ARG when people get the basics wrong I get annoyed
Okay there is the National Credit Act which deals with consumer credit and essentially is the cornerstone of a national credit system. When you take out consumer credit whether it is for a house of 5 million rand or a clothing account the NCA applies. This Act does not provide for a "blacklist" or anything of that nature but there is a consumer credit information - which includes markings of judgments and defaults from both the courts. A person can query the information held and bla bla bla. Information about judgments IIRC get kept for 5 years but if a judgment is rescinded in any way that also needs to be recorded. So if you fail to pay on a consumer debt the provider will provide adverse credit information which potentially affects how other credit providers handle you (higher prices etc ...) but similarly if you pay timeously or for the whole amount in one swoop potentially positive information arises. If a particular stupid credit provider makes a habit of sending false adverse information and you query it it can very quickly lead to a perception that you are damn credit worthy when you aren't. There are from time to time proposals for various forms of blanket amnesty on adverse credit information and so on.
Ultimately however the end point of the national credit system is judicial enforcement through the courts and 90%+ of consumer credit matters are dealt with in the district magistrates courts (there may be a gradual shift to regional but lets discount that division for now) and are in amounts of less than 100k. A judgment of the magistrates court that is fully paid up can be rescinded on application and basically at the moment you have attorneys running a practice of "clearing blacklisting" which really is just ensuring that the defaulter pays up the judgments and applies for their rescinding with the consent of the creditor where possible. Frankly the whole thing could easily be built into a little cottage industry for about 20 experienced people and a bunch of candidates but that is another discussion. So the bottom line is that if you have an outstanding judgment from the magistrates court it could be pretty difficult to get consumer debt, moreover there is in fact an offence in taking out debt in excess of IIRC R400 if you have unsatisfied judgments and what not but it really isn't enforced, and you are sort of "blacklisted" but it is easily rehabilitated - pay up the judgment and apply for its rescission on payment. Now the High Court (which a creditor will not ordinarily approach if the debt is small because of costs etc ...) handing down a judgment is a different story: there is no provision allowing the High Court to rescind a judgment on the grounds that the judgment has been satisfied and there are good reasons for this [the actual issue arises in the Rules of Court and common law rather than a statute and it is a provision of judgments at law rather than orders from equity which can be set aside if circumstances change] which relate to the finality of judgment and the authenticity and veracity of superior court decisions. The fact that you paid the debt doesn't change the fact that you had to be dragged to court to extract the money - which means that you are a credit risk. The provision for magistrates court judgments to be rescinded is rooted in pragmatism but it has a problem - lets say you are a creditor to a recalcitrant debtor in an amount of 60k and you know that they will force you to go to court where there are bound to be delays and spend money and after sweating it out a little will satisfy the judgment and then have it set aside even if you object. Going to the High Court because it is a bigger stick is not commercially viable. Well if the High Court could declare such a person a recalcitrant debtor on a cheaper process than all of the litigation being in the High Court a pretty good stick exists - even if the person satisfies the judgment they have a recalcitrance declaration. I don't believe our current law adequately provides tools for such an innovation (process in aid requirements, declaratory order issues and so on) but it would certainly be a big stick against recalcitrants.
The best solution to the presented problem (so ignoring the recalcitrancy of magistrate court judgment issue) which I believe arises with minimal changes to our existing legal system is to provide in the superior courts legislation - currently the Supreme Court Act 1959 as the abomination of the Superior Courts Act is in pendlex status - empowering the Registrar of the Court which granted a judgment or order whether in open court or by default or return - to on receipt of an application bearing proof of compliance and notice having been given to affected parties, and no objections received - certify such satisfaction and compliance with the order as set out the applicants affidavit.
Of course the biggest problem with this solution is that our Registrars already have a heavy workload and such a system would necessitate the expansion of clerical staff by probably about a quarter. There are long term other needs concerning the current registry systems in our courts but that is another subject.
The other solution to at least a part of the problem which I understand to be the case in England and Wales is that judgment is not entered in immediately upon pronouncement and a creditor first receives an "award" which is then entered as judgment. So in essence if the litigation is a germane dispute (rather than simple recalcitrance) the debtor doesn't have a judgment against them there is an award and then a judgment. I firmly believe that providing this distinction for both contested and default judgments would be beneficial - its a little extra hoop for a plaintiff to have an award entered in as judgment but it will reduce the number of "abandoned judgments" because it will be abandoned or settled awards.
The purpose of the bill is to help politicians (of various shapes and forms) who have High Court judgments against them for houses and cars and mistresses, but it has a positive effect on a large number of consumers who have found themselves with default judgments from the High Court for an amount that could have been handled in the magistrates court. The number of "abandoned" default judgments is a serious impediment in our current legal system and so to recap the three solutions - which our politicians are generally too stupid to actually understand (let alone think of) is to:
(a) permit the certification of satisfied superior court judgments and that such certification constitutes "credit information"
(b) require that a plaintiff to an award of the High Court (including what currently is a default judgment) sounding in money apply for judgment to be entered after 5 days of the determination by the court if the defendant fails to satisfy the judgment (or make arrangements thereon) - as it is there is a waiting period prior to execution which shouldn't be changed
(c) provide for the High Court to declare a judgment debtor of a magistrates court judgment a recalcitrant on the debt on application by the judgment creditor which must set out the recalcitrance.
Sign up with Google
), luckily I just bought a car (which i will pay off asap) so I'm good for the next few years...
