File picture File picture
AS IT is the end of the month and time to once again face those ever-increasing bills, I am, per usual, prioritising what to pay first.
Without fail, top on my list is paying the bank for my home loan.
I have seen one too many cases of repossessed homes as a court reporter. While the courts often protect the consumer, one can still land in hot water for owing a pittance. And the banks are ruthless.
This was the case some time ago with the owners of a modest home in Klerksdorp, North West. They nearly lost their home for being in arrears of R18.46. Absa asked the court to declare their home executable, but Judge Eberhard Bertelsmann described the matter as “piffling”. He said it would be an injustice for the couple to lose their home over such a small amount.
The bank subsequently issued a statement in which it said an investigation was launched into why they were taken to court for such a small amount and promised to meet the family and apologise.
In another case, a couple in Meyersdal, Johannesburg, were in arrears for two weeks.
Nedbank claimed the outstanding bond amount of R2.5million from the couple and wanted the court to order that the property was executable so it could recover the entire outstanding bond.
The bank later abandoned this demand when the matter was argued in court.
But it still insisted that the couple had to pay the full outstanding total, even though their R28000 monthly instalment was only two weeks late and fully paid by the time the summons was served against them.
Judge Daisy Molefe turned down the bank’s claim and slapped it with the legal costs.
She referred to the landmark Constitutional Court judgment in which more light was shed on the National Credit Act in relation to consumers. The judgment impacted significantly on the rights of consumers in their relationship with their banks.
The Concourt said that even after a long period of being in arrears, if the consumer made up those arrears and the agreement has not been cancelled, the agreement is reinstated.
Judge Molefe, in turning down Nedbank’s application, said when the couple paid their instalment, although two weeks late, the credit agreement was thus reinstated and the bond agreement was thus not affected.
Last month, a Bela Bela woman was able to hold on to her property for a while longer, after the sheriff of the court failed to serve the bank’s summons properly on her.
He told the court that the owner was not home and that he had attached this vital document to the gate of her home and “to the grass”.
As the woman lived in a dwelling on a smallholding with vast lawns and as she had no front gate, she never received the document.
The result was that she did not go to court to defend the matter and the court issued judgment by default. This resulted in the property being sold on execution so that the bank could recover its debt.
The woman turned to the court to have the judgment overturned on the basis that she did not receive the summons. The court ruled in her favour and reversed the transaction; the entire process had to start afresh.
These are only the good news stories. Banks continue to daily repossess homes for those not paying up.