National Credit Regulator v Van Zyl and Another (NCT/295867/2023/57(1)) [2024] ZANCT 73 (3 August 2024)

"A"

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL

HELD IN CENTURION

Case Number: NCT/295867/2023/57(1)

In the matter between: NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR APPLICANT And PHILIPPUS JOHANNES VAN ZYL FIRST RESPONDENT LOANS ACCEPTABLE FUNDING (PTY) LTD SECOND RESPONDENT

Coram:

Adv C Sassman - Presiding Tribunal member

Mr S Mbhele - Tribunal member

Dr MC Peenze - Tribunal member

Date of the hearing: - 26 July 2024

Date of judgment: - 3 August 2024

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

THE PARTIES

1. The applicant is the National Credit Regulator (the applicant), an organ of the state and a juristic person established in terms of section 12 of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (the NCA) to regulate the consumer credit market and ensure compliance with the NCA.

2. At the hearing, the applicant was represented by Ms Nthabiseng Sefudi, the applicant's legal advisor.

3. The first respondent is Philippus Johannes Van Zyl (the first respondent), a registered debt counsellor with registration number NCRDC3220. The first respondent conducts business under Acceptable Debt (Pty) Ltd.

4. The second respondent is Loans Acceptable Funding (Pty) Ltd (the second respondent), a registered credit provider with registration number NCRCP5617.

5. Although the matter is unopposed, Lesego Kwakwa, an attorney from Kwakwa Attorneys, appeared at the hearing to represent both respondents.

TERMINOLOGY

6. A reference to a section in this judgment refers to a section in the NCA.

7. A reference to a regulation refers to the National Credit Act Regulations, 2006 (the regulations).[1]

8. A reference to a form refers to a form prescribed in the regulations.

9. A reference to a rule in this judgment refers to the Rules of the National Consumer Tribunal[2].

10. A reference to a condition, refers to the first respondent’s conditions of registration as a debt counsellor.

APPLICATION TYPE

11. This is an application made in terms of section 57(1) whereby the applicant seeks an order to cancel the first respondent’s registration as a debt counsellor. The applicant further seeks an order declaring that both respondents have repeatedly contravened certain provisions of the NCA.

JURISDICTION

12. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this matter in terms of section 27(a)(ii) and has powers conferred upon it in terms of section 150 to make orders concerning alleged contraventions of the NCA.

PROCEEDING ON A DEFAULT BASIS

13. On 3 November 2023, the applicant filed its application with the Tribunal and served the respondents with copies.

14. Under rule 13(2), the respondents had 15 business days to serve an answering affidavit and file it with the Registrar. However, they failed to do so.

15. The applicant did not file an application for a default order in terms of rule 25(2).

16. Due to the pleadings being closed, the Registrar issued a notice of set down to all the parties on 7 December 2023, setting the matter down for hearing on 31 January 2024. With the parties' consent, the matter was removed from the Tribunal’s hearing roll to allow the parties to facilitate settlement negotiations.

17. The matter was then set down for a hearing again on 18 April 2024. At the hearing, the second respondent requested a postponement to attempt to settle with the applicant again. The applicant did not oppose the postponement.

18. On 25 June 2024, the Registrar set the matter down for 26 July 2024 for a hearing on the merits.

19. The matter remains unopposed as neither respondent has filed opposing papers with the Tribunal.

20. Rule 13(5) states that any fact or allegation in the application or referral not explicitly denied or admitted in the answering affidavit will be deemed admitted by the respondent. Therefore, in the absence of any answering affidavit filed by either respondent, the applicant’s application and all the allegations contained therein are deemed to be admitted.

BACKGROUND

21. The applicant received numerous complaints concerning the first respondent’s conduct as a debt counsellor. The complaints detailed that the first respondent failed in his statutory obligations as a debt counsellor and received fees directly from consumers for distribution to their creditors. The complaints further alleged that the first respondent charged consumers legal fees despite not referring their matters to a court or Tribunal for a debt restructuring order.

22. The complaints gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the first respondent was conducting his business in a manner which was not in accordance with the provisions of the NCA and its regulations. As a result, the applicant initiated an investigation into the first respondent’s conduct in terms of section 139(1)(c). On 6 August 2021, the applicant’s Chief Executive Officer appointed an inspector to investigate the first respondent’s business practices.

23. On 12 August 2021, the inspector conducted a virtual interview with the first respondent, who was assisted by his office manager, Debbie Meyer. During the interview, the first respondent informed the applicant’s investigator that the second respondent was a registered credit provider owned by his father. He confirmed that the two entities operate separately from each other. However, when the second respondent calculates a consumer’s affordability for credit and appears to be over-indebted, the consumer is charged a referral fee and referred to the first respondent for debt counselling.

24. The applicant’s investigator conducted a full investigation and compiled an investigation report. The investigation included ten consumer files attached to the report and marked as annexures D1 to D10. These included five files of consumers who complained to the applicant and five randomly selected files. The report identified several contraventions committed by the first and second respondent as registrants of the applicant. Based on the severity of the contraventions discovered during the investigation, an application in terms of section 57(1) was filed with the Tribunal.

THE APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS

The first respondent’s contraventions

25. The applicant submitted that its investigation concluded that the first respondent has repeatedly and continuously failed to conduct its business in a manner consistent with the purpose and requirements of the NCA. He further failed to provide certain information to the applicant upon request. In this regard, the applicant asserts that the first respondent has exhibited serious contraventions of the NCA and his conditions of registration, as shown in the applicant’s investigation report.

26. The applicant alleges that the first respondent failed to act professionally and reasonably when offering debt counselling services to consumers. He failed to perform debt counselling in a manner that is consistent with the purpose and requirements of the NCA. The first respondent used Loans Acceptable and Acceptable Debt Funding interchangeably when liaising with consumers regarding their debt review, and consumers were not aware that these are two different entities. The arrangement between the two respondents seriously compromises the debt review process and places already over-indebted consumers at a disadvantage.

27. The first respondent charged consumers excessive and unlawful fees for his services. The evidence shows that consumers made payments for debt review services to the second respondent’s bank account. Despite not being a registered payment distribution agent, the first respondent received payments for distribution to creditors. The payments received were not distributed to creditors as consumers expected. The first respondent further knowingly provided false information to the applicant regarding the above.

28. In numerous cases, the first respondent placed consumers under debt review despite not completing and signing Form 16. In instances where the form was completed, it was not in the prescribed format and did not provide all the necessary information required by the first respondent to proceed with the application. No documentary proof of the information included in the form was requested from consumers, and the information contained in the forms forming part of the investigation appeared to have manipulated consumers’ information and signatures. Consumers were placed under debt review without being informed of the consequences of the process and the first respondent failed to make a determination of consumers’ indebtedness within the prescribed time.

29. The first respondent issued Forms 17.1 and 17.2 outside of the prescribed time periods or not at all. In some instances, Form 17.2 was issued prematurely before credit providers could submit certificates of balances. The first respondent failed to keep full and proper records and a record of the date, time, and manner or delivery of Form 17.2 and failed to update the applicant’s Debt Help System as required. Matters were also not referred to a court or Tribunal for a debt restructuring order or consent order within sixty business days, and falsified orders were provided to consumers.

30. Based on the above, the applicant alleges that the first respondent has contravened sections 86(1), 86(4)(b), 86(6), 86(7), 86(7)(c), 86(8) read with regulations 24(1)(a) and (c), 24(2), 24(3), 24(4), 24(5), 24(6), 24(7), 24(8), 24(9) and 24(10). He further contravened sections 160(2)(d), 52(5)(e), 55(1)(a) and 52(5)(c), read with conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 11 and section 44(2). The direct payments received are a further contravention of condition 9.1, in the alternative 9.2 and specific condition B1 read with section 52(5)(c) and paragraphs 1.4 and 1.7 of the Debt Counselling Fee Guidelines, read further with Schedule 2(2).

The second respondent’s contraventions

31. In the applicant’s application, the applicant alleged that the second respondent had continuously and repeatedly contravened sections 100(1)(a) read with sections 101(1) and 102. However, the applicant conceded at the hearing that these sections relate to fees a credit provider may or may not charge in a

credit agreement. The applicant abandoned these allegations since no credit agreements were concluded in the files forming part of the investigation. The applicant persisted with an allegation that the second respondent had only contravened section 44(2) by receiving funds from consumers relating to debt review services.

APPLICANT’S RELIEF SOUGHT

32. The applicant seeks the following:

32.1 An order declaring additional complaints to be considered as they form part of the investigation and prove that the first respondent’s conduct was continued and ongoing;

32.2 An order declaring the first respondent to be in repeated contravention of the following sections of the NCA, its regulations and his conditions or

registration:

· Section 52(5)(c) read with conditions 2 and 5;

· Condition 9.1, in the alternative, condition 9.2 and specific condition B1 read with section 52(5)(c);

· Section 86(1) read with regulation 24(1)(a), Form 16 and condition 3 read with section 52(5)(c);

· Section 86(4)(b) read with regulation 24(2) and condition 2;

· Section 88(4)(b) read with regulation 24(2) and condition 2;

· Section 86(6) read with regulation 24(10) and condition 2;

· Section 86(1) read with regulation 24(1)(a);

· Regulation 24(1)(c) and regulation 24(3);

· Regulation 24(1)(c) and regulation 24(3) read with section 86(6) read further with regulation 24(6) and regulation 24(10);

· Regulation 24(3) and (4);

· Section 86(4)(b) read with regulation 24(2), and section 86(6) read with regulation 24(6) and 24(10), read with condition 2, read with section 52(5)(c);

· Regulation 24(1)(c), 24(3), section 86(4), and section 86(6) read with regulation 24(2), 24(6) and regulation 24(10) read with condition 2, read further with section 52(5)(c);

· Section 86(4) read with regulation 24(2) read further wlth regulation 24(3);

· Section 86(4) read with regulation 24(2) and section 86(6) read with regulation 24(4), 24(6) and 24(10);

· Section 86(1) read with regulation 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(e) and further with regulation 24(3);

· Section 86(4)(b) read with regulation 24(2) as well as section 52(5)(c) read with condition 2;

· In the alternative, regulation 24(5), section 52(5)(e) read with regulation 55(1)(a)(i) and (ii), as well as section 52(5)(c) read with condition 11;

· Regulation 24(5);

· Regulation 24(10);

· In the alternative, section 86(6) and regulation 24(6) and (10);

· Section 86(8) read with 86(7)(c), as well as section 52(5)(c) read with condition 2;

· Section 52(5)(c) read with conditions 2, 5, 9.1 and 9.2, as well as section 52(5)(c) read with paragraphs 1.4 and 1. 7 of the Debt Counselling Fee Guidelines read further with schedule 2(2) of the NCA;

· Section 52(5)(c) read with specific condition B1;

· Section 52(5)(c) read with condition 2;

· Section 160(2)(d);

· Section 52(5)(c) read with condition 4;

· Conditions 2, 3 and 5 read with section 52(5)(c) read further with section 44(2);

· In the alternative, section 52(5)(c) read with condition 11 and regulation 55(1)(a);

· Section 52(5)(c) read with general condition 8 read further with conditions A1, 2, and 11 and section 86(6), (7), and (8) read with regulations 24(6),

(7), (8), (9) and (10); and

· Section 3.

0.5in; line-height: 150%">

32.3An order declaring the conduct of the first respondent to be prohibited conduct in terms of section 150(a);

32.4 An order cancelling the first respondent’s registration as a debt counsellor;

32.5 An order directing the first respondent to provide the applicant with all assistance reasonably required in order for the applicant to allocate the respondent’s erstwhile consumers to a new debt counsellor, including providing the applicant with all necessary information and copies of documentation.

32.6An order for the first respondent to hand over copies of his consumer files to the applicant and to furnish the applicant with a list of all past and present consumers within ten days from the date of this order. The original consumer file content must be retained by the first respondent for the purpose of an audit requested below, and, upon finalisation of the audit, the original file content must be handed over to the applicant;

32.7 An order for the first respondent to appoint an auditor, at his own cost and within 30 business days from the date of this order being issued, to audit all consumer files of the respondent. The audit report must be concluded within 90 business days from the date of this order being issued and must:

a)

identify all files wherein the respondent failed to adhere to the timeframes set out in section 86 and regulation 24;

b)

identify all consumers whose debt review matters were not competently dealt with by the respondent in accordance with the NCA;

c)

identify all matters which were not referred to a court or the Tribunal within 60 business days and specifically the matters which, to date, have still not been referred to a court or the Tribunal; and

d)

identify all consumers who have been overcharged for fees, including legal fees, or charged fees without receiving any service.

32.8 An order, following on the outcome of the audit, for the first respondent to refund all past and present affected consumers any amounts which the respondent received in fees which did not accord with the fee guidelines and/or which he was not entitled to receive or, if no proof of debt restructuring orders can be provided, ordering the respondent to refund 100% of the fees paid by the consumers, with the exclusion of the application fee of R50.00;

32.9 An order that the first respondent in respect of the complaints received. reimburse the complainants in full for all fees charged and paid by these consumers;

32.10 An order imposing an administrative fine upon the respondent in the amount of R1 000 000.00 (one million rand) or 10% of the first respondent's turnover, whichever is the greater;

32.11 In terms of section 150(1), making any other appropriate order required to give effect to the consumers' rights in terms of the NCA;

32.12 An order declaring the second respondent to have contravened section 44(2) and that such contravention amounts to prohibited conduct in terms of section 150(a);

0.5in; text-indent: 0in; line-height: 150%"> 32.13 An order declaring that the second respondent has brought the consumer credit industry into disrepute, having acted with a disregard for consumer rights generally;

32.14 An interdict restraining the second respondent from, in future, engaging in similar prohibited conduct and receiving any funds from consumers for services not rendered or services which are limited to other registrants;

32.15 An order directing the second respondent to, within thirty days upon the judgment being rendered, appoint an independent auditor, at its own costs, to identify all consumers who have been charged by the second respondent for an assessment of over-indebtedness and referral for debt review, and to compile a report detailing the date, names and amounts received by the second respondent; and for the second respondent to be ordered to refund the fees charged to each consumer within 30 days from the date of the auditor's report;

32.16 An order instructing the second respondent to provide the applicant with a written report detailing the identity of the consumers and the refunds made once the refunds have been made. This report is to be provided to the applicant within 120 days after the issuing of the order; and

32.17 Further and/or alternative relief.

CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE

33. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s written submissions regarding the basis upon which it formulated a reasonable suspicion that the respondents were engaging in prohibited conduct. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has provided sufficient argument and basis for establishing that there was reasonable suspicion. The Tribunal is seized only with the applicant’s documentary evidence and oral arguments. In terms of Rule 13(5), The Tribunal deems the facts alleged by the applicant as admitted by the respondents because it elected not to oppose the matter.

34. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the first respondent has repeatedly contravened the NCA and its regulations. These contraventions amount to prohibited conduct and are serious. By failing to file an answering affidavit, the first respondent has lost the opportunity to put up a proper defence against the allegations levelled against him and has placed himself in the hands of the Tribunal. The Tribunal views all these factors in a serious light, as they have the character of undermining the NCA, the aggrieved consumers, and the applicant.

35. On a balance of probabilities, the applicant has proven that the first respondent repeatedly contravened all the provisions of the NCA, the regulations, and his general conditions of registration, as alleged by the applicant, except for section 3. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the applicant has made out a case for a particular part of section 3 that the first respondent contravened.

36. Similarly, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the second respondent offered the services of a debt counsellor. The evidence suggests that the first respondent offered the services but made use of the second respondent’s resources and bank account. This does not contradict section 44(2) on the part of the second respondent. The legislation recognises a debt counsellor's statutory obligations and duties as those which can only be performed by a natural person. The applicant has not proven that the second respondent contravened section 44(2), and therefore the case against the second respondent is dismissed.

37. The Tribunal finds that the order sought in 32.8 read with 32.7(b) above, if granted, would delegate the Tribunal’s judicial authority to an independent auditor to determine whether matters were “not competently dealt with” by the first respondent. While the remainder of the orders may be granted in this regard, the Tribunal cannot grant the relief sought in 32.7(b).

38. The evidence before the Tribunal, as averred in the applicant’s founding affidavit, the investigation report, its annexures, and the oral submissions points to the first respondent's continuous and repeated conduct. The first respondent’s repeated contravention of the NCA constitutes prohibited conduct and warrants the imposition of an administrative fine as a punitive measure.

ADMINISTRATIVE FINE

39. The applicant requested the Tribunal to impose an administrative fine of R1 000 000.00 (one million rand) or 10% of the first respondent’s turnover as prescribed in section 151. The Tribunal is satisfied that the nature of the first respondent’s contraventions and the consequent financial implications for consumers justify the Tribunal imposing an administrative fine on the first respondent. Once it finds the first respondent has engaged in prohibited conduct, the Tribunal has a duty to exercise its powers by sending a clear and strong message to the debt counselling industry that such conduct will not be permitted. Section 151(3) outlines the factors the Tribunal must consider when determining an appropriate fine. These are listed and discussed under separate sub-headings below.

The nature, duration, gravity, and extent of the contravention

The evidence clearly shows that the contraventions are serious and display a total disregard for the NCA and the rights of the consumers. The nature and extent of the contraventions warrant serious action against the first respondent. The contraventions prevented overly indebted consumers from the relief they needed and exposed them to legal action from creditors. The consumers were victims of the respondent’s unlawful conduct.

Any loss or damage suffered as a result of the contravention

Consumers have suffered a direct loss in being charged unlawful fees causing them financial loss.

The behaviour of the first respondent

The first respondent acted with complete disregard for consumer rights. The evidence proves that he had full knowledge of his requirements as a debt counsellor and willingly chose not to comply with them.

The market circumstances in which the contravention took place

The first respondent’s conduct illustrates that the market within which the contraventions occurred, is one in which consumers are entrapped in a debt cycle and are desperate for and rely on debt counselling services. These consumers are often not fully aware of their rights relating to debt counselling and are vulnerable to exploitation.

The level of profit derived from the contravention

The applicant could not determine the exact level of profit derived by the first respondent. However, all the fees levied, constitute a profit gained by the first respondent.

The degree to which the first respondent has co-operated with the NCR and the Tribunal

The applicant submitted to the Tribunal that the first respondent cooperated with its inspectors during the investigation, but the degree of co-operation is questionable since he provided contradictory statements and not all requested documentation was supplied to the applicant.

Whether the first respondent has previously been found in contravention of the NCA

No prior investigations or enforcement was instituted against the first respondent.

40. Regarding the abovementioned factors, the factual evidence, and the conduct displayed, it is in the interests of justice for an administrative fine to be imposed on the first respondent. The purpose of an administrative fine is, in the circumstances of this application, a punitive measure that is warranted. Regarding the quantum of the administrative fine, section 151(2) provides that an administrative fine imposed may not exceed the greater of 10% of the first respondent’s annual turnover during the preceding financial year or R1 000 000.00 (one million rand). The applicant did not submit any evidence of the respondent’s annual turnover. The Tribunal can, however, still impose a fine limited to a maximum of R1 000 000.00 (one million rand).

41. The Tribunal finds that a fine of R100 000.00 (one hundred thousand rand) will be appropriate in this instance.

ORDER

42. Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following order:

42.1 The first respondent is found to have contravened the following provisions of the NCA, its regulations and his general conditions of registration as a debt counsellor:

(a)

Section 52(5)(c) read with condition 2 and 5;

(b)

Condition 9.1 and specific condition B1 read with section 52(5)(c);

(c)

Section 86(1) read with regulation 24(1)(a), Form 16 and condition 3 read with section 52(5)(c);

(d)

Section 86(4)(b) read with regulation 24(2) and condition 2;

(e)

Section 88(4)(b) read with regulation 24(2) and condition 2;

(f)

Section 86(6) read with regulation 24(10) and condition 2;

(g)

Section 86(1) read with regulation 24(1)(a);

(h)

Regulation 24(1)(c) and regulation 24(3);

(i)

Regulation 24(1)(c) and regulation 24(3) read with section 86(6) read further with regulation 24(6) and regulation 24(10);

(j)

Regulation 24(3) and (4);

(k)

Section 86(4)(b) read with regulation 24(2), and section 86(6) read with regulation 24(6) and 24(10), read with condition 2, read with section 52(5)(c);

(l)

Regulation 24(1)(c), 24(3), section 86(4), and section 86(6) read with regulation 24(2), 24(6) and regulation 24(10) read with condition 2, read further with section 52(5)(c);

(m)

Section 86(4) read with regulation 24(2) read further wlth regulation 24(3);

(n)

Section 86(4) read with regulation 24(2) and section 86(6) read with regulation 24(4), 24(6) and 24(10);

(o)

Section 86(1) read with regulation 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(e) and further with regulation 24(3);

(p)

Section 86(4)(b) read with regulation 24(2) as well as section 52(5)(c) read with condition 2;

(q)

Regulation 24(5), section 52(5)(e) read with regulation 55(1)(a)(i) and (ii), as well as section 52(5)(c) read with condition 11;

(r)

Regulation 24(5);

(s)

Regulation 24(10);

(t)

Section 86(8) read with 86(7)(c), as well as section 52(5)(c) read with condition 2;

(u)

Section 52(5)(c) read with conditions 2, 5, 9.1 and 9.2, as well as section 52(5)(c) read with paragraphs 1.4 and 1. 7 of the Debt Counselling Fee Guidelines read further with schedule 2(2) of the NCA;

(v)

Section 52(5)(c) read with specific condition B1;

(w)

Section 52(5)(c) read with condition 2;

(x)

Section 160(2)(d);

(y)

Section 52(5)(c) read with condition 4;

(z)

Conditions 2, 3 and 5 read with section 52(5)(c) read further with section 44(2); and

(aa) Section 52(5)(c) read with general condition 8 read further with conditions A1, 2, and 11 and section 86(6), (7), and (8) read with

regulations 24(6),(7), (8), (9) and (10);

42.2 The first respondent’s contraventions are declared prohibited conduct in terms of section 150(a);

42.3 The first respondent’s registration as a debt counsellor is cancelled;

42.4 The first respondent is ordered to assist the applicant in allocating his debt review clients to a new debt counsellor, including providing the applicant with all necessary information and copies of documentation;

42.5 The first respondent is ordered to hand over copies of his debt review client files to the applicant and to furnish the applicant with a list of all past and present clients within ten business days from the date of this order being issued. The original client file content must be retained by the first respondent for the purpose of an audit requested below, and, upon finalisation of the audit, the original file content must be handed over to the applicant;

42.6 The first respondent is ordered to appoint an independent auditor, who is a chartered accountant, at his own cost within thirty business days from the date of this order being issued, to audit all his debt review client files opened in the three years preceding the issuing of this order. The audit report must be concluded within ninety business days from the date of this order being issued and must:

a)

identify all files wherein the first respondent failed to adhere to the timeframes set out in section 86 and regulation 24;

b)

identify all matters which were not referred to a court or the Tribunal within sixty business days and specifically the matters which, to date, have still not been referred to a court or the Tribunal;

c)

identify all consumers who have been overcharged for fees, including legal fees, or charged fees without receiving any service; and

d)

identify all consumers who have been charged by the second respondent for a debt review referral and detail the date, names, and amounts received by the second respondent.

42.7 Following the outcome of the audit, the first respondent is ordered to refund all past and present affected consumers any amounts which the first respondent received in fees which did not accord with the fee guidelines and/or which he was not entitled to receive. If no proof of debt restructuring orders can be provided, the first respondent is ordered to refund 100% of the fees paid by the consumers, with the exclusion of the application fee of R50.00;

42.8 The first respondent is ordered to reimburse the complainants marked as annexures D1 – D10 in full for all fees charged for the first respondent’s services;

42.9 The first respondent must, within ninety days of issuing this judgment pay an administrative fine of R100 000.00 (one hundred thousand rand) into the National Revenue Fund referred to in section 213 of the Constitution[3] using the following bank account details:

Bank: The Standard Bank of South Africa

Account holder: Department of Trade and Industry Branch name: Sunnyside

Branch code: 010645

Account number: 370650026

Reference: NCT/295867/2023/57(1) and the name of the person or business making the payment; and

43. There is no cost order.

(signed)

Adv C Sassman

Presiding Tribunal member

Tribunal members Mr S Mbhele and Dr MC Peenze concur.

[1] Published under Government Notice R489 in Government Gazette 28864 of 31 May 2006.

[2] GN 789 of 28 August 2007: Regulations for matters relating to the functions of the Tribunal and Rules for the conduct of matters

before the National Consumer Tribunal, 2007 (Government Gazette No. 30225).

[3] Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996.