R699 car numbers shock

[House]

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:

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.

+1

Many people are under the misunderstanding that if reckless lending is proven, they will keep the car and no longer have to pay the banks. There is another interesting act, I will try to find it later, which also protects the banks in this case.

In short, as you said, depending on tomorrow, I think nothing will happen to the banks. They will simply recover all their billions of rands of losses via re-insurance and all set for them. Same can't be said about the clients and Satinsky though.

 

[OokMobile]

I think the banks will be off the hook, and the clients will have to take on Satinsky.

This is quite an interesting precedent....

 

[House]

I think the banks will be off the hook, and the clients will have to take on Satinsky.

This is quite an interesting precedent....

That was my initial thoughts right from the onset, as this is much more an issue with the agreements between the clients and Satinsky. (Even looking at this, it appears that Satinsky have protected themselves in a proper manner if their scheme should ever fail, so I doubt if clients would have legal legs to stand on.)

As for the banks, they all clearly stated that they assessed finance applications based on the information they received from the clients. They never took the ad revenue into consideration - and I am sure that no bank will be stupid enough to admit this, even if they did.

I think a proper investigation should be launched into the operations of Satinsky in order to determine if there was indeed a pyramid-type scheme for which they can be prosecuted. Banks will later look at fraudulent finance applications and institute prosecution against those clients, and probably Satinsky, where this is identified.

 

[Nerfherder]

You always have to submit bank statements, and they use those to verify the "Monthyl Expenses" stuff.

I think that's more to check that you have a regular income.... its too much effort for them to sift through the monthly expenses.

You could be paying expenses from various other accounts, they want to see the one that the money gets paid in to.