n SA Mercantile Law Journal = SA Tydskrif vir Handelsreg - The unreasonable refusal of consent orders by the National Consumer Tribunal under the National Credit Act : Barnes v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others confirming Motitsoe v Standard Bank Ltd : case note
|Article Title||The unreasonable refusal of consent orders by the National Consumer Tribunal under the National Credit Act : Barnes v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others confirming Motitsoe v Standard Bank Ltd : case note|
|© Publisher:||Juta Law Publishing|
|Journal||SA Mercantile Law Journal = SA Tydskrif vir Handelsreg|
|Affiliations||1 University of South Africa|
|Publication Date||Jan 2013|
|Pages||377 - 386|
The National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA) has had a major impact on banking practice and the protection of consumers. More than 100 reported cases, many of them conflicting, and as many academic comments on the cases or journal articles, bear some testimony to this fact. Nine cases have already reached the Supreme Court of Appeal, and two cases have made it all the way to the Constitutional Court. This is partly because the NCA is poorly drafted in many respects (Nedbank Ltd and Others v National Credit Regulator and Another 2011 (3) SA 581 (SCA) para 2), its uncertainties and gaps leaving credit providers and consumers to flounder in many instances. This is particularly unfortunate for all the various stakeholders under the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 - consumers seeking advice or redress, credit counsellors giving advice and assistance, the National Consumer Regulator and its staff, and the staff of credit providers that deal directly with consumers.
Article metrics loading...