Jobless man’s court fight to keep his VW Polo ends in tears

Story audio is generated using AI

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.

Story audio is generated using AI Acting judge AJ Pietersen of the Pietermaritzburg high court has granted an order in favour of plaintiff Ravesh Maharaj, 37, who was employed at Fidelity Security in KwaZulu-Natal at the time of a car crash in October 2019. The ruling brings a decisive end to the litigation, with the RAF conceding 100% liability for the incident when an insured vehicle slammed into the back of Maharaj’s car. The court ordered the state to pay a capital sum of R8.9m for Maharaj’s loss of earnings and diminished earning capacity. The quantum of damages was finalised after both parties agreed to accept a comprehensive suite of expert medico-legal reports without the need for oral testimony. The accepted evidence included findings from an orthopaedic surgeon, neurosurgeon, clinical psychologist and occupational therapist. Due to his injuries, Maharaj suffered constant headaches, could not sit for longer than 15 minutes, experienced back pain, became moody and now fears driving. Maharaj also brought an industrial psychologist who confirmed to the court that Maharaj was a good employee who had received three promotions and would probably have been promoted to general manager, earning approximately R70,000 per month. The psychologist said Maharaj had the potential to become a regional executive, earning about R160,000 per month, typically from age 48 upwards. The manager testified that Maharaj’s injuries had hampered his chances of progressing further in his career. An actuarial calculation synthesised these expert opinions, adjusting the final payout to account for career progression, early retirement risks and standard contingency deductions. In addition to the monetary payout, the court secured the plaintiff’s long-term healthcare needs. Pietersen ordered the RAF to furnish a formal statutory undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. This certificate compels the RAF to cover 100% of all future medical expenses, surgeries and therapies arising from the collision. The court noted that Maharaj was entitled to this undertaking pursuant to the RAF’s “blanket election”. This structural mechanism was established in a landmark case that resolved systemic legal bottlenecks regarding how the fund issues medical certificates. The RAF was ordered to pay Maharaj’s legal fees. The court also ordered that his counsel fees be paid on “scale B”, a higher tariff bracket reflecting the complexity and demands of the litigation. Sowetan

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.

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.

The court has given a body corporation the green light to auction a family home after its owner failed to settle a ballooning levy debt. The Lombardy Home Owners Association in Tshwane had taken property owners Lillian and Kingsley Makgolela to court over unpaid levies debt amounting to R333,294. The association was granted a default judgment in March last year and Lillian, the first respondent, later launched a rescission application to reverse the debt order but the application failed. Lillian failed to keep up with payment, leading to the association to ask the court to allow the sale of Lillian’s property through auction in a follow-up application. The high court in Johannesburg last week ruled in favour of the association, and the property measuring 796 Sq/m will soon go under the hammer to pay the debt. Lillian had told the court that there were other reasonable ways to satisfy the debt. She pointed to a valuation report which valued her home at R326,415 and which the court said could not fully pay the debt. She said she was employed, earning a net salary of R50,000 per month, and was willing to pay R5,000 monthly towards the debt. By August last year, her debt stood at R544,956 and from November to April this year she started making payment of between R5,353 to R5,853 per month. This did not make any significant dent to her debt, the court said. The court also noted that definitive turning point came when the sheriff of the court descended on the property on June 19 2025 to attach the owner’s movable belongings. Lillian informed the sheriff that she had no money to satisfy the mounting debt and confessed that there were no sufficient attachable movable assets on the premises to fulfill the writ. The sheriff subsequently filed a nulla bona (no goods) return. With the owner admitting she was completely cash-strapped, the association aggressively shifted its focus to the immovable property itself. The judge ruled that Lillian failed to raise any sustainable defences against the association’s application. The court granted the association the right to sell the property and the defeated homeowner was slapped with a punitive cost order, forcing her to cover the association’s legal fees. What you need to know Disputes between body corporates and homeowners can be refered to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS), an ombudmans office which has presence all around the country. Their judgments are legally binding and carry the same weight as a high court decision. The CSOS, however, doesn’t get involved in matters that are before a court of law and their services are free. CSOS can be reached on 0800-000-653 or emailed at info@csos.org.za

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.

Story audio is generated using AI There’s a mistaken belief that cohabitation, also known as vat en sit, creates legal rights, especially when children are involved. Sorry to burst your bubble, but South Africa does not recognise cohabitation, and that means couples in umjolo (dating) are treated as separate individuals, with very limited automatic claims against each other. The draft Domestic Partnerships Bill, published in 2008, aimed to provide legal recognition and protection for cohabiting couples but is yet to be adopted. It aimed to grant rights similar to marriage regarding property, maintenance, and inheritance. Sarah Nicholson, head of customer experience at JustMoney, a financial institution, warns mistaken beliefs about cohabitation can have serious financial consequences for couples. Love and commitment, on their own, do not create legal rights. According to Nicholson, if you are unmarried and you have no legal agreement, you forfeit several rights: there is no automatic claim to property ownership, even if you helped pay for and maintain the property; you do not have an automatic right to claim maintenance from your partner if the relationship ends; you do not qualify for tax advantages available to married couples. For example, money or assets transferred between spouses do not attract donations tax; you are not entitled to make medical decisions for your partner if they become incapacitated; without a valid will, the surviving partner has no automatic right to inherit from the deceased’s estate. This can leave the partner financially vulnerable, or even without a home, at an already difficult time; and you cannot claim benefits from your partner’s pension or provident funds. Ways to secure your rights Sandra van Staden, a family law specialist from Bernadt Vukic Potash and Getz Attorneys, says there are limited legal avenues that may offer some protection when a relationship ends or one partner dies. These include proving the existence of a “universal partnership”. “This is a legal concept where courts may recognise that a couple lived together and shared finances, property, and responsibilities. Each partner made a contribution to a partnership established for their mutual benefit,” said Van Staden. However, such cases can be complex, expensive, and uncertain. “The proposed Domestic Partnership Bill will assist couples who choose to cohabit rather than marry. It will provide the option to register their relationship as a domestic partnership, creating similar rights and responsibilities as a marriage. However, the bill remains in draft form and is not law,” said Van Staden. The most straightforward way to secure full legal protection remains entering into a legally recognised marriage or civil union. “If you are considering a civil union, keep in mind that while the state recognises them, some religious and cultural institutions disapprove of civil unions and refuse to perform a ceremony. This is an important consideration if you have strong religious beliefs or cultural heritage,” said Nicholson. For couples who choose not to marry or enter into a civil union, Nicholson recommends taking steps to reduce uncertainty. Draft a valid will to ensure your partner is provided for. Prepare a cohabitation agreement, also called a life partnership agreement. Clearly set out how property is owned, how financial contributions and household expenses are shared, how joint bank accounts will be handled if the relationship ends, who is responsible for any debts, and whether any maintenance will be paid after separation. Take independent legal advice and ensure documents are properly drafted and signed. “The message is simple: if you are building a life together, it’s essential to ensure your legal and financial arrangements reflect that reality,” said Nicholson. “Failing to do so can leave both partners and their families exposed to unnecessary risk.” Sowetan

“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.

No matter how hard your financial situation may be, never default in paying your monthly account to the point that you get a court judgment against your name. This is a warning from the executive head of DebtBusters, Benay Sager. Sager said that in most cases consumers are at the mercy of the lender when it comes to clearing their name from court. In SA, consumers can get a bad credit history through a payment default, which lenders inform credit bureaus about monthly for record keeping. Constant payment defaults can lead to lenders issuing summons, which leads to a court order or judgment against the consumer. This means the court will instruct the borrower on conditions and deadlines in which to pay back the debt. This order is recorded by credit bureaus as well and they immediately “blacklist” the consumer, leaving him or her with little prospect of getting credit in the future. According to the National Credit Regulator, nearly 9.5-million consumers have impaired records, accounting for roughly 47.5% of all credit-active consumers. While a default can be cleared within a month with the credit bureau once the payment is made, Sager said the same process can be daunting when it comes to court judgments. “When there is a judgment it’s a bit tricky. It also depends on where the judgment was taken. Some times it can be in a jurisdiction where the consumer doesn’t live. The removal of the consumer’s name in a judgment is normally in the hands of the lender and the process can take months and sometimes years,” said Sager. Clearance of one’s name in court depends on the lender’s availability and willingness to go to the judge where the order was made and producing evidence showing that the debt has been paid and having the order cancelled. “My advice to consumers is not to allow your debt to become a court judgment because it will be difficult to clear your name even when you have the money,” said Sager. He advised consumers to act once they receive a court summons and to attend their court date as their absence my deprive the court the opportunity of hearing both sides of the story. “It’s so dangerous not to go to court. If you are not present the court does not get to hear your side of the story and its almost guaranteed that judgment will be granted. Go there and have your say, it’s in your best interest,” said Sager. Standard Bank said in terms of the National Credit Act, credit providers are required to update credit bureaus with accurate account information. Once an account is settled, the consumer’s credit profile should reflect this within a reasonable reporting cycle, typically within a few weeks. “A court judgment remains in effect for 30 years. Consumers may need to engage the relevant court or legal adviser to rescind or update the judgment record once settlement has been confirmed,” said the bank How to maintain a clean credit record once all debt has been settled. Clients should maintain good payment behaviour to avoid adverse credit bureau listing and judgments. This will typically involve paying accounts on time, limiting unnecessary credit applications, and promptly addressing any discrepancies identified on credit reports. We understand that this is often difficult in challenging financial times and therefore encourage clients to reach out to their credit provider for debt assistance at the earliest signs of financial distress. Source: Standard Bank

“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