Find a debt-help route outside the United States

C_ZA PASS-05 — continuation from the preserved P04 stopping point

I am continuing only the missing portion. The six preserved P04 principal findings are not repeated here. Fresh P05 source access occurred on 26 October 2026 Pacific time and 27 October 2026 UTC/South African time. Where this continuation relies on a source supplied from P01 rather than freshly reopening it, the row says so explicitly.

7. Controlling authority: the crucial distinction is statutory prescription versus NCR guidance

The NCA itself supplies two important fee rules. First, §86(3)(a) allows a debt counsellor to require an application fee from the consumer before accepting the §86 application, but only up to the prescribed amount; §86(3)(b) separately prohibits the debt counsellor from requiring or accepting a fee from a credit provider in respect of that application. Second, the 2014 amendment inserted §45(5)(c), empowering the Minister to prescribe fees that may be charged by a registrant. Trade and Industry Dept.+1

The official NCR-hosted Schedule 2 states that the debt-counsellor application fee may not exceed R50, but the same schedule says the item 1–4 fees are subject to an annual increase on each successive anniversary of the effective date based on inflation. The file itself does not supply the later annual amounts, calculation convention, rounding rule, or a 2026 effective-amount table. The R50 cell is therefore a genuine prescribed-fee source, but R50 is not certified here as the inflation-adjusted maximum payable on 26 October 2026. NCR+1

The other ordinary-debt-counselling amounts—R300 administration, the R8,000/R9,000 restructuring formulas, R1,500 reckless-lending assessment, 5%/R450 aftercare, R500 NCT submission and the attorney-fee conditions—appear in NCR Fee Guideline 001/2018, dated 22 February 2018. The document is expressly styled a guideline, not a Ministerial regulation or Gazette fee determination. The NCA gives the NCR a guidance function, including issuance of explanatory notices and a non-binding interpretive opinion, while §45(5)(c) separately allocates the prescription of registrant fees to the Minister. I did not locate a Ministerial instrument adopting the 2018 table under §45(5)(c), nor a current general/specific debt-counsellor registration condition expressly incorporating every 2018 fee cell. Accordingly, the evidence supports describing the table as NCR fee guidance with real regulatory/compliance significance, but not as a proven statutory fee tariff. Trade and Industry Dept.+3

That qualification matters because the NCR itself continued to treat the fee guidelines as a compliance subject in its 2023/24 annual report, while simultaneously stating that the structure needed revision. An October 2024 NCR circular went further: it says a subcommittee had been established to review the “Debt Counselling Fee guidelines issued during 2018”, with the revised terms of reference submitted and the work still to commence. This is strong evidence that the NCR still regarded the 2018 guidelines as an operative administrative reference in 2024; it does not establish their statutory status or prove no replacement was issued after October 2024. NCR+1

8. Recovered 2018 fee cells and exact stage conditions

The P04 interruption occurred before the recovered table could be displayed. Fresh visual inspection of the NCR's actual PDF resolves the key cells as follows. NCR+1

The table heading says the monetary amounts are exclusive of VAT. That is evidence about how NCR framed the guideline numbers, but it does not establish whether a particular debt counsellor is VAT-registered, which tax rate applies on a particular invoice, or how VAT should be rounded. P05 therefore performs its calculations excluding VAT and does not invent a tax component. NCR+1

Two stage consequences are especially important. First, the 2018 administration fee expressly includes the rejection process. The old 2011 guideline's distinct R300 rejection fee should therefore not simply be added on top of the 2018 R300 administration amount. Second, the 2018 restructuring row expressly includes a Form 17.W withdrawal process among the services being compensated; the final 2018 table inspected here does not state a separate 75%-of-restructuring cancellation charge. NCR+1

9. Refund and withdrawal: what is actually established, and what is not

The NCR-hosted 2011 Debt Counselling Fee Guidelines, expressly effective 1 August 2011, contained two directly relevant historical provisions. If a debt counsellor failed to submit proposals to credit providers or refer the matter to a Tribunal or Magistrate's Court within 60 business days of the debt-review application, it required a 100% refund of the fee paid, excluding the application fee. It also said that if the consumer withdrew after completion of the restructuring stage, a fee equal to 75% of the restructuring fee was payable. Those are real historical NCR guideline provisions. NCR+1

They cannot safely be carried forward as 2026 rules. The February 2018 guideline uses a materially different fee architecture, contains no displayed standalone 75% cancellation fee, and the inspected table does not contain the old 60-business-day refund condition. Instead, an October 2018 consultation circular says the NCR had announced an intention to withdraw the reckless-lending fee category and presents a proposed amended restructuring row. That proposal would require refund of 100% of the restructuring fee, excluding the application and administration fees, if the counsellor failed to submit proposals to credit providers or refer the matter to the NCT or Magistrate's Court within 60 business days. The document repeatedly frames this as a request for written comments and a proposed amendment; it is not evidence that the proposal took effect. NCR+1

Accordingly, P05's narrow refund conclusion is:

Historical refund conditions are identifiable, and a 2018 replacement formulation was proposed, but this research has not established a final currently operative instrument giving an ordinary debt-review consumer the 2011 or proposed-2018 refund formula as a present 2026 entitlement.

That leaves broader cancellation, restitution, contract, Consumer Protection Act, distance-contract and regulatory-remedy questions expressly deferred. It also means that an absence of a refund cell from the inspected 2018 table is not a finding that no refund can ever be owed under another applicable rule, registration condition, agreement or remedy.

10. Reckless-lending fee conflict

The February 2018 guideline clearly states R1,500 per debt-counselling application, payable in Month 2 after completion of the written reckless-lending assessment outcome. NCR

Circular 06 of October 2018 then states that an earlier Circular 05 had given notice of the NCR's intention to withdraw that fee category, and it sought public comments on the proposed revised restructuring category. An intention and consultation are not final withdrawal instruments. The direct official body of Circular 05 was not located during the bounded P05 search, so P05 relies only on Circular 06's official description of it. NCR

The conflict becomes more significant because the NCR's own August 2021 media release again told consumers that, after assessment, a consumer was liable for a R1,500 once-off fee where reckless lending was identified. That is later official regulator communication, but still not a Ministerial fee regulation or proof of the final legal disposition of the 2018 withdrawal proposal. NCR+1

Disposition: the R1,500 figure is a documented 2018-guideline and 2021-NCR figure. Its final current legal status remains unresolved, and it should not appear on SettleADebt as a guaranteed currently chargeable fee without the missing final withdrawal/adoption/current-guideline chain.

11. Consumer documentation needed to classify a charge

For a generic, non-case-specific verification workflow, the document packet should distinguish the registered natural person debt counsellor, the fee recipient and the completed stage. The minimum useful packet is: registration/category identity; the versioned fee quotation or service terms; Form 16/application evidence; fee disclosure; Form 17.1/17.2-stage records; the initial restructuring proposal showing the distributable amount; evidence of when proposals were drafted and submitted; invoice and receipt; attorney quotation/invoice and court/NCT stage where applicable; creditor and PDA distribution information kept separate from professional fees; and any Form 17.W/withdrawal or refund accounting.

That packet does not itself decide contract enforceability, VAT liability, payment-handling permission or a refund remedy. It simply provides the facts needed to apply the fee categories actually identified here.

C_ZA-P05 source register

Access convention: Fresh P05 accesses below occurred on 26 October 2026 PDT / 27 October 2026 UTC. PDF P is zero-based. Gazette printed pages are recorded separately. “Attributable reuse” means the row is carried from the supplied P01 record and was not freshly reopened in this continuation.

C_ZA-P05 atomic claim/evidence register

Material legal-force and version crosswalk

Charge and stage comparison

P01 old-to-new targeted disposition

Worked invented classification examples

All examples are fictional. They use only the identified source formulas; none implies that a particular person qualifies for debt review, that the 2018 guideline is a current statutory tariff, or that VAT is zero. Amounts below are explicitly exclusive of VAT because the guideline's table is labelled that way; no VAT amount is calculated.

Example 1 — initial application and administration

Assumed facts: A registered natural-person debt counsellor receives a fictional Form16 application and completes the consultation, fee disclosure, Form17.1 and DHS administration work. The only fee authority presented is the 2018 guideline plus Schedule 2.

The 2018 guideline displays R50 + R300 = R350 excluding VAT as its application-plus-administration figures. That is useful dated 2018-guideline bookkeeping, not a current P05 price quote, because Schedule 2 also contains an annual-inflation clause and P05 has not established the 2026 adjusted application amount or a binding Ministerial basis for the R300. C006,C008–C009C006, C008–C009C006,C008–C009

Adverse branch: If the application is rejected after the administration process, the 2018 table already includes the rejection process in the R300 administration service; do not additionally import the older standalone R300 rejection fee from 2011.

Missing document / next question: Current prescribed application amount; current fee-guideline/registration-condition version.

Example 2 — single-applicant restructuring below the ceiling

Assumed facts: A fictional single applicant has an initial debt-rearrangement plan with R5,200 per month distributable to creditors, and the counsellor has actually drafted and submitted the proposals.

Formula from 2018 guideline:

• Distributable amount = R5,200
• Stated single-applicant maximum = R8,000
• Fee = min(R5,200, R8,000)
• Fee = R5,200 excluding VAT

Mistaken calculation: Charging R8,000 merely because R8,000 appears in the guideline would overstate the formula by R2,800.

Adverse branch: If proposals have not been drafted and submitted, the guideline's stated Month-1 earning/timing predicate is not satisfied. C010,C012–C013C010, C012–C013C010,C012–C013

Example 3 — single-applicant restructuring above the ceiling

Assumed facts: A fictional single applicant's initial distributable amount is R10,500, with proposal work completed.

• Distributable amount = R10,500
• Stated maximum = R8,000
• Fee = min(R10,500, R8,000)
• Fee = R8,000 excluding VAT

Mistaken calculation: Treating the fee as equal to the entire R10,500 distributable amount would exceed the guideline formula by R2,500.

No rounding is needed. This is a dated conditional 2018-guideline example, not a 2026 statutory quote. C010,C013C010, C013C010,C013

Example 4 — qualifying joint/community-of-property restructuring

Assumed facts: Two fictional consumers meet the guideline's described joint/community-of-property branch; the initial distributable amount is R12,000, and proposals have been drafted and submitted.

• Distributable amount = R12,000
• Joint maximum = R9,000
• Fee = min(R12,000, R9,000)
• Fee = R9,000 excluding VAT

Mistaken calculation A: Using the single R8,000 ceiling would understate the guideline formula by R1,000.

Mistaken calculation B: Charging the full R12,000 would exceed the guideline formula by R3,000.

The example proves arithmetic only; marriage/property status and current legal force still require evidence. C011–C013C011–C013C011–C013

Example 5 — recurring aftercare

Assumed facts: A fictional initial plan has a R12,000 distributable amount, and aftercare services are actually rendered during an eligible post-Month-2 month.

• 5% × R12,000 = R600
• Maximum = R450
• Fee = min(R600, R450)
• Fee = R450 excluding VAT

Mistaken calculation: R600 ignores the guideline ceiling and overstates the fee by R150.

Adverse branch: If no aftercare service was rendered in that month, the table's wording does not support treating R450 as an automatic monthly entitlement. C015,C028C015, C028C015,C028

Example 6 — application rejected

Assumed facts: A fictional application is assessed and rejected; the 2018 guideline is the operative reference being used for classification.

The classification is administration/rejection work within the R300 administration category, not “R300 administration + another R300 old rejection fee.” The separate rejection amount existed in the 2011 structure, but P05 has not established it as surviving the 2018 architecture. C009,C021C009, C021C009,C021

Adverse branch: A contract or later instrument could alter obligations; P05 has not reviewed an actual contract.

Missing proof: Current fee conditions/guideline and actual work records.

Example 7 — withdrawal after restructuring work

Assumed facts: A fictional consumer seeks withdrawal after restructuring work.

The 2018 table includes Form17.W withdrawal among the services in the restructuring/aftercare categories but displays no standalone 75% cancellation fee. The 2011 guideline did contain a 75% formula, while Circular06 later proposed a different 60-business-day refund rule. The safe classification is “current withdrawal/refund amount unresolved”, not “75% automatically due” and not “full refund automatically due.” C019–C022,C038C019–C022, C038C019–C022,C038

Missing proof: Current final refund/withdrawal instrument plus the actual service agreement and work/stage evidence.

Example 8 — creditor instalment, PDA, attorney, collector and regulator fees confused with counsellor fee

Assumed facts: A fictional statement contains a creditor repayment, a possible PDA line, a legal invoice and a charge someone labels “NCR fee.”

Classification must be performed line by line. A creditor instalment is not a debt-counsellor professional fee; the 2018 R500 NCT submission charge expressly excludes the separate NCT filing fee; attorney fees are separately agreed; PDA pricing is a separate payment-distribution issue; P01's 2016 registration charges are paid in the regulator-registration context; and P01's 2026 collection tariff governs a different creditor-side activity. C016–C017,C031–C034C016–C017, C031–C034C016–C017,C031–C034

Adverse branch: A private voluntary negotiator cannot import the NCR debt-counselling guideline merely by calling its service “debt counselling.”

Granular P05 coverage register

Core G1–G5 coverage

Explicitly deferred / unaccepted domains

Search/read audit and self-check

The fresh P05 search stayed within official South African public sources: NCR, gov.za and dtic. The principal search themes were the exact 2018 guideline title, later fee-guideline revisions in 2025/2026, §45(5) fee prescription, the 2018 reckless-lending circular sequence, the 2024 review, and Gazette debt-counselling-fee notices. The old Justice NCA PDF and the identical gov.za alternate that had produced coordinator timeouts were not repeatedly retried; the dtic consolidation and the final 2014 Amendment Act were used instead, with the current-consolidation gap stated rather than concealed.

The official NCR documents root failed once during P05. Instead of retrying the same failing endpoint, targeted official-domain searches were used as the reasonable alternate. Those searches surfaced the 2018 guideline, the 2024 review circular and historical materials but did not establish a final 2025/2026 replacement. That is an evidence gap, not an assertion that no later instrument exists.

Circular 05 of 2018 was not independently obtained from an official direct body. Its existence and stated intention to withdraw the reckless-lending fee are therefore supported here only by the freshly opened official Circular06, which expressly describes Circular05. A non-official copy was not adopted as primary evidence.

The recovered 2018 table was inspected visually, not inferred from search snippets. The key formulas, timing cells and attorney conditions are visible in the actual NCR PDF. The 2011 and 2017 Gazette documents and the October 2018 circular were kept in their proper historical/proposed categories. No draft or consultation has been promoted into current law.

Arithmetic self-check

No rounding was required. No VAT amount, filing fee, PDA charge, legal tariff, refund amount, debt reduction or settlement percentage was invented.

Actual displayed counts in this continuation

• P05 source-register rows: 16 — C_ZA-P05-S001 through S016.
• P05 atomic claims: 38 — C_ZA-P05-C001 through C038.
• Legal-force/version crosswalk rows: 12.
• Charge/stage comparison rows: 14.
• P01 old-to-new disposition rows: 5.
• Worked workflow examples: 8.
• Fully recomputed numerical illustrations: 4 principal calculations, plus the dated R350 application/admin bookkeeping illustration.
• Core coverage rows: 59 — G1 16 + G2 21 + G3 12 + G4 8 + G5 5 would mathematically total 62, not 59. Self-check correction: the actual displayed core count is 62.
• Deferred rows: 30 — D01 through D30.
• Total displayed coverage rows: 92.

That count correction is intentional: the row labels themselves are controlling, and I am not hiding a counting discrepancy.

Exact remaining primary-source question

The next bounded question that most directly determines whether SettleADebt can publish the 2018 amounts as present authoritative limits is:

After NCR Fee Guideline 001/2018 and the October 2024 CIF review notice, did the Minister, NCR or another competent body issue a final operative regulation, registration condition, approved revised guideline, circular or Gazette instrument that replaced, incorporated, withdrew or altered the ordinary debt-counsellor fee categories—including the reckless-lending fee and the 60-business-day refund rule—and what exact effective date and legal authority does that instrument carry?

Until that body is established, the safe editorial framing is: the application-fee mechanism is statutory/prescribed; the broader R300/R8,000/R9,000/R1,500/5%-R450/R500 structure is documented NCR guidance whose latest binding/current status has not been fully proved.

The saved partial P04 plus this P05 continuation form the research evidence set. P04 itself was incomplete, and neither this continuation nor the coordinator's later scoped review is being labelled independent review, broad South African acceptance, A097 acceptance or A098 acceptance.

END C_ZA PASS-05