Down load original documents
KEPT IN CENTURION
When you look at the matter between:
SA HOMELOANS (PTY) LTD APPLICANT
OCKLENE VAN WYK FI RST RESPONDENT/CONSUMER
WILLEM JOHANNES LOUW VAN WYK 2ND RESPONDENT/CONSUMER
NADIA MATTHEE THIRD RESPONDENT/DEBT COUNSELOR
ABSA BANK LTD FOURTH RESPONDENT/CREDIT CARRIER
WOOLWORTHS (PTY) LTD FIFTH RESPONDENT/CREDIT COMPANY
LYNN & MAIN ATTORNEYS SIXTH RESPONDENT/CREDIT COMPANY
EDCON SEVENTH RESPONDENT/CREDIT SUPPLIER
CRITERION BANK BRIEF EIGHT RESPONDENT/CREDIT SUPPLIER
A DIVISION OF VERY FIRST RAND BANK LIMITED NINTH RESPONDENT/CREDIT CARRIER
FIRST STATE FINANCIAL,
A DIVISION OF FIRST RAND BANK RESTRICTED TENTH RESPONDENT/CREDIT SERVICE PROVIDER
Day of reading – 1 November 2017
JUDGEMENT AND CAUSES
1. The Applicant try SA mortgages (Pty) Ltd, a business definitely authorized as a credit service provider according to the nationwide credit score rating work, 34 of 2005 (“the Act”) (hereinafter described as “the Applicant”).
2. on hearing the candidate was represented by Mr. Johan Coetzer a legal professional from Coetzer Incorporated.
BUYERS AND PARTICIPANTS
3. 1st and Second Respondents include people who’re under debt-review (Hereinafter named “the Consumers”).
4. the next for the Tenth Respondents are common registered together with the nationwide Credit Regulator as credit companies (hereinafter all of the Respondents tend to be jointly referred to as “the Respondents”).
5. this might be a loan application with regards to Section 165 associated with Act to alter the debt re-arrangement arrangement which was produced an order of this Tribunal with regards to part 138 of Act.
6. On 7 Oct 2015 your debt re-arrangement arrangement between your customers and also the Respondents is confirmed as your order with the Tribunal according to circumstances amounts NCT/22648/2015/138(1)P.
7. On April 2017 the candidate lodged a credit card applicatoin regarding area 165 of the Act to achieve the consent order diverse.
8. the application form is offered throughout the Consumers and Respondents by mail.
9. The basis when it comes to program is that “ your order was actually provided excluding SA mortgages (Pty) Ltd membership because consumer ended up being spending SA mortgage loans (Pty) Ltd membership immediately. The events now need to incorporate this levels as customers is unable to shell out SA mortgages (Pty) Ltd directly as she are unable to afford to keep the lady contractual instalment and/or to exclude the connect from loans evaluation.”(sic in toto).
10. On 7 August 2017 the performing Registrar granted the find of full filing. On 4 Oct 2017 the Registrar granted an observe of set-down for point to be heard on 1 November 2017 and recorded a Certification of set-down besides.
11. The Tribunal was contented your Notice of Set Down was properly supported from the client, the customers therefore the participants.
12. throughout the day regarding the hearing there was clearly no looks because of the people together with Respondents or their particular associates. Therefore, the situation proceeded on a default basis.
CONSIDERATION OF RESEARCH ON A STANDARD FOUNDATION
13. With respect to Rule 13 of the Rules in the Tribunal  , the people together with Respondents comprise entitled to oppose the applying by offering an answering affidavit in the client within 15 business days of obtaining the Application. The participants, however, failed to do so.
14. The candidate wouldn’t submit an application for a default order in terms of Rule 25(2).
15. The Registrar, however, put the matter down for hearing on a default grounds online Perry Point payday loan as a result of the pleadings getting shut.
16. guideline 13(5) produces that:
“ Any fact or allegation in the application or reference maybe not especially declined or admitted inside giving answers to affidavit, is going to be deemed for become accepted”