Reading Time: 2 minutes

Recently FNB has been approaching Debt Counsellors asking them to get consumers to pay more than their debt restructuring court orders for debt review say they must.

Where the Debt Counsellor and consumer who is under debt review cannot increase the payments (or is unwilling) FNB have said that they are going to take these matters back to court to try get the debt restructuring court order that was made thrown out.

Other than possibly greed being a factor it seems that maybe FNB’s computer system is not able to match up the figures they are receiving on granted court orders and so they are convinced that the debt review will not work. One factor that could be leading to this confusion or difference between the court order generated (with the help of computer programs of the Payment Distribution Agencies) and that of FNB is the use of Section 103(5) – sometimes called induplum.

Most of the banks do not want to apply this section of the Act as it limits the amount of money that they can earn in interest on consumers accounts. While the law is clear that this section MUST be applied no matter what some creditors are confused about how to work out the maths of what double the debt at the time of default would be.

This recent spate of threats and letters and emails from FNB about court orders they don’t like is giving them a poor reputation in the industry at the moment. It is sad to see troubled consumers who have gone to court after negotiating with FNB now possibly having new stress and possible court costs being thrust upon them by a big bank like FNB.

Hopefully they will soon be able to spend a little more money on their computer systems rather than on harassing paying consumers who are trying to honour their debts.