This conduct of the Respondent amounts to a contravention of section 100 1 c and section 101 1 d ii read with Regulation 42 1.
Elsewhere; the following were uncovered: The letter goes further to state that the Respondent has filed an application for liquidation, the details of which are unknown to the attorney. Further, when determining an amount to be imposed as an administrative penalty, the Tribunal must consider the legislation from which it derives its own mandate and consider the factors in section 151 3 of the NCA.
These contraventions, the Applicant argues, date back in time. Both sections limit the extent of the penalty which may be imposed on an offending party in terms of the relevant Acts.
The Respondent partook in a regulated activity but failed to take reasonable steps to make sure that the loans are affordable to the consumers. Section 151 1 of the NCA provides that: The investigation report and its annexures illustrate that the consumers were levied interest at a rate which exceeds the actual maximum prescribed rate per month on short term loans.
National Consumer Tribunal You are here: The amount of interest levied by the Respondent on credit agreements exceeds the maximum limit allowed by the NCA, to be charged for such agreements. The alleged contraventions are dealt with in more detail hereunder. These amount to, inter alia , reckless credit granting.
An administrative fine imposed in terms of this Act or the Consumer Protection Act, 2008 , may not exceed the greater of —.
Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following order: Rule 25 3 provides: The Respondent has not opposed the allegations levelled against it and did not attend the hearing, nor did it send a representative.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent is in contravention of the NCA, and should be penalized for such conduct. South Africa: In this matter the Respondent took advantage of vulnerable, unsophisticated consumers to achieve its own ends.
The Applicant argues that the small sample of files extracted from the records kept by the Respondent and the nature and extent of the contraventions identified from that batch, warrants serious action against the Respondent.
The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the requirements for a default hearing have been met.
It must be clear that the decision to impose an administrative fine should not just be reached for the sake of punishing the transgressors of the NCA, but to encourage refraining from future contraventions.