Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Arrear lease agreement problems?

  1. #1
    Silver Member Eugene's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset West
    Posts
    297
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts

    Arrear lease agreement problems?

    This is an extract of questions posed to the National Credit Regulator:

    Q: While a lease of immovable property is exempt what happens if the lessee is in arrears and interest is levied? Is this an incidental credit agreement?

    A. Since a lease of immovable property is excluded from the ambit of the NCA, any attempt to collect any arrear rental connected to a lease of immovable property would be outside of the ambit of the NCA.

  2. #2
    Site Caretaker Dave A's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    20,980
    Thanks
    3,055
    Thanked 2,463 Times in 2,068 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Would that include the debt rescheduling provisions of the NCA?

    I think that clarification has a wider impact too. Surely this clarifies interest related questions around debts (and I'm thinking particulalry incidental credit here) involving juristic persons with assets over R1 million too.
    The trouble with opportunity is it normally comes dressed up as work.

  3. #3
    Silver Member Eugene's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset West
    Posts
    297
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
    Dave, a common misperception going around is that ALL agreements can be re-scheduled or reviewed. The simple answer is that ONLY agreements falling under the ambit of the NCA can be reviewed, re-structured, be declared reckless. All other agreements (not falling under the NCA) can not be re-structured or be declared reckless.

    But, one should bear in mind not to see it in isolation as it very seldom happens that a person only has agreements excluded from the NCA or visa versa - usually we all have a combination of both. Should a debtor have a combination of both and wants to go for debt-review (only for those agreeements falling under the NCA), the agreements not goverened by the NCA has to be taken into consideration when assessing over-indebtedness or debt review.

    I am of the opinion that the non-NCA agreements would be advantaged in this sense as they are still entitled to their full installments whereas the credit agreements could be re-scheduled.
    Last edited by Eugene; 10-Aug-07 at 09:18 AM. Reason: Changed prejudiced to advantaged - sorry!

  4. #4
    Site Caretaker Dave A's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    20,980
    Thanks
    3,055
    Thanked 2,463 Times in 2,068 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Eugene View Post
    I am of the opinion that the non-NCA agreements would be prejudiced in this sense as they are still entitled to their full installments whereas the credit agreements could be re-scheduled.
    I would have thought the non-NCA agreements would be advantaged. In theory the instalments can't be reduced under the NCA.

    But looking at this closer, does that mean the Administration Order option (which potentially could affect all manner of debt previously) has fallen away?
    The trouble with opportunity is it normally comes dressed up as work.

  5. #5
    Silver Member Eugene's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset West
    Posts
    297
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
    Dave, quite right: the non-NCA agreements would be advantaged and not prejudiced (my error). The administration order option is still available and the tendency nowadays is that administrators qualify themselves as debt counsellors. They start with a debt review and end up placing the debtor under administration at the end. Real dilemma is now that even the non-NCA agreements are being included in the administration order and all creditors share in the pro rata dividends every three month.

    I know that there is talk to completely remove section 74 dealing with administration orders in the Magistrate Court Act and to include it in the NCA.

  6. #6
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Eugene View Post
    Dave, a common misperception going around is that ALL agreements can be re-scheduled or reviewed. The simple answer is that ONLY agreements falling under the ambit of the NCA can be reviewed, re-structured, be declared reckless. All other agreements (not falling under the NCA) can not be re-structured or be declared reckless.

    But, one should bear in mind not to see it in isolation as it very seldom happens that a person only has agreements excluded from the NCA or visa versa - usually we all have a combination of both. Should a debtor have a combination of both and wants to go for debt-review (only for those agreeements falling under the NCA), the agreements not goverened by the NCA has to be taken into consideration when assessing over-indebtedness or debt review.

    I am of the opinion that the non-NCA agreements would be advantaged in this sense as they are still entitled to their full installments whereas the credit agreements could be re-scheduled.
    I am of the opinion that all transactions may be subjected to restructuring even those not falling withinn the ambid of the Act. Transactions not within the ambid of the Act may however not be declared recless.

  7. #7
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Durbanville
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Question: Recurring debt post administration order

    Hi Guys, I have a question with regards to an administration order...

    Say X goes under an administration order and at the time she has 4 creditors. After the administration order is granted then creditor 5 appears with an outstanding amount which has only happened after the administration order and is subsequently increasing monthly (arrear leviesfor immovable property)

    What would the best course of action be to get the arrear levies paid?? Section 74 of the Mag court act doesn't really answer this question? Or at least i couldn't find the answer.

    Please if you could answer this id really appreciate it.

    Email me : darrenfrittelli@gmail.com

  8. #8
    Platinum Member sterne.law@gmail.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durban
    Posts
    1,328
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 561 Times in 410 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7
    Dealing with restructuring and rent payments -
    The rent payment is NOT a credit agreement. It is paid upfront. If the rent is in arrears, it is not now a credit agreement, hence any protection in terms of the NCA is not at issue.
    As to restructuring - even if any credit can be part of re-structuring, the rent arrears is not credit granted. If this was allwoed anyone could be in breach of any contract by not paying and then go under review and re-structure. An obvious no go concept.
    Furthermore, if we did allow rental payments to fall under restructuring a major flaw -
    At the end of the lease the tenant would be burdened with the payments on the old lease and his new rent, in so doing the law would be guilty of reckless lending, albeit indirectly. If the tenant then reneged on the new rental and got that restructured he could have, as an example, 2 half payments(the arrear rentals) plus the new rental, so in essence his debt would have doubled and not reduced.

    As pointed out, all debt, is indeed taken into account when under debt review, but this does not mean that all debt falls under the re-structuring. I think the rent example is a good case of the practical implications.
    Anthony Sterne

    www.acumenholdings.co.za
    DISCLAIMER The above is merely a comment in discussion form and an open public arena. It does not constitute a legal opinion or professional advice in any manner or form.

  9. #9
    Platinum Member sterne.law@gmail.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durban
    Posts
    1,328
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 561 Times in 410 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7
    Another issue with rentals -
    If you are under review then judgement cannot be taken and one almost gets immunity. In term sof rental the summons would request payment of arrears, damages and eviction. If under review, technically you are not in arrears, a settlement has been reached, therefore the landlord has no remedy and would suffer great prejudice.
    Anthony Sterne

    www.acumenholdings.co.za
    DISCLAIMER The above is merely a comment in discussion form and an open public arena. It does not constitute a legal opinion or professional advice in any manner or form.

Similar Threads

  1. Compulsory registration with bargaining councils.
    By Dave A in forum General Regulatory Compliance Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 15-Sep-17, 01:11 PM
  2. Q & A's on the National Credit Act
    By Eugene in forum National Credit Act Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 23-Jul-10, 06:52 AM
  3. Incidental credit agreements
    By Dave A in forum National Credit Act Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 25-Sep-06, 05:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •