National Consumer Tribunal Annual Report 2011/12 National Consumer Tribunal 2011-12 | Page 48

Adjudication (continued)
14. In the matter between the National Credit Regulator (NCR) v Piet Cash Loans CC
(NCT/654/2010/57(1)(a)(c)(P))
The Regulator applied to the Tribunal for the cancellation of the registration of a registrant, Piet
Cash Loans CC in terms of Section 57(1)(a) and (c) of the NCA. The respondent registrant, Piet
Cash Loans CC, was a registered credit provider, having been registered on 6 August 2007.
The Regulator sought the cancellation of registration of Piet Cash Loans CC as a result of its
repeated contraventions of the NCA, more particularly contraventions of Section 81(2), Section
91(b)(i) and (ii) read with Section 90(2)(l)(i) and (ii), Section 91(a) read with Section 90(2)(k)(iii)
and Regulations 55(1)(b)(vi). These relate to repeated contraventions by requesting or demanding
consumers to give possession of prohibited instruments (section 91(b)(i)) or to reveal personal
identification numbers (section 91(b)(ii)), not performing pre-agreement assessments (section
81(2), alternatively failing to keep records of assessments (regulation 55), requiring or inducing
consumers to enter into unlawful supplementary agreements or sign unlawful documents (section
91(a) read with section 90(2)(k)(iii)).
In response to the Regulator’s application, Piet Cash Loans CC voluntary applied to the Regulator
for cancellation of its registration as a credit provider. It furthermore filed an affidavit wherein it
acknowledged having been served with the papers and that it is fully aware of the default order
being sought against it.
The Tribunal considered the contraventions of Piet Cash Loans CC to be extremely serious and that
its failure to keep proper records and to comply with the NCA has severely prejudiced consumers.
The Tribunal therefore cancelled the registration of Piet Cash Loans CC with immediate effect
and declared that its various contraventions of the NCA are prohibited conduct in terms of Section
150(a) of the NCA.
15. In the matter between RG Matjokana v NCR (NCT/585/2010/56(1)(P))
In this matter, RG Matjokana applied to the Tribunal in terms of Section 56(1) for the setting
aside of a compliance notice issued by the Regulator against him. The Tribunal had to consider
whether the compliance notice issued to Matjokana, a registered debt counsellor, complied
with the requirements of section 55 of the NCA. Section 55 of the NCA specifically outlines the
contents of a compliance notice and after considering the relevant section, the Tribunal held that
the compliance notice did not comply with the requirements of section 55 in that it did not indicate
the steps required to be taken by the debt counsellor to correct his behaviour and furthermore
that is vague in relation to the timeframes within which to correct his behaviour. The Tribunal
accordingly granted the application and set the compliance notice aside.
Annual Report 2011
page 46 | national consumer tribunal