The efficacy of South African consumer legislation in giving all parties access to justice was well demonstrated in a matter adjudicated by the National Consumer Tribunal (NCT) in Cape Town recently.
The applicant, Mr Xolani George, approached the Tribunal with a complaint regarding Nedbank, following the dismissal of his case by both the Ombudsman for Banking Services and the National Credit Regulator (NCR). After full consideration, the Tribunal ruled in favour of Nedbank, finding that the bank had complied with its obligations in terms of the National Consumer Act, and that it had not engaged in prohibited conduct. Chairperson of the Tribunal, Diane Terblanche said: "The process which enabled Mr George to approach the Tribunal, even after his case had failed before the two other organisations, illustrates that South African consumers have full access to processes that ensure fair play." The charge brought by George alleged that the Nedbank had failed to conduct a proper assessment after he had applied for a home loan. He maintained that Nedbank had mistakenly considered a property that did not exist, which he referred to as a "ghost property". According to George, Nedbank had incorrectly based its assessment on the home that it said he already owned, and that he would sell this home to pay for the new property. However, George explained that he was a first time home owner, and that the other property had never existed. Before George referred the case to the Tribunal, he first approached the Ombudsman and the Regulator, but both these bodies concluded that Nedbank had not acted improperly. The Regulator had issued a notice of non-referral in terms of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA). Nonetheless, George referred the notice of non-referral to the Tribunal because he felt that the matter of the "ghost property" had never been satisfactorily resolved. George had no legal representative throughout his communication with the Ombudsman, Regulator and the Tribunal. "The Tribunal does not require parties to be legally represented. Instead it is required by law to conduct its hearings in an inquisitorial manner, as expeditiously as possible, as informally as possible and in accordance with the principles of natural justice," Ms Terblanche added.