Latest news with #BMWFinancialServices
IOL News
7 hours ago
- Automotive
- IOL News
Woman claims BMW Financial Services' non-cooperation led to R787,000 debt
A South African woman claims that BMW Financial Services failed to assist her when she struggled to make payments on her R787,000 vehicle, leading to a distressing financial battle that raises questions about consumer rights and corporate responsibility. Image: Supplied A woman who bought a car through BMW Financial Services is accusing the motor company of failing to cooperate when she indicated that she was unable to continue making payments to her car. The woman, who has chosen to remain anonymous, purchased a BMW 218i Gran Coupe M Sport in October 2021, with the vehicle being financed through BMW Financial Services. According to the terms of the agreement, she was granted a credit facility exceeding R787,000 to cover the cost of the vehicle. This financing arrangement came with an estimated monthly repayment obligation of more than R11,000, placing a significant financial commitment on her. She was able to maintain her monthly instalments for just over six months before coming to a realisation that the monthly instalments were financially not viable as it was consuming nearly half her salary leaving her with insufficient funds to cover her basic financial needs and other financial obligations. This growing strain on her finances forced her to reassess her ability to continue honouring the credit agreement, prompting her to reach out to BMW Financial Services to seek relief or explore alternative solutions. She explained that after recognising the financial strain, she approached BMW Financial Services to request assistance in selling the vehicle, hoping to find a solution that would alleviate her debt burden. However, she was informed by the motor company that the total amount required to settle the outstanding debt on the vehicle was R814,000. At the same time, BMW offered to purchase the vehicle for only R600,000, which would leave her with a significant shortfall of R214,000. Despite her efforts to engage and find a mutually beneficial resolution, she alleges that no further assistance, guidance, or alternative options were provided by the company. This left her feeling abandoned and solely responsible for the substantial debt, with no meaningful support from the institution that had financed the purchase. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading "After mounting arrears and further attempts to engage BMW, our client voluntarily surrendered the vehicle on June 7, 2022 – the valuation provided by BMW reflected a large shortfall, and she took back the vehicle in an effort to secure a better private offer," said her attorney, Liesel Kriel. After relocating from Gauteng to Durban in an effort to improve her financial circumstances, she said she actively sought out better trade-in or resale offers for the vehicle. She managed to secure more favourable valuations from multiple third-party dealers, which exceeded the initial offer made by BMW. In a bid to resolve the matter, she submitted the alternative quotes to BMW Financial Services, along with supporting financial documentation detailing her income and financial hardship. However, despite her proactive approach and willingness to cooperate, she claims that BMW failed to respond and completely ignored her submissions. To her shock, she later discovered in November 2022 that the vehicle had been transferred out of her name as far back as June 2022 without her knowledge, permission, or any formal notification. This discovery raised serious concerns for her, not only about the handling of the vehicle but also about the lack of transparency and communication from BMW Financial Services throughout the process. After the shocking discovery she lodged a complaint against BMW with the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA), which directed her to the National Credit Regulator (NCR) due to the matter relating to reckless lending. According to her, it was around this time that , she was also informed that legal proceedings had been instituted against her by BMW Financial Services. She expressed shock and frustration, particularly because she had previously notified BMW in writing, via email, of her change of address following her relocation from Gauteng to Durban. Despite this clear communication, she claims that BMW continued to serve legal documents at her former address, effectively depriving her of the opportunity to respond to or engage with the legal process in a timely and meaningful manner. As a result, she believes that BMW acted negligently and unfairly, further compounding her distress and legal vulnerability. She said the NCR process was plagued with delays – it was only in June 2024 that the NCR advised her the matter had not been considered and then issued a non-referral notice, prompting her to refer the matter to the National Consumer Tribunal (NCT). During the tribunal proceedings, it was noted that woman 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. In February 2025, the NCT 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. She said following the judgment, in March 2025, BMW attempted to enforce the judgment and execute the warrant at her erstwhile address – the address was later amended. "Due to BMW's lack of cooperation, our client had no choice but to obtain legal assistance and as such our offices proceeded to launch a rescission application based on the pending regulatory processes and improper service," said Kriel. Kriel said BMW has opposed the rescission application, raising technical defences, including the time delay in bringing the application. "BMW maintains that our client was aware of the proceedings, had a chance to respond, and that the regulatory complaints were merely delay tactics," Kriel added. When approached for comment, BMW declined to speak on the matter, stating that it remained sub judice. "I have, however, determined the matter is still being considered by a court. We cannot, therefore, provide comments to you at this time," said BMW spokesperson, Hailey Philander. In closing, the woman's case reflects the complex and often frustrating journey consumers face when navigating disputes with large financial institutions. Despite her efforts to seek assistance from BMW Financial Services, the National Credit Regulator, and eventually the National Consumer Tribunal, procedural technicalities and jurisdictional limitations ultimately stood in the way of her reckless lending claim being meaningfully assessed. The High Court's prior ruling based on her failure to defend the matter effectively closed the door to further adjudication by the Tribunal, citing the legal principle of res judicata, which prevents re-litigation of issues already decided by a competent court. The attempted enforcement of the judgment at her former address and the subsequent legal wrangling over the rescission application have only added to the woman's sense of being sidelined by a system she believes failed to accommodate her financial vulnerability. Her legal representative, Kriel, argues that the mishandling of notices and the disregard of pending regulatory processes justify reopening the case. BMW, however, continues to oppose the rescission, framing the delays and regulatory complaints as tactical manoeuvres rather than legitimate grievances. With BMW declining to comment further due to the matter being sub judice, the case remains in legal limbo highlighting the wider challenges consumers face when trying to assert their rights in the face of institutional power and procedural complexity. IOL
IOL News
15-07-2025
- Automotive
- IOL News
Pietermaritzburg High Court judge rules on fairness in repossession case
A judge refused to grant a summary judgment in a case where a credit provider claimed a vehicle owner fell in arrears with his monthly payment Image: Supplied The purpose of credit regulation must be seen as encouraging good faith engagement and promoting consumer rehabilitation, not as punishing transient default that has been remedied. This was the message of the Pietermaritzburg High Court in an application by BMW Financial Services (applicant) in which they wanted to repossess a vehicle as they claimed the owner had fallen in arrears with his monthly payment. The financial service provider wanted a summary judgment to be issued against Ndlangia Funeral Services and its owner Lungisani Ndlanga (the respondents). A summary judgment is a request for a court to rule in favour of one party without a full trial. This is usually when the court finds that there are no genuine disputes. But by the time the application had served before the court, the respondents had already paid the arrears. The financial service provider, however, still wanted an order allowing it to repossess the vehicle, as it argued the respondents had breached the sale agreement by falling into arrears in the first place (although this is no longer the situation). Judge Mokgene Masipa remarked that courts must remain alert to credit providers who weaponise technical breach for swift asset recovery, even where the rationale for enforcement has fallen away. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ The judge noted that at the time the application for summary judgment was launched, the respondents had brought their account up to date, but this was after the default and the issuance of summons. In opposing the application, the respondents relied on the absence of arrears and their efforts to make payment to resolve the matter. The applicant told the court that prior to turning to court, a notice in terms of the National Credit Act was issued to the respondents, and thereafter summons. The core of the applicant's case rests on the enforcement of cancellation and return of the vehicle based on the respondents' failure to timeously meet their payment obligations under the agreement. Judge Masipa said while it is true that default initially occurred, the agreement was effectively reinstated when the respondents paid the arrears and brought their account up to date. He added that the matter is not one deserving of the stringent remedy of summary judgment. The continued pursuit of cancellation and repossession in these circumstances raises serious concerns about fairness and proportionality, the judge said. He added that it would be contrary to public policy for a credit provider to persist with enforcement action, particularly repossession, in circumstances where the defaulting party has rectified its breach prior to the matter being heard. 'Enforcement in such circumstances serves no purpose other than to punish the consumer, and is entirely at odds with the rehabilitative and equitable principles that underpin both the NCA and public policy.' The judge said the public interest in this matter is real and not incidental. 'The applicant is a financial service provider inherently tied to serving vulnerable members of the public. In this case, it would be contrary to public interest and policy considerations to permit the applicant to enforce its rights strictly on the basis of past default, when the underlying indebtedness has been cured.' He turned down the application for summary judgment and said the matter should be ventilated through evidence.
IOL News
09-05-2025
- Automotive
- IOL News
Gauteng woman claims reckless lending by BMW Financial Services after R787,000 debt
A Gauteng woman who bought a car through BMW Financial Services was crying foul as she found herself unable to meet the monthly installments. 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.
