National Credit Regulator v Gabaoutloele (NCT/48770/2016/140(1)NCA) [2017] ZANCT 2 (21 February 2017)
The Tribunal found that the respondent engaged in prohibited conduct by continuing to act as a debt counsellor after his registration had lapsed due to non-payment of annual fees, failing to submit annual compliance reports, and charging consumers fees in excess of those permitted by the Act and his conditions of registration. The respondent's explanations for his conduct were not sufficient to excuse these contraventions. The Tribunal determined that the respondent's files were in disarray and he failed to keep proper records, which is inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Allegations regarding missing documents in files from 2009 and 2010 were found to be prescribed under...
- Citation
- [2017] ZANCT 2
- Parties
- Applicant: National Credit Regulator; Respondent: Goisteone Leonard Gabaoutloele
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 21 February 2017
- Case Number
- NCT/48770/2016/140(1)NCA
- Procedural Posture
- Prohibited Conduct Application / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- The Tribunal found the respondent engaged in prohibited conduct and ordered reimbursement of overcharged consumers, interdicted the respondent from acting as a debt counsellor, and declined to impose an administrative penalty.
- Judges
- T Woker, J Simpson, X May
- Legal Topics
- Debt Counsellor Registration, Prohibited Conduct, Annual Compliance Reporting, Overcharging of Fees, Administrative Penalty, Consumer Reimbursement
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
National Credit Regulator
Applicant
Goisteone Leonard Gabaoutloele
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Prohibited Conduct Application / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Did the respondent act as a debt counsellor after his registration had lapsed, in contravention of the National Credit Act?
- 2 Did the respondent fail to submit annual compliance reports as required by the Act and regulations?
- 3 Did the respondent overcharge consumers fees in excess of those permitted by the Act and his conditions of registration?
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the respondent engaged in prohibited conduct by continuing to act as a debt counsellor after his registration had lapsed due to non-payment of annual fees, failing to submit annual compliance reports, and charging consumers fees in excess of those permitted by the Act and his conditions of registration. The respondent's explanations for his conduct were not sufficient to excuse these contraventions. The Tribunal determined that the respondent's files were in disarray and he failed to keep proper records, which is inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Allegations regarding missing documents in files from 2009 and 2010 were found to be prescribed under...
Court Disposition
The Tribunal found the respondent engaged in prohibited conduct and ordered reimbursement of overcharged consumers, interdicted the respondent from acting as a debt counsellor, and declined to impose an administrative penalty.
Orders
- The respondent is ordered to appoint an independent auditor at his own cost to assess all debt review files from April 2010 to determine any excess fees charged to consumers and any amounts paid by consumers to the respondent which were not paid over to credit providers, and to ensure reimbursement.
- The respondent must provide the independent auditor's final report to the applicant regarding the above steps taken and the reimbursements made within four months of the date of this judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment