Reading Time: 2 minutes

FRB fail to rescind consumer debt review court order

Attorneys Liddle & Associates report that they have another judgment granted in their (and thus the DC and consumer’s) favour regarding the variation and/or rescission of debt review orders.

Recently counsel was appointed by Firstrand Bank to argue for the Bank to overturn a debt review Court Order. This week their attorneys were present at court for argument in the matter of: BELLVILLE MAGISTRATE COURT CASE NUMBER 2311/2012 FNB/DE BOD VARIATION/RESCISSION OF DEBT REVIEW ORDER, as were Liddle & Associates for the consumer.

Liddle & Assoc. report that they succeeded on each and every ground as well as argued and had COSTS being granted in favour of the consumer. (Basically this means FRB have to pay for the legal fees of the consumer)

 Summary of the case:

In terms of the NCA, it is only the Debt Counsellor that is entitled to prepare the proposal and consider the counter-proposals of credit providers. If such credit provider are not satisfied with the proposals, then they must come to court and oppose the application and the court will then adjudicate thereon. The court further took a dim view of the unsubstantiated allegations that the “debt does not solve” over the period set out in the proposal and order. The system that is used for these calculations is the PDA, which is an independent party to this process.

In conclusion, as long as the Debt Counsellors have performed their statutory duties and the court has adjudicated thereon in the granting of the order, any credit providers that have failed to appear in court or failed to oppose will have serious difficulty in successfully bringing applications to rescind such debt review orders.

Robyn Zimmerman of Liddles says “Slowly but surely we are prevailing with the strategies we have implemented…[this is] another big win against the Banks and another small step in putting an end to this madness“.

In this and other consumer’s matters Liddle & Assoc. have also proceeded against the Banks regarding paid up debt and the banks refusal to remove the review flags thereon.  The huge issue of in duplum (Sect 103(5))will also be litigated upon.