Her ‘payment’ led only to more trouble

If you make a payment towards settling a debt which has technically prescribed, that payment “reactivates” the debt and you then become liable for full payment, plus interest.

That’s what happened to Sedicka Williams of Wynberg, but she was adamant that she hadn’t made the payment that cost her her prescription defence.

In June 2016 she received a summons relating to an FNB credit card debt dating back to 2009, demanding immediate payment of R16 300.

She had stopped making payments in 2011 after losing her job, and had received no demands in the intervening five years, she said.

Money advised her to respond with a request for an extension to file an appearance to defend on the grounds that the debt had prescribed.

The bank subsequently informed Williams that the debt had not prescribed because she had made a payment in December 2014, meaning the debt was “reactivated” when summons was served.

Investigation by the Money writer into details of that payment led to the bank stating that a “previous” payment by Williams “was not timeously allocated to her account” because she had failed to provide sufficient information.

“As a result of the delay in allocating the payment, it appeared that Ms Williams had made a payment in 2014 whereas this was in fact the date of the payment allocation.”

And then the demands and the legal action stopped.