National Credit Regulator v Finbond Mutual Bank (NCT/26629/2015/140(1)) [2017] ZANCT 97 (23 August 2017)

National Credit Regulator v Finbond Mutual Bank (NCT/26629/2015/140(1)) [2017] ZANCT 97 (23 August 2017)

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not establish a reasonable suspicion of prohibited conduct prior to initiating the investigation and referral, as required by law. The evidence relied upon, namely two emails and subsequent investigation, did not sufficiently address the actual risks and liabilities involved in the credit agreements. The Applicant failed to provide comparative evidence demonstrating that the insurance offered by the Respondent was unreasonable in relation to similar products available in the market. The Tribunal held that without such evidence, it could not conclude that the Respondent contravened section 106(2)(b) of the Act. The first point in limine was upheld,...

Citation
[2017] ZANCT 97
Parties
Applicant: National Credit Regulator; Respondent: Finbond Mutual Bank
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2017
Case Number
NCT/26629/2015/140(1)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
T Woker, J M Maseko, B Dumisa
Legal Topics
Credit Life Insurance, Unreasonable Costs, Commission Disclosure, Jurisdictional Requirements, Audi Alteram Partem, Administrative Penalty
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Credit Life Insurance Unreasonable Costs Commission Disclosure Jurisdictional Requirements Audi Alteram Partem Administrative Penalty

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Credit Regulator

Applicant

Finbond Mutual Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant had a reasonable suspicion that the Respondent was engaged in prohibited conduct before instituting the investigation and referral.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant was required to afford the Respondent an opportunity to comment before referral to the Tribunal.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent offered insurance at an unreasonable cost to consumers, having regard to the actual risk and liabilities involved in the credit agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not establish a reasonable suspicion of prohibited conduct prior to initiating the investigation and referral, as required by law. The evidence relied upon, namely two emails and subsequent investigation, did not sufficiently address the actual risks and liabilities involved in the credit agreements. The Applicant failed to provide comparative evidence demonstrating that the insurance offered by the Respondent was unreasonable in relation to similar products available in the market. The Tribunal held that without such evidence, it could not conclude that the Respondent contravened section 106(2)(b) of the Act. The first point in limine was upheld,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.