Caught collecting prescribed debt

zulucat

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
2,986
Please forgive my English/grammar, whatever - it sucks!

:ROFL: A long story short - my cousin had an accident (got injured) many years ago at his work place. He was dismissed as a result. They told him that since he was not even registered as an employee at the time - no benefits would be forthcoming. He was a casual worker picked up from the kerb side.

He had an account with Edgars, which fell behind on payments after he was fired, at first they sort of hounded him and then eventually Edgars just abandoned the debt around 2011 - he has never heard from them ever since - no email, no SMS, no calls, no letters, nothing.

Then in November last year, he got an email from a prominent debt collecting agency (I will not name them - don't want my Zulu ass to be sued) and they were collecting the debt and he forwarded the email to me in panic because they were threatening him with court and arrest.

Of course, the debt had ballooned beyond belief! I suspected that the debt had prescribed and they had no right to collect it. I told him to reply and tell them that it was illegal to collect debt that had prescribed.

They responded quite promptly and apologised and actually confirmed that "after a thorough investigation, it came to our attention the debt has indeed prescribed" and that they would close the account. They even sent a letter. Wish I can share the letter - it came 30 minutes after he responded - how much of a thorough investigation can you do in 30 minutes?

I wonder how prevalent is this practice where debt collection agency collect money they should not be collecting by law. And I am sure they do not even pass on the money to the creditor! Maybe it is just a scheme designed by a few people to milk delinquent clients.

Obviously, I do not advocate for people to not pay what they owe if they can afford it/ But people have fallen on hard times and there is a law in place to try and protect people, but some debt collectors take advantage. Some people simply don't know about debt prescription etc.
 
So, my guess is, Edgar's sold that debt in about 2012.

Maybe got 40c or 60c in the Rand.

Either the guys who bought it itlr the people they sold it to decided to try collect.

Say you but R800ks debt for R200k, anything you collect over R200k is profit.

Why bother checking if it's prescribed or not.
 
debt should never prescribe imo, I do believe there should be reasonable allowances for the debt to attract interest and costs.

debt books should not be allowed to be sold though
 
I wonder how prevalent is this practice where debt collection agency collect money they should not be collecting by law. And I am sure they do not even pass on the money to the creditor! Maybe it is just a scheme designed by a few people to milk delinquent clients.

When they Tata Ma Chance, you respond:

"I am the LAW!"
 
Please forgive my English/grammar, whatever - it sucks!

:ROFL: A long story short - my cousin had an accident (got injured) many years ago at his work place. He was dismissed as a result. They told him that since he was not even registered as an employee at the time - no benefits would be forthcoming. He was a casual worker picked up from the kerb side.

He had an account with Edgars, which fell behind on payments after he was fired, at first they sort of hounded him and then eventually Edgars just abandoned the debt around 2011 - he has never heard from them ever since - no email, no SMS, no calls, no letters, nothing.

Then in November last year, he got an email from a prominent debt collecting agency (I will not name them - don't want my Zulu ass to be sued) and they were collecting the debt and he forwarded the email to me in panic because they were threatening him with court and arrest.

Of course, the debt had ballooned beyond belief! I suspected that the debt had prescribed and they had no right to collect it. I told him to reply and tell them that it was illegal to collect debt that had prescribed.

They responded quite promptly and apologised and actually confirmed that "after a thorough investigation, it came to our attention the debt has indeed prescribed" and that they would close the account. They even sent a letter. Wish I can share the letter - it came 30 minutes after he responded - how much of a thorough investigation can you do in 30 minutes?

I wonder how prevalent is this practice where debt collection agency collect money they should not be collecting by law. And I am sure they do not even pass on the money to the creditor! Maybe it is just a scheme designed by a few people to milk delinquent clients.

Obviously, I do not advocate for people to not pay what they owe if they can afford it/ But people have fallen on hard times and there is a law in place to try and protect people, but some debt collectors take advantage. Some people simply don't know about debt prescription etc.
Those guys are terrible. They don't care, on the off chance you will attempt to pay it... they will try and recover it.
 
These type of businesses are as bad as ambulance-chasers

A friend's son is a Plastic Surgeon in New York. His malpractice insurance premium is $1m a year. The ins co have a team of lawyers on standby

When his patients are discharged, they are "visited" by these consultants who imply that they will be able to recover the cost of the procedure, plus a hefty sum if the patient will just sign the acceptance form

On the first whiff of a suit, the legal team leap into action. Some of the cases go on for years

He was once offered a procedure to correct some botched surgery that had been done on a 55 year old gent. It turned out that this person had more than 12 procedures already and had spent $55m
 
debt should never prescribe imo, I do believe there should be reasonable allowances for the debt to attract interest and costs.

debt books should not be allowed to be sold though

So I should be able to come after 20 years and say you owe me and provide possibly faked proof while you have nothing to disprove my allegation (because 20 years, not just 3 which is reasonable)? That is why it exists as a defence.
 
How well does a debt collector pay?

/asking for a friend
I know of one agency who pays 5k monthly and then has a commission structure in place once you hit an initial target collection.. unsure of the specifics of the commission structure..
 
So I should be able to come after 20 years and say you owe me and provide possibly faked proof while you have nothing to disprove my allegation (because 20 years, not just 3 which is reasonable)? That is why it exists as a defence.

argument goes both ways, should i just ignore you for 3 years and not pay you whilst your business and staff suffer?
 
argument goes both ways, should i just ignore you for 3 years and not pay you whilst your business and staff suffer?

No, not how it works. One cannot simply just ignore the debt for 3 years,

On the flip side, you need to collect the debt or proceed to institute proceedings to collect the debt in the prescribed period. If you don't, tough
 
No, not how it works. One cannot simply just ignore the debt for 3 years,

On the flip side, you need to collect the debt or proceed to institute proceedings to collect the debt in the prescribed period. If you don't, tough

So then in this scenario explain how it could have happened? where is the loophole and how do they close it?
 
Because it's illegal to collect prescribed debt under the NCA.

Well, no. You can still collect it. No person may continue the collection of debit where it has prescribed AND the consumer has raised the defence of prescritpion.
 
Well, no. You can still collect it. No person may continue the collection of debit where it has prescribed AND the consumer has raised the defence of prescritpion.

Well, the actual wording is:

No person may continue the collection of, or reactivate a debt under a credit agreement to which this Act applies—
(i) which debt has been extinguished by prescription under the Prescription Act, 1969 (Act No. 68 of 1969); and
(ii) where the consumer raises the defence of prescription, or would reasonably have raised the defence of prescription had the consumer been aware of such a defence, in response to a demand, whether as part of legal proceedings or otherwise


...which actually seems to get to the heart of OP's point.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X