NDMA bemoan their loss of face
NDMA’s future unclear
With the recent scrapping of the NDMA pilot project for voluntary debt mediation called VDMS and now the NCR’s recanting on it’s support for the so called industry codes of conduct (which mandated the NDMA’s role as credit provider representative body dealing with debt review matters) the NDMA seems to be in free fall.
It is clear that the NDMA’s continued complaints about the death of the VDMS project after the fact and ridicule of the NCR’s decision won them no friends at the regulators office. Would it have been better for them to maintain a low profile and ridden out the storm in quiet hoping for the best?
It is unclear. The call for review of the industry codes had already gone out and Debt Counsellors in particular were not happy with the DCASA origin code for their part in the process. With some Debt Counsellors threatening to bring legal action against the regulator maybe the codes were on their last legs anyway. It seems though that the NDMA’s recent anti debt counselling and anti NCR publicity did not improve the situation.
Now that the regulator has made this announcement it seems that once again the NDMA is calling “foul” and looking for public support for their continued existence as set out in the codes of conduct.
Comments such a these have been made by the NDMA CEO:
“I cannot explain to you how upsetting it is; there were so many agreements in place … the NDMA was playing a huge role getting banks to sign concessions … the NDMA fights for the consumers,”
[obviously the NDMA fights for the creditors as is their job description]
“We obviously don’t agree with what they [the NCR] have put there.”
This is as the VDMS had provided free counselling to consumers while debt counsellors charge a fee in the region of R6 000.
[it seems that according to this comment that vdms had already been underway despite instructions by the NCR to halt the project before going live]
“The NCA is very clear that there should be dispute resolution that is an alternative to lodging a complaint with the regulator … those agents do not have to be recognised by the regulator … but what was good with this process is that you have a majority of credit providers that have agreed to act in a certain way … that is why our resolution rate is so high.”
“After you remove the VDMS, what alternative solution has been proposed?”
Sadly once again no support for the current effective legislated process of debt review was made by the NDMA. Rather there is a call for something else. The comments made (above) seem to refer to alternative dispute resolution agents (maybe) who are not able to function as Debt Counsellors and preform the duties of a DC as set out in the NCA but can only help with disputes regarding accounts.
It is important to realize that not being able to pay your account is not a dispute.
It is unclear how the NDMA have been operating to restructure debt repayments across several different member credit providers accounts without acting in the function of Debt Counsellors as set out in the NCA conditions of registration and section 86
Since the announcement by the NCR of it’s intention to withdraw support submissions to the NCR regarding the situation have been made and emergency meetings held. Both the NDMA and DCASA have scrambled to try get a hearing ear at the regulator. And this shortly after going around announcing to the world that the NCR are wrong about the VDMS project etc.
If the NCR refuse to acknowledge the NDMA in the future will there be a place for them in the industry? Will their role shift to simply managing the DCRS system or maybe creating the proposed Central Data Switch? It could be.
Another possibility is that BASA pull their funding altogether and that all that the NDMA have touched will turn to dust.