WHAT ARE TAXPAYERS PAYING FOR?

The statistics (in the table, right, showing state funding versus court applications and judgments) clearly show the ineffectiveness of the National Consumer Tribunal (NCT) and that its primary mandate – to operate for the benefit and protection of consumers – is being neglected, Summit Financial Partners says in its complaint to the Public Protector.

It says a large portion of state funds is being directed to the top-tier executive and managerial staff, which can only be acceptable if the tribunal fulfils its mandate, as required by law.

According to the complaint, in a recent case between the National Credit Regulator (NCR) and Capitec Bank, the tribunal ruled that it did not have the right to investigate and prosecute the bank because the regulator could not prove that it had received a complaint from an “external” party.

“The tribunal’s focus on procedural and technical issues has been criticised before, confirming that the above case is not an isolated one. It was reported that the infamous ‘holiday club case’ was halted due to red tape, depriving consumers of relief. The pause in the case came when the National Consumer Commission (NCC) filed an application that was not procedurally in line with the NCT’s new rules. The NCC was not aware of the changes in the NCT’s procedures and the NCT was criticised for enforcing rules without the insights of a key stakeholder, such as the NCC. This is another example of the ineffectiveness of the tribunal.”

PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

Summit refers in its complaint to the University of Stellenbosch Legal Aid Clinic case, which was taken to the High Court because of the NCR and the NCT’s “refusal to act”.

“Private individuals were forced to approach the High Court directly in order to obtain justice. The applicants in that matter were lowincome consumers in financial dire straits. Were it not for the generosity of benefactors, they would, in all likelihood, have continued to be exploited while the NCT made no attempt to come to their aid.”

Summit says there is a connection between the ineffectiveness of the NCR in investigating matters and the reluctance of the NCT to make a meaningful decision.

“If the investigating body does not operate as it should, the judicial body is at a disadvantage and cannot operate in line with its mandate. The NCR’s ‘influence’ is the basis for the complaint against the NCT,” the complaint says.