Registered users can save articles to their personal articles list. Login here or sign up here

Court rules banks can no longer grab money out of your account

Without your permission.

It is no longer legal for a bank to grab money out of your account in settlement of debts falling under the National Credit Act (NCA) unless you specifically authorise it.

That was the outcome of a court case in the South Gauteng High Court last week initiated by the National Credit Regulator (NCR) against Standard Bank.

Judge Raylene Keightley found in favour of the NCR, which was joined by the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) as a friend of the court.

The practice of ‘set-off’ has long been a part of common law. It meant that if you owed the bank money, say because you were behind on your mortgage bond, the bank was within its rights to grab money out of your account as soon as funds appeared in the account. And it could grab any amount it considered validly due to it – including legal costs and admin fees. The borrower was then left to argue this with the bank after the fact.

The problem with this is that it privileged the banks above other creditors, and often left the debtor with no money to cover essentials such as food and lights. That brings in Constitutional issues such as rights to property and dignity.

When the NCA came into force in 2007, it determined very specific conditions under which set-off could be applied. These new set-off rules were much more in favour of the consumer. The debtor must authorise the payment, and funds are required to be deposited specifically for the purpose of settling the debt. The bank is also required to notify the debtor of its intention to deduct funds from the account.

The common law principle of set-off was so weighted in favour of the banks that they could deduct funds without notice from your account, and without giving you an opportunity to query it. What often happens in practice is that legal and other unauthorised amounts are deducted in addition to the debt instalment. Debtors could challenge this in court, but very few did because of the outrageous costs of taking on deep-pocketed banks in litigation.

It is little wonder that the banks, presented with two possible legal interpretations of set-off, chose the one most favourable to themselves – the common law principle.

Standard Bank’s argument 

Standard Bank argued that common law set-off was an important tool for debt recovery and considered it as part of its security when granting a loan.

The case highlights some devious practices by the banks: their credit agreements used to include clauses on how they would go about applying set-off, but in more recent years their agreements went silent on the subject. By remaining silent on set-off in their credit agreements, they were able to rely on the common law interpretation of set-off and carry on grabbing money out of customers’ accounts as before.

The NCR argued that if this was allowed to continue, it meant the NCA was of no force whatsoever when it came to curbing the abuses of set-off.

Concept of debt review undermined

The NCR and the SAHRC argued that Standard Bank’s interpretation of the NCA undermined debt review, which allows an over-indebted person to apply to court for a rescheduling of debt repayments. A debt counsellor, in an affidavit in support of the SAHRC, deposed that banks continue to practice set-off, even when customers are under debt review. This has a crippling effect on the debtor, as set-off is almost always done without notifying or interacting with the account holder. It often means consumers are unable to meet their repayment obligations to other creditors, and where children are involved, there may be insufficient funds for school fees and basic necessities.

The bank argued that the NCA’s set-off provisions only applied if set-off was expressly included in a credit agreement, but the judge kicked this argument to touch.

The bank is perfectly happy to keep consumers in the dark by keeping any mention of set-off out of their credit agreements, yet expects to rely on common law set-off (which is far less favourable to the consumer) when it comes to recovering their debts.

This, the court found, was subversive of the NCA’s aim of “addressing and correcting imbalances in negotiating power between consumers and credit providers by … providing consumers with protection from deception, and from unfair conduct by credit providers …”

“The judgment has provided the much-needed clarity on the position in law and marks the end to a destructive practice wherein set-off is often times applied without any notice to, or interaction with, the consumer,” said the SAHRC in a statement in response to the court ruling.

The judgment says “the common law right to set-off is not applicable in respect of credit agreements with are subject to the National Credit Act.”

Costs were awarded against Standard Bank.

Get access to Moneyweb's financial intelligence and support quality journalism for only
R63/month or R630/year.
Sign up here, cancel at any time.

AUTHOR PROFILE

COMMENTS   13

To comment, you must be registered and logged in.

LOGIN HERE

Don't have an account?
Sign up for FREE

Just you wait. Banks are just going to modify their loan terms and conditions where you “specifically authorise” them to take the money out directly anyways.

The clue here is “without your consent” I very much doubt that putting in a clause in credit agreements is going to hold water. Banks are supposed to evaluate a client’s credit worthiness on the basis of presently given and confirmed information to be able to prove that they are not recklessly giving credit. Should such clauses starts to appear in new credit agreements (as banks will then argue that they had the client’s permission) consumers must be vigilant and take serious note of this. Should something unforseen happen and they might suspect that the banks are going to grab money ……change your bank account. I have always contented that clients should keep their operating account…the one where your salary goes with a separate bank than where they borrow money from……but they never learn do they?

The root cause here is debt. Avoid it as far as possible (but we don’t learn, do we?). Once you have debt, you will incur a whole string of leeches sucking off your hard-earned income. Besides assets like property, if you cannot save and buy cash, you don’t need it. Compare a Porsche against an Etios, both will do the same thing but there is a massive difference in status. And you pay for it.

Exactly Koos. As long as you have debt, you are a slave to the creditor. Debt is almost always a choice, except e.g. in cases where you have to find money for expensive and necessary medical treatment. But it is not a necessity to buy a new car, new furniture, new curtains (unless the old ones are in tatters), a holiday, etc. Those are choices. I’ve never once seen a case where the debtor denies that s/he borrowed the money. It is also almost always the short term debt for consumables (not to buy a house) that causes the problems. It’s a question of living within your means and getting debt free as soon as possible.

Excellent!

I welcome most rulings against banks. They are the chief bullies of the corporate world.

I sincerely hope this ruling also extends to SARS – as a banker I frequently saw SARS process outstanding tax amounts deducted against taxpayer accounts without any warning to the bank or the taxpayer; and they always removed the full liability even if it meant the client went into overdraft

SARS appoints the bank as agent and the bank must ensure it deducts actual funds and therefore if money in collected from an overdraft it is an error by the bank and should be corrected

“..banks can no longer grab money out of your account.” But SARS can! It’s time this is also stopped, especially now that SARS collection is under pressure!

Taxpayers should pay their taxes or make payment arrangements

@MarelizeLE……not sure if you shilling as a SARS agent, otherwise you are totally clueless about SARS heavy handed approach of ‘pay now remedy later’ !

Many times SARS over zealous and desperate attempts to loot a shrinking tax base is coming to the fore

They will lay spurious claims, empty your bank account, and then you can spend months [ or even years ] trying to show their eroors viamiscalculations, or failure to capture etc etc

Its a race to the bottom, and the looting is getting worse as they try compensate for the wholesale plunder by those in power of this once beautiful functioning country

Agree. The best ever solution is to become debt free. Debt enslaves & steel money. Full stop. Best investment ever is to become debt free (perhaps excluding investment property as this debt could be a wise investment). This may require breaking away from the status quo buying house in upmarket area, buying fancy car, etc).

Once you are without debt, you can borrow from your own savings & pay it back at your interest rate of choice. You will see the exponential benefit of compound interest. To be debt free will enable you to accumulate more cash and take higher, but much more financial rewarding risks. It is for this reason that the rich will get richer and unfortunately the poor poorer. However, this is how capitalism is set-up and at least you can ensure that you are the one benefiting from this injustice system.

Load All 13 Comments
End of comments.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

USD / ZAR
GBP / ZAR
EUR / ZAR
Insider GOLD
ONLY R63pm

Moneyweb's premium subscription is a membership service which will give you access to a number of tools to take charge of your investments.
Or choose a yearly subscription at R630pa - SAVE R126

Get instant access to all our tools and content. Monthly subscription can be suspended at any time.

Podcasts

SHOP NEWSLETTERS TRENDING CPD HUB

Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company:
server: 172.17.0.2