Consent, fees and debt-review removal under scrutiny

A 2026 Tribunal ruling with major compliance lessons for Debt Counsellors.

Debt Review & National Credit Act

Professional legal-insights pack • Current to 30 September 2026

Selected recent South African decisions affecting debt review, enforcement, reckless credit, consumer status, fees, voluntary surrender and the NCA

Prepared for VDH Legal Insights

Regulatory conduct, consent and fees

Selected recent authorities and practical implications for debt-review practice.

National Credit Regulator v Bongolethu Gedeza

Citation: NCT/444880/2026/137(1), National Consumer Tribunal, judgment 15 September 2026

Authority level: National Consumer Tribunal

Why this development matters

This is one of the most important 2026 regulatory decisions for Debt Counsellors. It brings together consent, disclosure, fee charging, referral to court, use of PDAs and debt-review-removal representations in a single enforcement matter.

Background

• The NCR placed evidence before the Tribunal of a large body of consumer complaints, including complaints that consumers had been placed under debt review without informed consent, had been overcharged, and had paid legal fees without the corresponding legal work being undertaken.

• The respondent did not oppose the referral. Under the Tribunal Rules, unchallenged factual allegations were treated as admitted, and the Tribunal proceeded on a default basis.

• The NCR relied on a sample of consumer files to demonstrate a recurring modus operandi rather than isolated administrative mistakes.

What the court / Tribunal decided

• A debt review process requires a consumer application in the prescribed manner. The Tribunal treated the absence of a properly authorised Form 16 / prescribed information as fatal to the legitimacy of placing a consumer under debt review.

• The Tribunal stressed the Debt Counsellor’s obligation to explain the consequences of debt review before accepting the application and updating the consumer’s status.

• A Debt Counsellor may not collect and distribute consumer funds outside the registered-PDA framework contemplated by the Regulations.

• Fees must remain within the applicable NCR fee regime and the Debt Counsellor’s conditions of registration. The Tribunal treated “cancellation” fees outside that structure as impermissible.

• Where the debt review never reaches the stage at which legal services can be rendered, legal fees cannot simply be retained. The Tribunal specifically criticised charging/retaining legal fees where applications had been rejected and no court process followed.

• The Tribunal also treated payment for purported “debt review removal” services as unlawful where removal was not legally available and the service could not be performed.

Practical implications

• Retain verifiable evidence of informed consent and the consumer’s prescribed application.

• Keep the consumer-facing fee agreement, fee disclosure and PDA records capable of being reconciled to the actual service delivered.

• Do not treat a litigation fee as detached from the litigation process. The file should be able to show that the legal service for which the fee was collected was actually initiated/performed.

• Be particularly careful with marketing language around “cancellation”, “removal” or clearing a debt-review flag. The legal route depends on the consumer’s procedural status and cannot be sold as a generic administrative service.

Important limitation: Because the matter proceeded by default, the Tribunal’s factual findings were not tested through contested evidence. Its treatment of statutory duties, registration conditions and the fee regime is nevertheless highly relevant to compliance practice.

Key statutory provisions: NCA ss 52(5)(c), 86(1), 86(7)(c), 86(8)(b), 126A(3), 137(1)(d), 150–151; National Credit Regulations regs 11, 24 and 55; NCR Debt Counselling Fee Guidelines 2018.

Related authority: Van Vuuren v Roets (37407/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 286; TS Pheko v A Lamara NCT/312494/2024/141(1)(b).