Does The National Credit Act Apply To Lease Agreements

If the answer is yes, you must ask the second question. If not, the Consumer Protection Act does not apply. You do not need to ask the second question and it is irrelevant. As a result, it is the responsibility of credit providers to ensure that the requirements of the NCA are met or that civil or criminal liability is incurred. Therefore, it is important to know if you are a credit provider who must comply with NCA rules and whether the procedures and protections granted by the NCA may apply. So my final question is this: Is the above scenario simply the result of an escalation in the sense of a standard lease that is not within the jurisdiction of the NCA or do we have a wolf disguised as a sheep? The affordability assessment includes the assessment of consumer income, expenses, debt repayment, debt repayment history and credit information regarding access to consumer credit bureau data. Affordable control is a process of assessing a credit provider with a consumer to determine whether or not loans are granted to the consumer. The affordability assessment will determine whether the consumer will be able to meet their obligations under a credit contract. He said that this approach was misleading because it was at odds with the provisions of the law that state that a credit contract is a credit facility, a transaction, a guarantee or any combination with them. A prior agreement is a document describing the terms of the credit contract that the credit provider is in agreement with the consumer. Does a natural person who rents his garden house to a friend (while working full time for a business) in the real estate rental store? Of course, the CPA does not apply.

Parliament could not have done that. The National Consumer Commissioner (NCC) or our courts can deal with this issue in time, but until then, there is uncertainty. If you are an owner, you must argue that you do not rent property in the normal business framework until someone clarifies the situation. I`d be interested in your thoughts. We will do more research to help people answer that question. Can the fixed rent increase of 15% per year be equated with a deferral of rent payable to a future date, for the reason why a variable tenancy agreement referred to in Professor Otto`s article can be equated with this? The increased portion of the rent for the second year is in fact a fact «deferred» to the second year and the next. Or is rent increase merely what it seems to be: an annual escalation of rent that is not unusual in the case of common law leasing? Or is this the part where hidden interests and winnings come into play? Furthermore, if we assume that the «plus part» of future rents is a deferral of a debt already due, but which must only be paid in the second and subsequent years, where should the costs, taxes or interest be paid under the contract or the deferred amount? Can it be said that a tax or fees or interest is also included in the annual increase as a percentage of the rent payable? The fact is that it is not a rent for housing for the duration of the lease, as in Michael`s Bid a House. If the tenant pays in our example first, say R 303 per month, with regard to the tenancy agreement and the duration of that contract is z.B. five years, he will pay the fifth year 529.95 R per month. Almost double the original rent. For the duration of the tenancy agreement with the increased annual rents, he will pay the total amount of R 24,515.04, whereas if he had been paid a non-variable lump sum, he would have paid only R18,180.

Is the difference simply the result of a normal escalation or can it be considered interest, fees or profits in disguise? The area of the most affected leases is the duration, expiry date and renewal of the contract.