The advert lists several things that are correct but offsets them with “they say“. For Example:…that it is free.
Fact Check: Debt Counsellors are required by the NCR, Debt Counselling Associations and Consumer Protection Act to disclose fees in advance. Debt Counsellors mostly include these fees as a section in their contracts with consumers or in the Form 16 that consumers use to apply for debt review.
Problem: No clarity is given as to who “they” are that say it is free (or what it is that is free). The implication is that all say it.
A huge problem is also that few consumers ever pay the maximum fees unless they have a LOT of money each month and begin debt review as a couple (where fees cover work for both individuals). Many pay around R2500 once off for the professional fees of a Debt Counsellor (initially and then a small after care retainer).
The fee structure for debt review as suggested by the NCR is complex and unclear. This is a problem in the industry and confuses consumers. Capitec do focus on a maximum fee but then also mention that it could even be more. It creates an impression that debt review is somehow expensive and does not provide any other points of data for consumers to consider (especially about how fees work).
‘the fee structure for debt review as suggested by the NCR is complex and unclear’
The advert also says that some undefined person or people “say” (They Say) that consumers can continue to use their credit while in debt review.
Once again this is clearly set out by most Debt Counsellors in writing right at the start of the process since the idea is to stop using credit, stop digging a deeper hole for oneself and to rather pay off debt. Not increase it.
Problem: Once again who “they” are is unclear. It certainly is not all Debt Counsellors since this is fundamental to getting rid of debt through debt review. It implies that consumers are lied to by (possibly) all Debt Counsellors or that Debt Counsellors are hiding the truth somehow.
One of the confusing parts of the advert which few can understand is the mention of being locked out of credit for 10 years. It is unclear how this could happen.
The use of the word “could” is pretty broad and leaves a lot of NCR registered Debt Counsellors and their attorneys confused. Maybe it is an oblique reference to sequestration somehow?
