A Gauteng woman who bought a car through BMW Financial Services was crying foul as she found herself unable to meet the monthly installments.
Image: File
A Gauteng woman who bought a car through BMW Financial Services was crying foul as she found herself unable to meet the monthly installments.
Andrea Aahnisah Hoskins bought a BMW 218i Gran Coupe M Sport in October 2021, and BMW Financial Services financed it.
She was given a credit of over R787,000 with an estimated monthly repayment of over R11,000.
Hoskins managed to keep up with the payments for just over six months. However, by June 2022, financial strain caught up with her, leading to her defaulting on the installments.
In the months that followed, various attempts by both parties to reach an amicable resolution failed, prompting BMW to escalate the matter to the high court in Johannesburg. By November 2022, Hoskins was served with legal summons.
Desperate to defend her position, Hoskins filed a complaint with the National Credit Regulator (NCR) in February 2023. She alleged that BMW had advanced her credit recklessly, failing to adequately consider her income, expenses, other debts, and existing financial obligations.
The legal battle intensified, culminating in April 2024 when the high court granted a default judgment against her, alongside a warrant for the attachment and delivery of the vehicle. Despite the court order, she retained the vehicle.
Following the court order, the NCR issued a non-referral notice indicating it had no jurisdiction to address Hoskins' complaint, as it had already been finalised by the high court.
Undeterred, Hoskins sought leave to appeal the judgment at the National Consumer Tribunal (NCT) in July 2024, which she officially served to BMW in August 2024.
However, during the tribunal proceedings, it was noted that Hoskins had opted not to defend herself when the case was in the High Court, and as a result, her claims of reckless lending against BMW were not considered.
It was held that the high court is a competent forum that had already reached a decisive conclusion on her failure to honour her financial commitments.
"Any subsequent ruling by the tribunal regarding reckless lending will impact the high court’s judgment, which goes against the principle of res judicata," said the tribunal.
Moreover, it was said that a legal body that is competent to adjudicate upon a case has already brought it to its conclusion; the case will not be revived once it has been brought to its proper conclusion.
As a result, Hoskins' leave to appeal was refused.
IOL News
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.