole Attorneys

APPLICATION

TYPE

3. This is an application in terms of Section 141(1)(b) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 ("the NCA")

4. Section 141(1) of the NCA states the following-

if the National Credit Regulator issues a notice of non-referral in response to a complaint other than a complaint concerning section 61 or an offence in terms of this Act, the complainant concerned may refer the matter directly to -

(a) the consumer court of the province within which the complainant resides, or in which the respondent has its principal place of business of that consumer court, or provincial legislation governing the operation of that consumer court; or

(b) the Tribunal, with the leave of the Tribunal.

5. In an application of this nature the Tribunal must therefore first consider whether it will grant the Applicant leave to hear the matter. If the leave is granted then the Tribunal will consider the main merits of the Application in a separate hearing.

BACKGROUND

6. The complaint was lodged directly to the National Credit Regulator in terms of Section 136 on the 12/05/2016.

7. The complainant claims to be the victim of reckless lending as she alleges that no proper affordability assessment was conducted by Respondent

8. The Nedbank account number in question is Account No [8...] for personal loan where she applied for the personal loan and was granted, an amount of R22940.00 on 20 September 2013, over a term of 60 months at the interest rate of 31.00%, the total monthly instalment being R923.75. The total of all instalments including fees, interest and insurance would have been R55420.20.

9. At the time of application for the credit with Nedbank the Applicant declared 3 sources of income namely: 2 pensions and additional income from Blue Lakes, and these amounts were verified by documentation as well as bank statements.

10. Accordingly it should be noted that in the application for the personal loan the Applicant declared living expenses of R700 per month from the Net income of R6380 from (2 pension) and the amount of R1450 from the additional income and this brings her Total Minimum income to R7830.

11. It is noted that Applicant's Debt Obligation after the personal loan was granted automatically increased to R4432.67 as per Nedbank statement reflected in the loan agreement statement dated 20 September 2013.

12. According to the abovementioned figures and calculations it appears that the Applicant had sufficient funds available for living expenses (after settlement of personal loans) hence it also appears that she purposefully under-declared same.

13. The personal loan in question was a consolidation loan. At the time of applying, the complaint had various loans with different Credit Providers. So; the purpose of this personal loan was to consolidate all these loans

14. The Applicant lodged a written complaint with the National Credit Regulator (NCR) against Nedbank Loans on 09 December 2015. She alleged that Nedbank Loans had not done a proper credit assessment when granting her personal loan credit facility. The NCR responded in writing on 01 December 2016, by means of a Notice of non-referral, essentially stating that Nedbank Loans (at the time).

APPLICATION

FOR LEAVE

15. In the matter of Coertze and Burger v Young the Tribunal considered the factors which must be evaluated regarding leave. The Tribunal held that the two factors should be considered:

15.1 The Applicant's reasonable prospects of success with the referral; and

15.2 Whether the matter is substantial importance to the Applicant or Respondent

16. It is firstly very clear that matter is substantial importance to both parties. The Applicant has gone an extra mile of effort to lodge the complaint with the NCR and further applied for the condonation to the Tribunal. Similarly, the Respondent has a vested interest in defending the allegation of reckless lending and the same has been witnessed during the hearing proceedings.

17. The prospects of success however require more extensive consideration.

Prospects of success on the merits

18. Section 79 to 82 of the NCA deals with issues such as over-indebtedness, reckless credit and the assessment mechanisms and procedures that must be applied by a credit provider, for the purposes of this judgment it is not a necessity to reflect all the

sections in detail. In a nutshell at the time that the Applicant was granted the personal loan credit facility, the Respondent had taken reasonable steps to assess the proposed consumer's general understanding and the appreciation of the risks and the costs of the proposed credit, the rights and obligations of the consumer under a credit agreement, and debt re-payment history of the consumer under credit agreements and the consumer's existing financial means, prospects and obligations. Nedbank loans could determine for itself the evaluative mechanisms or models and procedures to be used in meeting its assessment obligation under this section, provided that any such mechanism, model or procedure results in a fair and objective assessment.

19. In this regard the Respondent answering affidavit with the extracts of internal documents from the Bank's internal consultant that constitutes a conversation between the bank's representative (Creed Masocha) illustrates it very clear that an assessment was done, and for the purposes of this judgment it is not necessary to set out this information in detail. In addition to her two pensions the Applicant.

20. The Applicant appears to have had an additional income from Blue Lakes Company, and then she had enough to be granted this loan in question. In summary it is very clear according to the answering affidavit by the Respondent; that; the Applicant has failed to disclose her living expenses and debt obligations. This included the Middle ground Trading Account which was opened 14 days prior to an application for this personal loan.

21. In her Replying affidavit the Applicant did not offer any clear or substantial responses to the Respondent's assertions. She stated that Nedbank Loans did not do a proper assessment. She also further averred that Nedbank employees failed to fully and honestly capture the information she provided.

CONCLUSION

22. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, Nedbank Loans did do an assessment of Ms Denny/ Applicant income and expenditure before granting her Credit Loan facility. This resulted in a clear conclusion that she could afford the repayments of the loan in question taking into account her additional income. Ms Denny/ Applicant confirmed her two pension's income and other additional

income and her living expenses.

23. There is no basis for a finding that there is a reasonable prospect of Ms. Denny/Applicant being able to show that Nedbank Loans engaged in reckless lending.

24. It needs to be noted that the loan application took place before the new NCA affordability assessment regulations came into operation on 13 September 2015.

ORDER

25. Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following order:-

(1) The Applicant's application for leave to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal is refused; and

(2) There is no order as to costs.

DATED ON THIS 10th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

[Signed]

X May

Presiding Member

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Coertze and Burger v Young (NCT/2666/2011/141(1))

Case cited

National Credit Act 34 of 2005

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.