Nedbank had sent out a new Section 129 notice to the client with the correct arrears, but this was not enough to rescue its case. Picture: nedbank.co.za Nedbank was sent back to school after its attempt to recover R25 619 allegedly owing on a BMW was rejected by the Johannesburg High Court in November on the grounds that it initially claimed the full amount outstanding of R288 660. According to the judgment, Nedbank sent out a Section 129 notice in terms of the National Credit Act (NCA) in July 2024 incorrectly claiming that the arrears were R288 660 – more than 11 times the actual arrears.
The BMW owner successfully challenged this, claiming the bank should not be given the summary judgment it was seeking. Nedbank responded that its admitted non-compliance with Section 129 of the NCA was without merit. It later sent out a new Section 129 notice to the client with the correct arrears, but this was not enough to rescue the bank’s case.
The BMW owner took offence to the fact that the new Section 129 notice was issued to his attorneys, rather than himself, and was an attempt by the bank to fix its mistake after legal proceedings had commenced. Fortunately for the BMW owner, he had the Constitutional Court on his side. The highest court in the land had delved into the issue of Section 129 notices in some depth.
Read Full Article on The Citizen
[paywall]
These are intended to alert consumers to any default, and the amount, before the creditor can move to legally enforce the debt. This was argued in theAmardien v Registrar of Deedscase. Before a consumer can consider their options, they must be advised of the arrears amount. In the BMW case, Nedbank “failed to establish a valid and competent claim in its particulars”.
[/paywall]
