Down load original files
HELD IN CENTURION
For the question between:
SA HOMELOANS (PTY) 600$ loans LTD CLIENT
OCKLENE VAN WYK FI RST RESPONDENT/CONSUMER
WILLEM JOHANNES LOUW VAN WYK 2ND RESPONDENT/CONSUMER
NADIA MATTHEE THIRD RESPONDENT/DEBT COUNSELLOR
ABSA LENDER LTD FOURTH RESPONDENT/CREDIT PROVIDER
WOOLWORTHS (PTY) LTD FIFTH RESPONDENT/CREDIT SUPPLIER
LYNN & IMPORTANT LAWYERS SIXTH RESPONDENT/CREDIT SUPPLIER
EDCON SEVENTH RESPONDENT/CREDIT PROVIDER
TRADITIONAL LENDER LIMITED EIGHT RESPONDENT/CREDIT SERVICE PROVIDER
A DEPARTMENT OF 1ST RAND FINANCIAL RESTRICTED NINTH RESPONDENT/CREDIT PROVIDER
1ST NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL,
A DIVISION OF VERY FIRST RAND FINANCIAL LIMITED TENTH RESPONDENT/CREDIT CARRIER
Big Date of hearing – 1 November 2017
JUDGEMENT AND FACTORS
1. The candidate is actually SA mortgage loans (Pty) Ltd, a business that will be registered as a credit score rating company according to the state credit score rating work, 34 of 2005 (“the work”) (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicant”).
2. at hearing the customer had been displayed by Mr. Johan Coetzer a lawyer from Coetzer designed.
CONSUMERS AND RESPONDENTS
3. the very first and next Respondents become people who are under debt-review (Hereinafter described as “the Consumers”).
4. the next for the Tenth participants are common signed up with all the National Credit Regulator as credit suppliers (hereinafter all the participants were together known as “the Respondents”).
5. This is a software in terms of point 165 associated with work to vary the debt re-arrangement arrangement which was made your order associated with Tribunal when it comes to section 138 for the work.
6. On 7 October 2015 your debt re-arrangement arrangement involving the people in addition to participants is confirmed as an order of the Tribunal according to circumstances amounts NCT/22648/2015/138(1)P.
7. On April 2017 the candidate lodged a software when it comes to Section 165 for the work to achieve the consent purchase varied.
8. the application form is served in the buyers and participants by mail.
9. the cornerstone for program is “ The order was actually issued leaving out SA mortgages (Pty) Ltd levels due to the fact buyers got spending SA mortgages (Pty) Ltd membership right. The people today need to include this account as Consumer struggles to pay SA mortgages (Pty) Ltd immediately as she are unable to afford in order to maintain the woman contractual instalment and/or to omit the connection from personal debt evaluation.”(sic in toto).
10. On 7 August 2017 the performing Registrar given the see of total submitting. On 4 Oct 2017 the Registrar given an observe of set-down the point becoming heard on 1 November 2017 and submitted a Certification of Set Down besides.
11. The Tribunal is happy that the observe of set-down was actually properly served in the client, the Consumers together with Respondents.
12. throughout the day of the hearing there seemed to be no appearance from the buyers as well as the participants or their unique representatives. Consequently, the problem proceeded on a default foundation.
FACTOR IN THE RESEARCH ON A DEFAULT BASIS
13. Regarding guideline 13 of guidelines of Tribunal  , the people therefore the participants had been eligible for oppose the application by providing an answering affidavit on candidate within 15 working days of receiving the program. The participants, however, decided not to achieve this.
14. The Applicant would not file a loan application for a default order when it comes to guideline 25(2).
15. The Registrar, however, set the problem down for hearing on a default foundation as a result of the pleadings becoming shut.
16. guideline 13(5) provides that:
“ Any reality or allegation into the software or reference perhaps not especially refuted or acknowledge inside the addressing affidavit, are deemed to possess started admitted”