Follow-Up: Still No Response From the Council for Debt Collectors — Critical Issues Remain Ignored

I am posting this follow-up because I have still not received any substantive response from the Council for Debt Collectors (CFDC), despite raising concerns that directly affect consumer protection and mental health nationwide.

This matter has been before the Council since 8 August 2025, more than four months, without a clear ruling on the key legal issues.

As a mental health activist, I cannot ignore the psychological impact that ******** or wrongful debt-collection practices have on ordinary South Africans. Anxiety, humiliation, fear, and loss of dignity are not abstract ideas, they are real harms suffered daily by consumers who are pursued for debts they may not even owe.

The last correspondence I received (30 October 2025) stated:

“We are inundated with high volumes of complaints… the matter will be reconsidered during the course of next month.”

It is now well past that timeframe, and still no update has been provided.

My Son Was Wrongfully Handed Over — Confirmed by Rosebank College

Rosebank College formally admitted:

“Our standard practice is to ensure that all account payers are regularly informed of their account status and notified prior to any handover to third-party debt collection agencies.

We regret that this procedure was not followed in this instance.”

This means:

✔ My son was handed over without notice ✔ No communication was issued before his personal data was transferred ✔ The handover violated the college’s own mandatory procedures

Yet two different debt-collection companies pursued him based entirely on this faulty and admitted-wrongful instruction.

The Council still has not ruled on the legality of this handover or whether the debt collectors acted under a lawful mandate.

Two Critical Questions the Council Still Refuses to Answer:

1. Did Concept Recoveries ever receive a lawful mandate directly from Rosebank College?

Under Regulation 7(3) and the Code of Conduct, a debt collector may only act with direct, documented authorization from the creditor.

The Council has not produced this mandate.

Instead, the Council re**** on the idea of “good faith” , a concept that does not appear anywhere in the Debt Collectors Act.

2. Can TADI legally subcontract my son’s account to Concept Recoveries without Rosebank College’s written consent?

Section 8(1) of the Act is very clear: Only collectors acting directly for the creditor may collect.

If TADI transferred the file without Rosebank’s authorization, this is a major legal breach, and a POPIA concern.

The Council has avoided giving a position on this.

What section of the Act permits debt collectors to pursue consumers based on unverified or defective instructions?

The Act requires:

✔ accuracy ✔ truthfulness ✔ integrity ✔ proper handling of disputes

But it does not authorize:

❌ collection without mandate verification ❌ reliance on “good faith” instead of documentation ❌ sending personal data between collectors without consent

If this becomes accepted practice, every consumer in South Africa is at risk.

Why This Matters — From a Mental Health Perspective

As someone who advocates for mental health, I must highlight:

- Wrongful debt collection causes anxiety, panic, shame, stress, and sleep disturbances - Youth and vulnerable individuals are especially harmed - Families experience significant emotional fallout - Many simply pay out of fear, even when the debt is incorrect

When regulators fail to enforce mandate requirements, debt collectors can:

• Harass the wrong person • Contact family members • Share personal data ********ly • Make repeated “collection attempts” even where the creditor was at fault

This is not a technical issue, it is a human one.

Public Request for Immediate Clarification

The Council must answer:

- Did Concept Recoveries ever receive a mandate directly from Rosebank College? - If not — is secondary collection without creditor authorization legal? - What section of the Act authorizes “good faith” collection without verification? - Why has this matter been pending since 8 August 2025 without a ruling? - How is the public protected when creditors wrongfully hand over consumers to debt collectors?

Until these are answered, this matter cannot be considered resolved.

Conclusion

A transparent regulator builds trust. A silent regulator damages it.

I remain committed to escalating this through:

✔ Information Regulator (POPIA) ✔ Public Protector ✔ Parliamentary Portfolio Committee

This is no longer just about my son, it is about every South African’s right to fair, lawful, and psychologically safe debt collection practices.