1 reviews | Active since Jun 2016
Stop harassing me
Every single day from morning till night the call centre phones me to my cell phone to my work phone and every time its a different person. I have send them an email to the following person: Team Administrator ********** ********** 132 Jan Smuts Avenue, Rosebank, 2193 P O Box 1409, Parklands, 2121 Tel : 011 ********** Direct : ********** Fax : 011 ********** ********** If they phone me they act as if they are phoning me for the first time. I told them on every conversation not to phone me at work but bet your life on it they still do it even late at night. I want to know how do they work as a team if the one do not know what the other one has already done????? Tmiya do not get back to me via email but they keep phoning me........why!!!!!!!!! What do you want from me??????? The only way of stopping this will be to lay a charge of harassment as they have no right to phone me all day. Please Brooks and Luyt train your consultans to do a better job because by harassing people you will not get the money faster but instead making them negative to pay. Because what ever the consultants still phone you none stop.
We refer to the complaint received on 27 September 2017 and hereby confirm that we act on behalf of First National Bank.
We further confirm that the matter has been escalated to the manager overseeing the respective portfolio for investigation.
We will be in contact with the complainant in an attempt to resolve the issue and trust that this matter will be resolved amicably.
We refer to the complaint received on 27 September 2017 and hereby confirm that we act on behalf of First National Bank.
We further confirm that the matter has been escalated to the manager overseeing the respective portfolio for investigation.
We will be in contact with the complainant in an attempt to resolve the issue and trust that this matter will be resolved amicably.
Good day Ms Kruger
The message regarding Woolworths was posted in error. The Hello Peter Website is in process of removing this. Find directly below the correct response.
We will be in contact with the complainant in an attempt to resolve the issue and trust that this matter will be resolved amicably.
Good day Ms Kruger
The message regarding Woolworths was posted in error. The Hello Peter Website is in process of removing this. Find directly below the correct response.
We will be in contact with the complainant in an attempt to resolve the issue and trust that this matter will be resolved amicably.
Dear Madam
The extract taken from the website of Debt Busters which you have incorporated in your complaint refers, to which we have included the link below for ease of reference.
http://www.debtbusters.co.za/faq/what-is-a-section-129-notice/
Kindly take note that the Section 129 notice preceding the summons that was served at the last address our client had on record as being that where you were domiciled, was sent to the latter address on the 04th of July 2011.
The above notice reached the Fichardt Park Post Office situate in Bloemfontein on the 11th of August 2011 and a notification was dispatched to the address concerned by the aforesaid branch of the Post Office, which action satisfied the requirements for delivery of the notice to you as contemplated in both Kubyana vs Standard Bank and Sebola vs Standard Bank.
Having considered the above facts, it is our contention that our client comp**** with all the relevant sections of the National Credit Act prior to it enforcing the credit agreement in question by way of further legal action, which view was upheld by the Magistrates’ Court when it granted judgment in our client’s favour in respect of the matter.
Kindly be advised accordingly.
Dear Madam
The extract taken from the website of Debt Busters which you have incorporated in your complaint refers, to which we have included the link below for ease of reference.
http://www.debtbusters.co.za/faq/what-is-a-section-129-notice/
Kindly take note that the Section 129 notice preceding the summons that was served at the last address our client had on record as being that where you were domiciled, was sent to the latter address on the 04th of July 2011.
The above notice reached the Fichardt Park Post Office situate in Bloemfontein on the 11th of August 2011 and a notification was dispatched to the address concerned by the aforesaid branch of the Post Office, which action satisfied the requirements for delivery of the notice to you as contemplated in both Kubyana vs Standard Bank and Sebola vs Standard Bank.
Having considered the above facts, it is our contention that our client comp**** with all the relevant sections of the National Credit Act prior to it enforcing the credit agreement in question by way of further legal action, which view was upheld by the Magistrates’ Court when it granted judgment in our client’s favour in respect of the matter.
Kindly be advised accordingly.
Dear Madam
The extract taken from the website of National Debt Advisors which you have incorporated in your complaint refers, to which we have included the link below for ease of reference. https://nationaldebtadvisors.co.za/consumer-rights/
Section 126B of the National Credit Amendment Act which came into force on the 13th of March 2015 determines that, “No person may continue the collection of, or re-activate a debt under a credit agreement to which this Act applies - which debt has been extinguished by prescription under the Prescription Act.”
Section 15 (1) of the Prescription Act states that, “The running of prescription shall be interrupted by the service on the debtor of any process whereby the creditor claims payment of the debt.”
Section 11 stipulates the periods of prescription associated with a judgment debt to be 30 years.
In light of the three sections above, the indebtedness to our client has not prescribed.
1) For the claim arising from account number *** a summons was served at the last address our client had on record as being that where you were domiciled.
Service was effected on 17 October 2011 in accordance with rules 9(3)(d) and/or 9(5) of the Rules Regulating the Conduct of Proceedings of Magistrates’ Courts of SA, which service fulfilled the interruption requirement as contemplated in Section 15 (1) of the Prescription Act.
2) Further to the above, after having considered the merits in question, judgment was granted in favour of our client by the Magistrate Court on or about the 06 February 2012 under Case number 26730/11, which interrupted prescription for a period of 30 years thereafter as per Section 11 of the Prescription Act.
Having considered the above facts, it is our contention that the indebtedness may lawfully be pursued seeing that all requirements as envisaged by both the National Credit Act and the Prescription Act have been comp**** with.
Kindly be advised accordingly.
Dear Madam
The extract taken from the website of National Debt Advisors which you have incorporated in your complaint refers, to which we have included the link below for ease of reference. https://nationaldebtadvisors.co.za/consumer-rights/
Section 126B of the National Credit Amendment Act which came into force on the 13th of March 2015 determines that, “No person may continue the collection of, or re-activate a debt under a credit agreement to which this Act applies - which debt has been extinguished by prescription under the Prescription Act.”
Section 15 (1) of the Prescription Act states that, “The running of prescription shall be interrupted by the service on the debtor of any process whereby the creditor claims payment of the debt.”
Section 11 stipulates the periods of prescription associated with a judgment debt to be 30 years.
In light of the three sections above, the indebtedness to our client has not prescribed.
1) For the claim arising from account number *** a summons was served at the last address our client had on record as being that where you were domiciled.
Service was effected on 17 October 2011 in accordance with rules 9(3)(d) and/or 9(5) of the Rules Regulating the Conduct of Proceedings of Magistrates’ Courts of SA, which service fulfilled the interruption requirement as contemplated in Section 15 (1) of the Prescription Act.
2) Further to the above, after having considered the merits in question, judgment was granted in favour of our client by the Magistrate Court on or about the 06 February 2012 under Case number 26730/11, which interrupted prescription for a period of 30 years thereafter as per Section 11 of the Prescription Act.
Having considered the above facts, it is our contention that the indebtedness may lawfully be pursued seeing that all requirements as envisaged by both the National Credit Act and the Prescription Act have been comp**** with.
Kindly be advised accordingly.
Kindly be advised that judgment was neither obtained by way of the section 58, nor section 57 consent processes.
Judgment was granted due to you being in default of entering an appearance to defend the summons that was duly served, and which service need not be acknowledged by way of the signature of the recipient according to the rules of court.
Seeing that the summons was prosecuted to final judgment as contemplated in the Prescription Act, prescription was interrupted for a period of 30 years from the date of which the judgment was obtained.
Further to the above, the indebtedness was also acknowledged in writing by way of email in that an arrangement for repayment was concluded by you. The latter acknowledgement constitutes express acknowledgement of liability as contemplated in section 14 of the Prescription Act.
We are of the opinion that the only recourse available to you from a legal perspective, would be to apply for a rescission of the judgment subsequent to which, (and should the court decide to rescind the opposed application), you may enter an appearance to defend the summons.
As per your request our Attorney will contact you at 17:00 today to discuss the process and address any of your uncer*****ies.
Kindly be advised that judgment was neither obtained by way of the section 58, nor section 57 consent processes.
Judgment was granted due to you being in default of entering an appearance to defend the summons that was duly served, and which service need not be acknowledged by way of the signature of the recipient according to the rules of court.
Seeing that the summons was prosecuted to final judgment as contemplated in the Prescription Act, prescription was interrupted for a period of 30 years from the date of which the judgment was obtained.
Further to the above, the indebtedness was also acknowledged in writing by way of email in that an arrangement for repayment was concluded by you. The latter acknowledgement constitutes express acknowledgement of liability as contemplated in section 14 of the Prescription Act.
We are of the opinion that the only recourse available to you from a legal perspective, would be to apply for a rescission of the judgment subsequent to which, (and should the court decide to rescind the opposed application), you may enter an appearance to defend the summons.
As per your request our Attorney will contact you at 17:00 today to discuss the process and address any of your uncer*****ies.