Leave to Appeal - Collett vs FRB Constitutional Court Application

The petition should include the S129 judgment too. In terms of the spirit and purpose of the Act , a S129 is a "wake up" call to the consumer and leaves him/her a few days to take positive action to address the default /over indebtedness

Agree , but any appeal to the Constitutional Court MUST address the socio - economic / upliftment / empowerment purpose of the NCA and must endeavour to result in a ruling that encompasses the re-drafting of the Act to give practicability to a debt review and re-arrangement procedure that is consumer friendly with regard to cost and time without having to encroach on the judicial terrain . Rule 55 could be adapted to facilitate the interaction between the Magistrate and the DC with a view to reduce paper consumption where possible.

credit providers are killing the the debt review process

#3: -  

 Debt Review does not encourage Debt. Credit Providers encourage Debt. The truth is, Debt Counselling guarantees them payment.  Maybe they dont want that payment, as it might be more profitable to sell their debt?

on another note:

Watch this video to REALLY understand the truth behind why there is so much debt:

http://drs-info.blogspot.com/2011/04/capitalism-viewed-to-be-inhumane.html

This ruling is effectively nullifying the Debt Reveiw process. It is not only going to allow the Financial Institutions to "kill off" the Debt Counselling fraternity, but also the relief alternative offered to the debt striken masses. The purposes and spirit of the act was assist the debt stricken, not to destroy them finacially.In my opinion it is rendering the Act almost worthless and unworkable.

You should get all the Debt Counsellors to fund the Appeal

#6: -  

Thank you for your input.  The NCR (Funded by the DTI who is funded by the tax that we pay) receives money from the DC industry via the PDA.  We believe its fair so say that all have paid their dues.

It is time for magistrates to support the DR process.
It is not only the consumer who are the pig in the story, because the creditors is 50%, and in some cases 90% guilty of the over indebtedness of the consumer.

The creditors cry wolf and receive the co-operation of the judicial system.

The already over-indebted consumer has to pay the price and defend his possessions in High Court with an enormous amount of money which does not benefit the rest of the creditors and which the consumer cannot afford.

Debt Counsellor, make a note of the guilty Banks and inform your clients regarding the way they treat their clients when they in need,leave then,the decision to the consumer where to open a savings account for the DR process.
We might find the consumer will NOT open a savings account with that bank. At the end, the Bank have much more to lose.

If the court will not support the DR system SA banks and creditors will follow the same path as America and close their doors, because they will definitely not receive payment on their debt.

Creditors might have the authority to sell all the consumer's possessions, but if he is left with no possessions, what else will they sell if the consumer loses his/her job as well to regain the outstanding amounts.

Peoples houses is repossessed, therefore the consumer, have to rent a home for R1000 maybe less than the bond repayment, plus repay the outstanding debt on the bond? Less money for the other creditors and a longer re-repayment period on the debt which the other creditors will not accept?

How is the consumer helped with the debt review in South Africa? Did it became a joke to the outside world and a curse word to the already over-indebted consumer?

#10: Another Debt Counsellor - The Judicial system must support the DR process and overworked DC 

 

hear hear!

DC's are also urged to now start focussing on Reckless Credit, as this seems to be a large concern and apply to the debt of many of the consumers out there

http://www.acts.co.za/nat_credit_act/nc_act_80_reckless_credit.htm

This decision nullified the Debt Counselling Process ex tunc. The spirit fo the act was killed by this Common Law authority - what a pity.

If the NCR do not take this seriously the debt counselling Industry will be over shortly. We need the law to be changed in order to once again be able to help over indebted consumers. The banks and miss guided judges have destroyed the purpose of the act.

This Court ruling is not fair towards the consumers and debtcounsellors -

Wel ek hoop die werk ,want ek sien n donker gat vir debt counselling as die appeal nie werk nie, ek kan nie glo saak so deur gegan het nie! wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ons dc is rerig overworked and under paid en die bevel het alles nounet vererger!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This action totally overrides the spirit of Debt Review and is leaving the under-privileged, struggling consumer in the "lions den" once more! Being under Debt Review is not easy - it is not something to take pride in. Let us try and recover our dignity without tramping on it further!!!

It is of utmost importance to appeal against this judgement. Consumers have no protections and the act has become the joke of the centuary.
So South Africa, let us stand up for our rights, AND the rights granted in the act to protect over-indebted consumers, as written in the act!!!

I really think that creditors are being really unfair to those who want to rehabilitate the financial situation.

The Collett VS FRB judgement and the judgement of the Section 129 hearing leaves debt review in a state of chaos. Debt Counsellors are unable to prepare an objective proposal without fear or prejudice which is the back bone of what the debt review process needs to succeed.

'n Appel kan onmiddellike opskortende uitwerking he op die Collett gewysde. Hoe gouer hoe beter.

Section 129 notice should be an opportunity for a consumer to remedy than prejudice

Let's do this

After debt counceling i have more problems that ever