R699 car numbers shock

supersunbird said:
Not if the NCA rules were not complied with, if proper affordability assessments are not done by credit providers and a loan is cancelled in that manner the client keeps the money (in this case car).
Click to expand...

They probably did the affordability assessments but factored in all the HUGE future ad revenue (lol) as a deduction of the cost, or as extra income. I don't see the banks taking the heat for this one, it will be the poor schmos on the street that get shafted again.
 
Thanks supersunbird, it really doesn't look good for the banks in this case.
 
TJ99 said:
They probably did the affordability assessments but factored in all the HUGE future ad revenue (lol) as a deduction of the cost, or as extra income. I don't see the banks taking the heat for this one, it will be the poor schmos on the street that get shafted again.
Click to expand...

If they factored in the future ad revenue, then they breached the NCA rules...
 
ToxicBunny said:
If they factored in the future ad revenue, then they breached the NCA rules...
Click to expand...

How so? If that's the case then adding planned rental income to your income when applying for a home loan would also be a breach, no?
 
TJ99 said:
They probably did the affordability assessments but factored in all the HUGE future ad revenue (lol) as a deduction of the cost, or as extra income. I don't see the banks taking the heat for this one, it will be the poor schmos on the street that get shafted again.
Click to expand...

Correct. The banks already made it very clear that they assessed affordability based on the clients' reported income and expenses and that the ad revenue was never taken into account, and all they need to do is lay this in front of a magistrate and that is that. If the figures, provided by the client, shows that he/she could afford the vehicle, a case of reckless lending is out of the window.
 
TJ99 said:
How so? If that's the case then adding planned rental income to your income when applying for a home loan would also be a breach, no?
Click to expand...

If its "planned" rental income, as in rental income you are not currently receiving then yes it would be a breach...
 
ToxicBunny said:
If its "planned" rental income, as in rental income you are not currently receiving then yes it would be a breach...
Click to expand...

Irrelevant anyways, if House is correct. According to him the banks did do the assessments without taking ad revenue into account.
 
TJ99 said:
Irrelevant anyways, if House is correct. According to him the banks did do the assessments without taking ad revenue into account.
Click to expand...

Thats what the banks are saying... whether its the truth will come out eventually.
 
Every time I've submitted a finance application, I could write anything I wanted to in the "Monthly Expenses" section. It is 100% up to me to declare my expenses properly. If I put down R1000 for groceries when it is actually R5000, it's my fault.

The banks also look at your 3 months bank statements to make an assessment of the money "left over" each month after your salary is spent.

I think the banks are going to walk away just fine from this one.
 
Gaz{M} said:
I think the banks are going to walk away just fine from this one.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are.

The problem in this whole incident lies between the clients and Satinsky.

The moment this matter ends up in court, this is the procedures that banks will explain to a judge and present the evidence of some of the finance applications they received. They will also justify how they assessed affordability.

The banks are within their rights here and current cases where people wants to take on the banks - they are clutching to straws.
 
Gaz{M} said:
Every time I've submitted a finance application, I could write anything I wanted to in the "Monthly Expenses" section. It is 100% up to me to declare my expenses properly. If I put down R1000 for groceries when it is actually R5000, it's my fault.

The banks also look at your 3 months bank statements to make an assessment of the money "left over" each month after your salary is spent.

I think the banks are going to walk away just fine from this one.
Click to expand...

I've had them go through the 3 months bank statements to identify whats what.
 
You always have to submit bank statements, and they use those to verify the "Monthyl Expenses" stuff.
 
There is a reason why on all credit / finance applications that there is a section where you need to specify income and expenses. Not all income are always coming into your bank account. To the flip side of the coin, not all expenses are going off an account. So, bank statements are primarily used by banks to verify fixed monthly income.

As for expenses, they rely on their contract with the client to openly report all other income and expenses. Omitting this information or lying about it, places the client on the wrong side of the law, both criminally and civilly and not the bank.
 
House said:
There is a reason why on all credit / finance applications that there is a section where you need to specify income and expenses. Not all income are always coming into your bank account. To the flip side of the coin, not all expenses are going off an account. So, bank statements are primarily used by banks to verify fixed monthly income.

As for expenses, they rely on their contract with the client to openly report all other income and expenses. Omitting this information or lying about it, places the client on the wrong side of the law, both criminally and civilly and not the bank.
Click to expand...

Yep, never had a problem with finance approval and I "zero" my account every month ie: salary comes in and gets distributed/debit orders for other accounts, payments, savings etc. Too many stories of people having their main large account hit through fraud, skimming or even being held up.
 
supersunbird said:
Then the people should be able to afford the cars payments (except if someone was "tweaking" the assessments).
Click to expand...

That's exactly the assertion. What people told Satinsky, and what Satinsky submitted to the banks are different. However, the client should still have signed for it.
 
Valerion said:
That's exactly the assertion. What people told Satinsky, and what Satinsky submitted to the banks are different. However, the client should still have signed for it.
Click to expand...

And the clients did, else they would not have had the vehicles.

All banks enforce the rule of having clients come to the dealer floor or to the bank to sign the contracts (this is a bit of protection they get against the 'Cool-off Period' rule - as you sign the agreement on the bank premises or on the dealers' floor, this rule no longer applies to you).

That being said, all problems related to this case lies with the clients and then Satinsky. I am sure the courts will see it this way as well.
 
supersunbird said:
Not if the NCA rules were not complied with, if proper affordability assessments are not done by credit providers and a loan is cancelled in that manner the client keeps the money (in this case car).
Click to expand...
Nope, if the credit provisioning outright violates the NCA the credit provider is left without recourse to enforce the loan (and moreover may not do so) BUT this does not mean that the debtor now becomes the owner and beneficiary of statutorily vested unjust enrichment. Take a good look at section 89(5) of the NCA:
If a credit agreement is unlawful in terms of this section, despite any provision of common law, any other legislation or any provision of an agreement to the contrary, a court must order that-
a)the credit agreement is void as from the date the agreement was entered into;
b)the credit provider must refund to the consumer any money paid by the consumer under that agreement to the credit provider, with interest calculated-
i)at the rate set out in that agreement; and
ii)for the period from the date on which the consumer paid the money to the credit provider, until the date the money is refunded to the consumer; and
c)all the purported rights of the credit provider under that credit agreement to recover any money paid or goods delivered to, or on behalf of, the consumer in terms of that agreement are either-
i)cancelled, unless the court concludes that doing so in the circumstances would unjustly enrich the consumer; or
ii)forfeit to the State, if the court concludes that cancelling those rights in the circumstances would unjustly enrich the consumer.
Click to expand...
In their wisdom though thedti and Parliament made some horrendous drafting contradictions in the NCA and whether the unlawful agreements section comes into full play outside of the specified clauses in the section has come up in a few cases already - and I really don't know what the trend has been but the lack of clarity within the NCA has been commented on in judgments quite considerably.

The end result if it is found that the banks and the consumers were at fault - and on the general narrative that is what is being argued - then ultimately the State could get a big wallop of forfeited credit - so either some sheriffs are going to have to invest in parking space while they auction off these excess cars or the government is going to have a lot of really small and stupidly branded police vehicles and response cars in a year or so (we can also scrap all civil service vehicle allowances and deploy the cars to municipalities and cadres ...)

Depending on what comes out of Grahamstown tomorrow morning things could become very very interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X