A defiant Gauteng motorist who lost his job and fought tooth and nail to keep his VW Polo vehicle has hit a dead end after a court ordered him to return the vehicle to the bank.
Kenneth Langeveldt’s drawn-out battle of six years with Wesbank was concluded at the Western Cape High Court on Monday when the court ruled in favour of bank concerning a 2012 VW Polo 1.6 Comfortline it had sold to him for almost R200,000 in 2017. He was meant to pay R3,303 in 60 instalments.
However, when Langeveldt lost his employment in July 2020 he ceased making payments — and for the following six years was embroiled in a fight with the bank to keep the car without paying for it. He is in arrears of R96,129.71.
He accused the bank of reckless lending as he was a on five-year employment contract when he entered into the sale agreement. His long list of excuses included:
- non-compliance of the bank;
- that his wife was medically unfit to work, had relied on a social grant at the time of the sale and had not consented to the sale;
- that the credit agreement was signed without consultation and sufficient credit cover; and
- that the customer protection plan and instalment cover were concluded after the agreement by Hollard Insurance.
The bank approached the court seeking to repossess the car and the court had to determine whether Langeveldt’s defence was enough to not grant the bank the summary judgment it wanted.
The defence premised on a lack of spousal consent cannot succeed. It does not disclose a triable issue and is incapable of resisting summary judgment
— Western Cape High Court
Summary judgment is an expedited legal procedure that allows a court to resolve a case without proceeding to a full trial.
Instead of handing over the vehicle, Langeveldt launched a fierce resistance campaign which included:
- The labour court: He challenged his dismissal and lost.
- Hollard Insurance: He lodged an insurance claim, but the insurer told him to wait for the labour court outcome.
- The Insurance Ombudsman: He dragged Hollard to the ombudsman, who froze the file pending the outcome of the labour case.
The bank tried to make reasonable payment arrangements with the motorist, but he seemingly refused to cooperate, and instead took the bank to the Banking Ombudsman which slammed the brakes on his defiance.
The ombudsman in September 2022 ruled that losing a job or fighting an employer does not pause Langeveldt’s obligation to pay the car loan.
In his judgment, judge A Yake said Langeveldt had failed to demonstrate that the bank failed to conduct a proper affordability assessment of his financial means.
“On the contrary, the papers reflect that at the time of the agreement, the plaintiff [bank] did conduct a credit assessment. The defendant was gainfully employed and had financial means to meet his obligation,” read the judgment.
The judge said Langeveldt’s reliance on the period of 10 years to conclude the repayment period was clearly misleading as the agreement showed that the repayment commencement date was January 13 2017, with an expiry date of January 25 2020.
“On the facts before me, the defendant has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the statutory requirements for reckless lending under the NCA [National Credit Act] have been met. This defence is therefore without merit and stands to be missed,” Yake said.
The judge also noted that Langeveldt had intended to enter into debt review so that he could start making payments. However, the judge said that this would do little to resist not granting the summary judgment.
The court further raised issue about Langeveldt’s denial of having ever been served with a section 129 notice [a letter of demand before legal action] from Wesbank, while he later admitted to having received one.
“It appears to this court that the defendant is intent on raising any form of defence to avoid compliance with his contractual obligations,” said Yake.
The court said the bank conceded to having not received consent from Langeveldt’s wife while it was concluding the sale. However, Yake indicated that even though there was such legal provision in terms of Matrimonial Property Act, it does not constitute a defence to the claim for the return of the motor vehicle.
“Accordingly, the defence premised on a lack of spousal consent cannot succeed. It does not disclose a triable issue and is incapable of resisting summary judgment,” said the court.
Sowetan
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.