National Credit Regulator v Hartney and Another (NCT/104573/2018/140(1)) [2018] ZANCT 86 (20 July 2018)

National Credit Regulator v Hartney and Another (NCT/104573/2018/140(1)) [2018] ZANCT 86 (20 July 2018)

The Tribunal found that the respondents repeatedly contravened the National Credit Act and Regulations by operating as unregistered credit providers, failing to conduct affordability assessments, entering into reckless credit agreements, and unlawfully retaining SASSA cards to withdraw funds from consumers. The evidence was uncontested, and the respondents did not participate in the proceedings. The Tribunal held that these practices severely prejudiced vulnerable consumers and warranted a punitive sanction. As the applicant did not provide evidence of annual turnover, the Tribunal imposed an administrative fine of R100,000, considering the gravity and duration of the contraventions, the...

Citation
[2018] ZANCT 86
Parties
Applicant: National Credit Regulator; Respondent: Chene Hartney; Respondent: Fred Cecil Hartney
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 July 2018
Case Number
NCT/104573/2018/140(1)
Procedural Posture
Administrative Application / Default Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. Respondents found in repeated contravention of the National Credit Act and Regulations. Administrative fine imposed.
Judges
K Moodaliyar, B Dumisa, J Simpson
Legal Topics
Unregistered Credit Provider, Reckless Credit Agreement, Affordability Assessment, Administrative Fine, Sassa Card Abuse
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Unregistered Credit Provider Reckless Credit Agreement Affordability Assessment Administrative Fine Sassa Card Abuse

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Credit Regulator

Applicant

Chene Hartney

Respondent

Fred Cecil Hartney

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Application / Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents engaged in prohibited conduct by providing credit without registration as credit providers.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents failed to conduct proper affordability assessments as required by the National Credit Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents entered into reckless credit agreements with consumers.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the respondents repeatedly contravened the National Credit Act and Regulations by operating as unregistered credit providers, failing to conduct affordability assessments, entering into reckless credit agreements, and unlawfully retaining SASSA cards to withdraw funds from consumers. The evidence was uncontested, and the respondents did not participate in the proceedings. The Tribunal held that these practices severely prejudiced vulnerable consumers and warranted a punitive sanction. As the applicant did not provide evidence of annual turnover, the Tribunal imposed an administrative fine of R100,000, considering the gravity and duration of the contraventions, the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Respondents found in repeated contravention of the National Credit Act and Regulations. Administrative fine imposed.

Orders

  • The respondents' repeated contraventions of the Act and Regulations are declared prohibited conduct.
  • The respondents are interdicted from future breaches of the Act and Regulations with immediate effect.