what is a sec 129 legalnotice, can it be delivered by sms?

[lived666]

So my mom received an sms from MBD, those notorious attorneys about a sec 129 legal notice so she was like WTF and called them and they said it was about some debt that I owe a certain bank some figure like R10k so she asked why they sent her the message and they said erm that is the only number they had.

Anyhow today I received a call from them and I said sorry I don't know what you are talking about as I have never had a bank account there or owe anyone any money, so they said ok, bye, and then a few minutes later they sent the same SMS.

So what now? Do I ignore them, contact the NCA, is SMS a legal way to send a notice? A lot of websites about MBD and their dirty tactics, but regardless, the last bank account I had on my name was over 10 years ago and its not the bank they mentioned, so should I just ignore them and wait for a notice to go to court?

 

[blunomore]

Do you actually owe that debt? From your post it sound like it is not the case.

Then simply ignore them and if they act in any way that is detrimental to you, report them to the Law Society and institute a civil claim against them. Keep meticulous note of all your correspondence with them.

 

[DJ...]

Identity theft, in which case the onus is on you to prove them wrong. Request all evidence of the debt and all evidence relating to the bank account being in your name...

 

[blunomore]

Identity theft, in which case the onus is on you to prove them wrong. Request all evidence of the debt and all evidence relating to the bank account being in your name...

In my experience (an acquaintance asked us to assist) it is incredibly difficult to get info out of them about the debt. They simply respond by turning the screws tighter (more SMSes, more calls) instead of clarifying.

 

[lived666]

In my experience (an acquaintance asked us to assist) it is incredibly difficult to get info out of them about the debt. They simply respond by turning the screws tighter (more SMSes, more calls) instead of clarifying.

Heard the same about them. they said its something owed from 2003, so told them well I don't know anything or owe any money and a debt if it exists from 2003 would be prescribed by now anyhow.

I suppose I will just have to wait and see if they eventually do send a sec129 notice with more info, though I'm not sure where to follow this up with after that?

 

[SirFooK'nG]

Well they have sent him an SMS, thus it is covered by the ECT act. He has not opted to be in contact with them, they by law have to provide all and any information pertaining to how they got his information.

Edit: Section 45(1) of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act (Act 25 of 2002).

 

[DJ...]

In my experience (an acquaintance asked us to assist) it is incredibly difficult to get info out of them about the debt. They simply respond by turning the screws tighter (more SMSes, more calls) instead of clarifying.

Because they can't bill for the work, but if you can show that you have a decent paper-trail on your side which they have ignored then it should bode quite well for you later down the line.

Oh, and in writing, and request acknowledgement in writing by a certain date, formally object to the debt - do not go into detail here at all at this stage. Just state that you, without prejudice, object to all liability with respect to the debt relating to Bank X and request all evidence of liability on your part. This will require them to show that you are liable for the account - they cannot just send you a statement.

If that fails, call the bank and find out where the account is held, where it was opened, and then go to the holding branch and ask them for copies of all documentation pertaining to the opening of the account. They will inevitably not investigate this and you will need to...

 

[guest2013-1]

section 129 can only be sent via registered post, however (like Standard Bank), they love to ignore the fact that it was actually picked up/read/received by anyone. Just the mere fact one was sent gives them (according to them) legal right to sue immediately, even if they try to sue 1 day after sending it (which is impossible)

Later I found out, they don't follow their own debt collection procedures, and pushes it straight to legal (**** the NCA act right? lol) and they wait for the Section 129 to expire and then sue.

Bunch of asswipes.

 

[DJ...]

Heard the same about them. they said its something owed from 2003, so told them well I don't know anything or owe any money and a debt if it exists from 2003 would be prescribed by now anyhow.

I suppose I will just have to wait and see if they eventually do send a sec129 notice with more info, though I'm not sure where to follow this up with after that?

Depends on what type of debt, yes, but just because it is from 2003 doesn't mean it has prescribed. You'd have to have not acknowledged the debt for 3 years for it to have prescribed. Wendy Knowlder did an article on exactly this situation last year - http://www.iol.co.za/blogs/wendy-kn...-rogue-debt-collectors-1.1374671#.UUb8bluPgzI

That will absolutely be pertinent to your situation...

 

[DJ...]

This from judgements relating to what constitutes delivery of a section 129 notice:

The credit provider should ordinarily show delivery of a notice by proving (i) registered despatch to the address of the consumer and (ii) that the notice reached the appropriate post office for delivery to the consumer.

An SMS is not considered a legal delivery of a section 129 notice. There is no way for the sender to guarantee or even monitor delivery, and as per the Sebola case the courts ruled that delivery to the recipient, and not simply delivery to an address, is required, as well as covering all alternative options available to the consumer...

 

[lived666]

Thanks DJ, I suppose then I should wait for the sec129 then and update if and when received.

 

[Hosehead]

An SMS is not considered a legal delivery of a section 129 notice. There is no way for the sender to guarantee or even monitor delivery, and as per the Sebola case the courts ruled that delivery to the recipient, and not simply delivery to an address, is required, as well as covering all alternative options available to the consumer...

Therefore how did the courts rule on the legality of a Protection Order or Summons sent by email.? One can't prove delivery either.
But some Magistrates are accepting this method

 

[DJ...]

Therefore how did the courts rule on the legality of a Protection Order or Summons sent by email.? One can't prove delivery either.
But some Magistrates are accepting this method

Different legal notices subject to different requirements, I suppose? Section 129 notices have been specifically dealt with in depth now and the courts have ruled that delivery to the recipient is a requisite action...