# Regulatory Compliance Category > General Regulatory Compliance Forum >  garnishee order for my domestic worker

## tgeldenhuys

Hi, some advice please:

I was presented with a garnishee order for my domostic worker instructing me to deduct 33% of her salary and to deposit it to into some account.  This order was delivered by the sheriff Kemptonpark.  I have not signed for this.  Question is if I have to abide by this order?  This would require significant effort and some cost to make a payment via a personal cheque into their account.  Who pays for that?  This will also sour my relationship with my domestic worker and she looks after my kids sometimes.  I really do not want to get involved in this!!!!

----------


## BigRed

> I really do not want to get involved in this!!!!


Hi

Unfortunately you have to....
I am not sure of the legality of the sheriffs document as you haven't signed this, but end of the day it is the responsibility of the employer to attend to these garnishes, including the costs thereof. 

Here at work we are dealing with (partly) multiple garnish orders against a number employees. A whole new HR ballgame that by law, the employer needs to handle. 

If there is a way around this, I'd looooove to hear about it :Cool:

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

A garnishee order is an order of the court and you need to abide by it. Yes, some times the employer is seen as the enemy, which is unfortunate. What is important is to bring it to the employees attention immediately. The costs may be passed on to the employee.
You could also, depending on the amount, sort the bill out and then deduct a smaller amount from the employee, as a way of making things easier.

The employee may go or enter talks with the creditor to reduce the monthly payment. They are normally loath to do this as a garnish order is the last resort, in other words all attempts to discuss have been ignored by the party owing the money and so good faith talks are unlikely.

As to multiple garnish orders, employees or unions try and take up the position that an employer may not deduct more than 25% of the wage as per BCEA This however is related to a deduction, that the employer is making for an employment related issue. The garnish orders are orders of the court and it would be contempt if the employer did not obey.

----------

BigRed (10-Feb-10), Dave A (10-Feb-10)

----------


## BigRed

> The costs may be passed on to the employee......


What you are saying is that the cost for the admin team as well as additional banking fees can be brought against the garnishee?

Kinda unfair as the individual is sitting in that position a he could not afford to pay off whatever he bought / owes...

----------


## AndyD

> The costs may be passed on to the employee.


This kinda makes sense but surely the costs would be negligible to the point that it wouldn't warrant the employee being charged usually.

----------


## tec0

What I find interesting here is how far people will go get their money. Well In all honestly I am not sure about the laws. However, if you are made liable by court to insure payments it seems that we are entering in a totally new ballgame. 

Is there even a payslip? If not how was the credit approved? The person claiming the money is always aggressive and I have found once you start asking the question.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 

A>> who approved the credit an on what bases?

B>> is the amount more than what the person can afford?  âIf so go back to question Aâ

C>> Contact the creditor and ask for the paperwork! 

If all paperwork is in order then there is not much more than what you as a person can do. But I have found in most domestic cases credit was given to people that is NOT credit worthy and they are taking a big chance. 

Normally I never had to go this far but you can get help.

To find out more go this webpage: http://www.ncr.org.za/

----------


## BigRed

Its all about making money. Retail outlets sell goods knowing full well if the person buying (and signing) doesnt pay, they are handed over to the courts where a garnish is issued to the respective employers......

Credit checks.... all we receive is regular calls confirming employment, no more :Cool:

----------

tec0 (10-Feb-10)

----------


## tec0

All I am saying is contact the NCR and make sure that the credit agreement is legal. I have found in most cases that the so called creditor gave credit without doing their homework first. If this homework wasn’t done correctly then the chances are that the “employee” was never credit worthy to start with and then you can ask the NCR for counter proceedings.  :Cool:  

This will be one hell of an exercise  :EEK!:  but if someone is taking chances and they wish to implicate you, then go to the right people, ask the right questions and once you know the facts byte back and byte hard!  :Wink:

----------


## BigRed

> All I am saying is contact the NCR and make sure that the credit agreement is legal. .....


Thats a moer of an exercise :Rofl:

----------

tec0 (10-Feb-10)

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

Well the cost of the admin team would be pushing it. But more importantly, if we want to talk unfair, is when I say the cost can be charged to the employee, that is the choice of the employer. From a management perspective, the cost is so minimal, that i do not see the sense.
The legal costs are borne bythe employee. Although, as you point out, that is harsh, because teh person is in trouble, the garnish order, being a judgement, is only after all other attempts have been made. That is the employee has ignored calls and letters and has made no attempt to settle the debt. One cannot run away from problems, they need to be dealt with, taht includes being in debt.

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

Teco, perhaps you are misinterpreting - a garnish order is not an implication of the employer. The issue at hand is the employer being served with a garnish order. This, by turn brings them into the process, but they are not under any obligation to sort the matter out. Some employers will help in various manners.
As to the NCR, the employee needs to approach them if they feel the issue was unfair. Most credit givers, other than Micro lenders, AKA Loan sharks, aside, do all the neccessary. I accept that many persons are not totally aware of the consequences of the agreements that they sign, however once again when the nonsense starts they should not ignore the phone calls and leters and be responsible. Continously taking a stance that everyone is against us is not the way to progress. People need to realize that every action gets a reaction and there will always be consequences for our actions. The blame game, or he said she said game, is nothing more than an avoidance of owning up and saying I was wrong how can I fix it.
Are there unscrupulous operators? For sure. Is it as simple as saying everyone had a choice to lend or by whom? No, but people certainly have a choice as to how to spend their money, be it R100 a week or R10 000 a week. I would be very confident that the majority of bad credit is linked to luxury purchases and not daily needs. A person in debt for food and clothes that lends money deserves some sympathy. But if they possess a TV, cell phone, slightly fancy clothes or even worse, as i suspect, they are in trouble for a debt linked to a purchase of such items, one really needs to question if they are being so hard done by and the world is so evil. It is a tough world, granted, There have been some serious transgressions and wrongs in the past, present and there will be in the future. However, people do need to start taking some responsibility and stop relying on crying foul, and feeling sorry for ourselves when our own actions get us into trouble.

----------

AndyD (10-Feb-10), Dave A (10-Feb-10), Debbiedle (10-Feb-10)

----------


## desA

Can the employer claim compensation as a servant of the court? I think the whole thing is a cheek.

Frankly, I'd hand it to my attorney & ask him to manage things.

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

The idea behind a garnish order is as such -
Firstly we agree that debt needs to be paid and therefore an effecient collection system is required.
In the absence of a garnish order, the Debtor would need to take full judgement and repossesion would need to take palce, this in turn leads to more costs and hence the person owing R500 could end up with costs of R3000-00. This could set the person back for ever. A garnish order is a payment scheme that the court works out as an alternative and less onerous way to obtain the money without destroying the creditor. In turn the employer, serves a duty to the state, by being the mechanism to ensure collection of the funds.
I think we should also look at the practical issues from a debtor standpoint. If a person owes you R2000 and they have no possesions, the non garnish order route, would mean a full judgement. Consequently with legal fees etc, they now owe R3000. As they have no possesions, how would you get your money? You would have to write it off. By getting a garnish order, you get your money. Perhaps the debtor should pay the costs for the employer, who acts as the collection agent.
I as an employer, have had numerous garnish orders, and they are no big deal. The only issue is that often when given the garnish order, the employee runs away, which could be a negative for the business.

----------

AndyD (10-Feb-10), tec0 (10-Feb-10)

----------


## BigRed

> .....The only issue is that often when given the garnish order, the employee runs away, which could be a negative for the business.


We have such a case. The employer is only entitled to take a predetermined portion of the employees wages and pay this over to the garnishee / court. should this said individual however abscond or his employment be terminated (leaves) then such payments stop. 

Note: you cant just stop paying. Its another process of informing the garnishee / court that he / her has left your employ and therefore you the employer have no further obligation.

----------


## tec0

> Garnishment: withholding of one's wages by one's employer to pay one's debt owed to a third party


Sometimes it is good to inquire if the person working for you is not perhaps a victim. The truth is there are bad people and they do bad things. And yes you do get bad employees, friends and family members that always neglect to tell one the truth.  :Mad:  “I hate it when people give me a sob story.”

Still if, the person is guilty or not he or she is still entitled to information that may help them. It is not your battle, no need to start a war this is true and I respect that above all else.  :Innocent:  But please take a minute to understand the circumstances that will now surface. 

The employee is going to complain stating that they cannot survive on the income they get after the deductions and in the end of the day you as an employer can ignore the complaint OR you will end up giving the employee some form of aid.  :Slap:  

That is why I would go through hell and high-waters and subject myself and my valuable time to get that employee off my back before the complaining start. By getting the claim dismissed or even getting some form of help may and I do stress may help getting the employee free from there mistake.   

There is no choice here, go to the bank and make the arrangements and allow the amount to go off by debit order for the time specified, and get on with your life. Or do a bit of investigation and try to avoid coming conflict. See in the end of the day you probably will have to go to the bank regardless. But because you did the extra homework you know you did everything humanly possible.  :Cool:

----------


## AndyD

> .......No, but people certainly have a choice as to how to spend their money, be it R100 a week or R10 000 a week. I would be very confident that the majority of bad credit is linked to luxury purchases and not daily needs. A person in debt for food and clothes that lends money deserves some sympathy. But if they possess a TV, cell phone, slightly fancy clothes or even worse, as i suspect, they are in trouble for a debt linked to a purchase of such items, one really needs to question if they are being so hard done by and the world is so evil. It is a tough world, granted, There have been some serious transgressions and wrongs in the past, present and there will be in the future. However, people do need to start taking some responsibility and stop relying on crying foul, and feeling sorry for ourselves when our own actions get us into trouble.


This is the crux of the matter for me. I accept that there are genuine poverty cases who can't afford to pay because of a change in financial circumstances since the credit of load was taken out and I do have sympathy for these. 

I agree that all too often the reason for non payment is unwillingness to take a drop in standard of living if it involves missing out on the luxuries and status symbols that the borrower has become accustomed to. I think there's a worrying underlying attitude all the way through society that the minute the borrower defaults on payment, the business or lender is always at fault and shouldn't have given the person money in the first place. The lender is more often than not all too happy to give an Oscar winning performance as the victim who never had a chance.

----------


## desA

Do the SA Courts still issue judgment against a person who is not in court?

In the past, the loansharks would use this as a way to use the court system as part of their pressure-tactics (mafia) on the person. The Sheriff could serve the summons to a vacant lot, doorpost, tree - whatever - at some long-outdated domicillium address, which the loansharks knew had long-since been updated.

Absa-Bank were renouned for this in former years.

Under these circumstances, I would not comply with enforcing a garnishee court order. Period.

----------


## tec0

I dislike it when people pressure me. If I get this letter and I know I didnât give that person a payslip or any other kind of documents. Then there is no-way they could have done a proper credit check. And that is the point of the story really. 

No credit check and you still gave this person credit and now you are forcing MY HANDS! Oh! You better bring your A game! That is why I said what I have said get behind the story and then only if the facts are proven to be fact will they see their money. 

Otherwise, they can be damn sure that I will go to the ends of this earth and beyond to take their little scam down...  :Devil2:

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

Non attendance in any court matter does not stop proceedings. Proceedings still require that all process has been followed.
A party can get a order changed by going to court and making application and explaining. Of course this needs knowledge or money for attorney, so again kinda tough.
As to the address, every contratc will place on obligation on you to inform of new address etc.

----------

Dave A (11-Feb-10), tec0 (11-Feb-10)

----------


## tec0

Well that is why I learned to use systems like Consumer counsel, CCMA and the NCR along with a few others. See if your facts are right and according to the laws and with the added advice of the above mentioned it has been my experience that you get stuff done faster thus limiting your costs to the absolute minimum. 

Unfortunately the case and point is made. Lawyers are expensive and it is because of this âsystemâ that people donât seek justice.  :Frown:

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

> Well that is why I learned to use systems like Consumer counsel, CCMA and the NCR along with a few others. See if your facts are right and according to the laws and with the added advice of the above mentioned it has been my experience that you get stuff done faster thus limiting your costs to the absolute minimum. 
> 
> Unfortunately the case and point is made. Lawyers are expensive and it is because of this âsystemâ that people donât seek justice.


A further point of serving summons - the original requirement was it ahd to be served on the party. This originated by being tapped on the shoulder. Over time, this changed and summons could get served on anyone. the law also needs to provide for the avoidance of receiving documents, hence the thinking that a paper must be signed for is incorrect. A party that shows every effort was made to notify the other party has done their part and the matter can continue. This is logical as other wise a person could be on the run at all times.
With direct reference to garnish orders, if the employer is preventing the service, they are not helping the employee. The extra costs will just be added on to the employee's account.

----------


## desA

> Non attendance in any court matter does not stop proceedings. Proceedings still require that all process has been followed.
> A party can get a order changed by going to court and making application and explaining. Of course this needs knowledge or money for attorney, so again kinda tough.
> As to the address, every contratc will place on obligation on you to inform of new address etc.


You see, the system is still flawed. Thought so.

What the loan-sharks do is to serve the papers based on the address written on the original contract documents & do not generally bother to follow up on address changes, even if they are in their system. It is to their advantage to not have the debtor show up in court.

A matter of this nature should not proceed until all the relevant parties are in the court.

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

> You see, the system is still flawed. Thought so.
> 
> What the loan-sharks do is to serve the papers based on the address written on the original contract documents & do not generally bother to follow up on address changes, even if they are in their system. It is to their advantage to not have the debtor show up in court.
> 
> A matter of this nature should not proceed until all the relevant parties are in the court.


It works both ways - unforunately there are circumstances where the debtor is hiding and or running. I would say that we need to get to the root of the problem and that is the loan sharks. They are preying on the vulnerable and often less educated. They blatantly disobey the laws, it is not even as if they cover it up with some clever Higleying(sorry could not resist). Actually now that I think of it, many if not most, actually get the employee to sign the garnish order when they apply for the loan. Sh^&t now that I remember that it really is a poor indictment. Yes, get to the root.
Perhaps teh consumer protection act will see someone take thsi as an issue or perhaps an employers organization (Dave) :Wink:

----------


## daveob

> cover it up with some clever Higleying


 :Rofl:  :Clap:

----------


## Dave A

> ...or perhaps an employers organization (Dave)


 :Sorry:  I'm hoping to see daylight by the end of the month - still getting this year's crop of new systems bedded at work.



> What the loan-sharks do is to serve the papers based on the address written on the original contract documents & do not generally bother to follow up on address changes


Any order granted in those circumstances would easily be overturned, then - and probably with a favourable cost award too.

And talking of costs, legal costs have become a serious obstacle to access to justice nowadays, don't you think? I mean how the heck could McBride run up R10 million in legal costs defending a drunk driving charge? I guess that means it takes R1 million to fight a parking ticket  :Stick Out Tongue: 



> A matter of this nature should not proceed until all the relevant parties are in the court.


Then simply not turning up would be the ultimate defence  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 
Failure to respond is the most common reason these things end up in court in the first place.

It's been a while since I last had a garnishee order issued on one of my staff. While it's really none of the employer's business - as Anthony points out the employer really doesn't have much choice in the matter - it doesn't hurt to run over how the matter arose if the employee is not exactly wordly wise in these things. The employee appreciates the effort and every now and then you'll actually be able to help them.

In our last case, I ran over the deal that had got the employee into trouble and the insurance premium portion was higher than the payments for the goods. This was before the NCA, but the Financial Services Act was already in place - and I established that my employee was "advised" by the furniture store's sales rep who was not an accredited financial advisor. 
 :Oops:  
A rather short letter to the creditor pointing out this problem, followed by a telephone call and I'd negotiated the return of the goods as the end of the matter.

I then told the employee to save what he would have been paying, and 5 months later + his Christmas bonus he bought the same stuff for cash  :Wink:

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

You only spend R10 million on a defence when it is not your money!!!!Serious questions must be asked when Legal Aid is extended to people earning in excess of the R2000. McBride and Zuma in case. Then to make matters worse they may use what ever attorney with legal aid paying. Everyone else needs to qualify and then you must use the legal aid employed attorneys, no going to the most expensive lawyers in town. 
Their is no doubt that the legal system is far to expensive to have justice.
As an example, a few months back we pleaded guilty and took a R20 000 fine for what was essentailly being in possesion of line fish, legitimat fish, but the invoice never had an address. Bottom line is it was cheaper to pay the fine thna defend the matter. This is happening all the time.
As to the parking fine, Dave, you could probably put a defence together for R15000 and that presumes that the attorney does not keep postponing so as to get an extra few bob for the court appearance.(and of course not more than 3 phone calls to the attorney)

----------


## manhav

A few interesting points were raised during this discussion.

The first point, as I see it, is that there is a total misconception about the service of court processes, which include summonses, garnishee orders, etc.

Let us begin with the summons as the first step.

In most instances where the Plaintiff (let us refer to him as the Creditor) issues summons against the Defendant (the Debtor), the summons is issued at the last known address of the Debtor.

In terms of most credit agreements and even normal contracts, there is a clause in the agreement which reads that the parties select a certain address as their _domicilium citandi et executandi_. This address is an address where notices in terms of the relevant agreement can be served on one another and also the address where the parties will accept delivery of any court processes that may be issued.

There remains an obligation on either parties to inform the other of any changes in address.

And this is usually where the trouble start, because now the Debtor has his goods that he bought, he has made a few payments, then he disappears and stop making payments, and then the Debtor expects the Creditor to do nothing or to incur costs to recover the arrear payments.

Therefore, the Creditor is entitled to commence civil litigation by issuing summons at the address chosen by the debtor.

Let us ignore the implications of the National Credit Act, as that is a totally new topic, and remember that not all agreements fall within the ambit and scope of the NCA.

Then there is cases where you, as the Creditor sold certain goods to the Debtor, or where you have rendered certain services to the Debtor. If the Debtor did not settle the account for delivery of said goods or services immediately, the Debtor then owes you the money. You now take the precautions of taking all the contact details of the Debtor as you want to make sure that you know where you can find him if he does not end up paying your bill.

Are you going to appoint tracers to trace or confirm the whereabouts of the Debtor before you issue summons against the Debtor? Or you you going to pass the available information on to your attorney with the instructions to immediately proceed with action as you have been waiting 6 or 9 or 12 months for the Debtor to pay the outstanding account?

I can bet you that you will issue instructions that the attorney must issue summons at the last known address.

The summons is then issued by the court, and the summons is then forwarded to the Sheriff for service.

There is various manners in which the summons may be lawfully served on the Debtor, a few of which is personal service on the Debtor himself if he is at home at that particular time, or service on someone who is older than 16 and who seems to be in charge of the house or premises at that time, or by affixing it to the front door.

The last mentioned manner of service will only be used by the Sheriff after he has attempted to serve the summons on 2 or 3 occasions prior to that,left messages for the Debtor to contact him, and the Debtor fails to reply to said notices.

Now, in terms of the summons, the Debtor has now 10 days in which to file a notice of intention to defend, and to fight the claim of the Creditor.

----------


## manhav

The second step is to obtain judgment. Judgment can only be obtained in 2 ways.

In the first place judgment can be obtained in circumstances where the Debtor has failed to defend the action as set out in the summons. This is known as default judgment, and is granted only when it can be proven that the summons was duly served (as set out in the previous post).

In the second instance default judgment may also be granted where the debtor has received the summons, has gone to the Creditor's attorney, and signed an acknowledgment of debt in which he also consents to the granting of default judgment and even a garnishee order. This does not, however, happen too frequently as most Debtors choose the give their Creditors the roundabout.

Lastly, judgment can be obtained after a full trial where the magistrate or judge made a ruling on the merits and legal issues in a case.

In all the above cases the Debtor now becomes the Judgment Debtor, because a judgment was passed.

The next step is the authorising of a warrant of execution.

Once judgment is granted, the attorney will now proceed with a warrant of execution against the movable property of the Judgment Debtor. The Judgment Creditor may only proceed with warrant of execution against the immovable property of the Judgment Debtor where there is not sufficient movable goods to satisfy the judgment deb and costs.

Said warrant is also served by the Sheriff in one of the manners as set out in the previous post. The warrant normally allows to the Sheriff only to attach the goods of the Judgment Debtor, which means the Sheriff make a list of the movable assets, and he also gives an estimated value of the goods if it was sold at an auction. 

This is done to allow the Judgment Creditor the opportunity to decide whether it is worthwhile to proceed with a sale in execution or not. If the value of the goods exceed the judgment debt and costs instructions will be given to the Sheriff to proceed with a sale in execution, and normally the proceedings would stop here.

But, if the goods is not sufficient, what then?

----------


## manhav

Now the Judgment Creditor commences with a Section 65A(2) notice, which is a registered letter, addressed to the Judgment Debtor informing him that default judgment was obtained against him, and that he must contact the Judgment Creditor's attorney within 10 days to make arrangements for the settlement of the debt.

If the Judgment Debtor fails to respond to this notice, application is made to court for a notice for the Judgment Debtor to appear in court in person to inform the court of his financial position and to make an offer to settle the judgment debt. This is the so-called Section 65A(1) notice, and must be served by the Sheriff on the Judgment Debtor.

If the Judgment Debtor appears in court, he will inform the court of his financial position and he will then indicate a monthly installment, which is then made on order of the court. During these proceedings he will also consent that a garnishee order may be taken out against his salary.

If the Judgment Debtor fails to appear in court, a warrant of arrest will be authorised, which will be executed by the Sheriff. At the next court appearance the Judgment Debtor will have to give reasons why he failed to appear on court, a financial investigation is done and an order is made, as described in the previous paragraph.

----------


## manhav

In conclusion, the Judgment Creditor has incurred certain expenses to enforce his claim against the Judgment Debtor, such as Sheriff's fees, which may be in excess of R2 000,00 depending on the circumstances, and legal costs, which may also be excess of R2 000,00 depending on the work done by the attorney.

If at any stage from the services of the summons to the Section 65A(1) notice, it appears that the Debtor or Judgment Debtor has moved and the process could not be served, the procedure is suspended until such time that the Judgment Creditor traced the Judgment Debtor, whereafter the processes will be served on the new address.

By the time a garnishee reaches the employer, you can be assured that the employee has had ample opportunity to defend the action, and to make arrangements regarding the settlement of the debt. If the costs are high, who is to blame for that - the Creditor or the Debtor?

Regarding the costs incurred by the employer, the employer is entitled to costs equal to 5% of the monthly installment so as to cover his expenses.

In other words, if the monthly installment is R100 which must be deducted from the salary of the garnishee employee, the full R100 must be deducted from the employee's salary. However, the employer will only pay R95 to the Judgment Creditor.  

And please remember that the first amount given in the garnishee order does not include further legal expenses, and that the employer will be given a new outstanding balance once the original garnishee amount has been settled.

----------

Dave A (14-Feb-10), IanF (14-Feb-10)

----------


## Ntonto

> And please remember that the first amount given in the garnishee order does not include further legal expenses, and that the employer will be given a new outstanding balance once the original garnishee amount has been settled.


 :Mad: 
I was was Garnished R20 431. My employer deduct R1022 and the deduction commenced in December 2008. When i calculate the amount that i has been deducted so far is comes up to R18 463.20 therefore i assumed that my balance from the initial capital amount is R1 967.80 excl the interest rates and legal fees because the debt collectors advised me they will charge that when my capital is payed up. yesterday when i called them to enquire about my balance and as the calculations of legal & interest fees, i was told that my balance is R4947.09 from the initial capital and she confirmed that so far i have paid R18 463.20. But when i add these two amounts they don't come up to R20 431 its more that which is R23410.29. And when i ask them as to what is this R2 979.29 for the lady become to emotional and angry. they refused to explain to me in writing and show as how was this calculated.

My question is, If the court issue a garnishee on a certain amount for instance in my case it was R20 431 is it fixed or it can go up anytime? I feel that these people are trying to rip me off. I understand that this amount it excludes legal fees but when i ask them to give me the figures for legal fees they are refusing. 

Please help me what can i do to prevent these sharks from ripping me off whilst its still early.

----------


## Dave A

:Hmmm:  Works out at about 16% in costs and interest if calculated against what you paid so far.

Considering interest + handling fee on payments made... Doesn't seem that far out of line. Certainly not enough to risk incurring additional costs in a fight about fine details.

Ntonto - at least it looks like you're coming down the home straight. May I suggest you use that "screwed over" feeling to help prevent you from ever getting into the same situation again.

----------

BusFact (24-Jun-10)

----------


## BusFact

> And please remember that the first amount given in the garnishee order does not include further legal expenses, and that the employer will be given a new outstanding balance once the original garnishee amount has been settled.


This has also caused me issues with staff in the past, especially when its extremely difficult to get an itemised statement for them on the extra charges.

Surely it would be better to calculate the expected interest and add that to the original garnishee order. So if regular payments are made, they know exactly when the stress will end.

I really dislike debt and its unintended consequences.

PS> Good advice to Ntonto, Dave.

----------


## Ntonto

:Mad:  But Dave that what i don't understand. When i asked them they sais the capital does not include the handling fee & interest they still going to charge me that separate that's where i don't understand.

----------


## desA

@ Ntonto : A few suggestions:

1.  Get in writing - now - exactly what the final amount will be;
2.  Get in writing the capital amount;
3.  Get in writing the finance & whatever other fees the loan-sharks want;
4.  Go & get some advice on what your final payment should be;
5.  Submit a payment as 'full-&-final' settlement. If it is accepted & received, then you are done. If not, then you may have to pay what these loan-sharks want.
6.  Stay out of debt & the loan-sharks' clutches - they are pure evil.

Make sure that the 'in writing' part is on a company letterhead.

----------


## Dave A

> they sais the capital does not include the handling fee & interest they still going to charge me that separate that's where i don't understand.


You might get lucky and that day will never come - the accounting package that is quite commonly used for legal billing should have been assigned to the scrap heap a decade ago  :Wink: 

The most likely explanation then is that the R2 979.29 was for legal expenses up to and including getting the garnishee order and this was paid up first. Those legal fees can add up and again, this figure might not be "unreasonable" (depends who's looking at it, I guess).

The most frustrating thing is the reluctance of some lawyers (and I hear this is a problem with some debt collectors too) to provide a detailed statement. In theory this is all about keeping down costs and as you will probably end up footing the bill that sounds cool, but I suspect there's a practical underlying problem - archaic admin systems.



> 4.  Go & get some advice on what your final payment should be;
> 5.  Submit a payment as 'full-&-final' settlement. If it is accepted & received, then you are done.


That's actually a pretty good idea - ask for a settlement figure  :Big Grin: 

I'd hold on until the last payment (based on the current capital balance given) was due, mind you. But it would be a good way to press for a final close in the matter. 

You'll have got off fairly lightly if the whole affair just costs you the extra R3000.00 or so, but if they come with a whole lot of extra costs at that point, that would be a good time to ask for a detailed statement as to how they arrived at their figures.

----------

