Find a debt-help route outside the United States

SettleADebt C_ZA PASS-07 — South Africa

Ordinary NCA debt-counsellor fees: currentness, incorporation and final-adoption chain

Focused disposition: The 2018 fee structure was not merely an abandoned draft. NCR Circular 01 presents the NCR review as completed, states that the attached structure was applicable from 1 April 2018, says it was non-retrospective, and says adherence would be monitored. That establishes an NCR administrative adoption and stated applicability date. It still does not establish that every fee cell was prescribed by the Minister under NCA §45(5)(c), incorporated into every debt counsellor’s conditions of registration, or converted into a universal private statutory remedy. NCR+1

The fee-review project had not produced a final replacement by the latest substantive NCR update established here. In October 2024 the work was yet to commence after approval of revised terms; in the NCR’s October 2025 circular, a position paper had been finalised and was circulating for comments and alternative solutions, but the subcommittee’s work remained ongoing. The current NCR circular index, read through its August 2026 entries, did not identify a later circular titled as a final replacement fee guideline. That is a bounded public-index result, not proof that no later instrument exists anywhere. NCR+2

The reckless-lending fee now has a sharper but still two-layer conclusion. Circulars 05 and 06 of 2018 show an intention and consultation process, not final withdrawal. The August 2021 NCR media release still quoted R1,500. But the NCR’s 2024/25 annual report identifies charging reckless-lending fees as a common compliance contravention. The safest current statement is therefore: the NCR’s later reported enforcement practice treated charging that fee as noncompliant, while the exact final withdrawal/adoption instrument and complete private-remedy chain remain unlocated. The R1,500 should not be published as an assured current permitted charge. NCR+3

The R50 application-fee figure remains textually present in the NCR-hosted Schedule 2, but that same schedule subjects items 1–4 to annual inflation increases. No official adjustment table, rate-selection rule, rounding method, amendment notice or presently applicable 2026 amount was established. R50 may be described as the amount printed in the official schedule and repeated in later NCR material—not as a certified October 2026 maximum. NCR+1

The 60-business-day restructuring-fee refund in Circular 06 remained a proposal for comment; the older 2011 60-business-day refund and 75% withdrawal provisions remain historical. No final current instrument adopting either formulation was established. NCR+1

Research dates, provenance and scope

G1. Bounded official currentness and authority chain

G1.1 What Circular 01 adds to the P05 finding

P05 correctly recorded that Guideline 001/2018 is styled as an NCR guideline and does not identify itself as a Ministerial regulation under §45(5)(c). P07 adds a separate official circular that P05 did not use to resolve final issuance.

The one-page Circular 01 states that the NCR had completed its review of debt-counsellor fees, that the new attached structure was applicable as of 1 April 2018, that it would not apply retrospectively, and that adherence would be monitored strictly. This supports calling 001/2018 the NCR’s finally issued administrative fee guideline rather than a consultation draft. C_ZA-P07-C002–C004. NCR

There is a source-title irregularity: the page header says “Number 01 | February 2018,” while the body heading says “Circular No 01 of 2017.” The NCR’s current circular index lists it as Circular no 01 of 2018. P07 preserves that inconsistency and uses the dated body and index together; it does not silently edit the title. C004. NCR+1

G1.2 What Circular 01 does not establish

The 2014 amendment authorises the Minister to prescribe fees that may be charged by a registrant. Circular 01 and Guideline 001/2018 are NCR documents, not a Gazette instrument identifying the Minister as decision-maker under §45(5)(c). The administrative applicability statement therefore closes the “was this only proposed?” question at the NCR-guideline level but does not close the statutory-prescription question. C001–C003, C015–C016. South African Government+2

The bounded official Gazette searches conducted for P07 located the 2011 and 2017 fee-structure consultation material but did not establish a final Ministerial regulation adopting the 2018 table under §45(5)(c). That is an evidence result, not a declaration that no such instrument exists. C015. South African Government+1

G1.3 Current publication and review status

The current NCR Guidelines page still links the 2018 debt-counselling fee guideline, twice, while also listing newer unrelated guidelines through August 2026. Continued publication is evidence that the NCR has not removed the document from its public guidance library; it is not conclusive proof that every cell remains unchanged, legally binding or privately enforceable. C005, C029, C032. NCR

The review timeline is:

Circular 10’s current-index label says September 2025, while the PDF itself is headed October 2025 and says the CIF meeting occurred in September 2025. P07 uses October 2025 as the circular’s document date and preserves the index discrepancy. C007. NCR+1

G1.4 Current regulator practice versus legal incorporation

The NCR’s 2024/25 annual report says the Debt Counselling Department monitors debt counsellors against the NCA and their conditions of registration. It reports as common contraventions both charging reckless-lending fees and noncompliance with the NCR’s debt-counselling fee guidelines. That is significant evidence of the regulator’s compliance position during the year ended 31 March 2025. C012–C014. Trade and Industry Dept.+1

It does not, standing alone:

• reproduce the exact generic fee-related condition;
• identify which fee cells were incorporated into which registration conditions;
• function as a Ministerial fee regulation;
• establish that every departure automatically gives the consumer a private refund claim;
• establish the complete elements or result of any enforcement proceeding.

C016, C030, C033.

A September 2025 NCR guideline quotes one general debt-counsellor registration condition concerning changes in contact and eligibility information. That confirms that generic conditions exist and that the NCR sometimes reproduces particular conditions in public guidance. It does not reproduce a fee-incorporation condition. C010–C011. NCR

The NCR’s public debt-counsellor register page says conditions of registration may be obtained from the NCR upon written request. No request was made, as required by this assignment. The full generic conditions therefore remain unavailable in this evidence set. C011. NCR

G1.5 The 2013 voluntary code does not fill the incorporation gap

The 2013 Debt Counsellors’ Code says a subscriber commits to processes adopted as NCR guidelines and to explaining fees and implications. But the NCR’s July 2026 circular expressly describes the debt-counsellor code as voluntary and opens a review for public comment. It is therefore evidence of a commitment by subscribers, not proof that every registered debt counsellor is universally bound to every 2018 fee cell through a prescribed code or registration condition. C009–C010. NCR+2

G1.6 The 2024 “fee guideline” documents are a different subject

The current Guidelines page contains items titled “Guideline 1 2024 March fee guideline” and “Guideline 2 2024 March.” Their bodies concern Regulation 19(13), SACRRA and credit-information transmission fees for credit/data providers and credit bureaux. They are not replacements for the ordinary debt-counsellor fee guideline. C008. NCR+1

This matters because title-only searching for “fee guideline” could otherwise produce a false currentness conclusion.

G2. Exact fee-category dispositions

The amounts and formulas below are not recalculated here. They remain the eight dated P05 workflow examples and the verified cells of Guideline 001/2018. P07 answers only the legal-force/currentness question.

Current publication wording

Permissible:

The NCR issued its 2018 debt-counselling fee structure for administrative application from 1 April 2018 and continued to use its fee guidelines as a compliance benchmark. A review was still ongoing in October 2025. We have not established a final revised guideline, a Ministerial regulation adopting every fee cell, or a complete publicly available fee-related registration condition. The 2018 figures should therefore be labelled as NCR guideline figures rather than certified October 2026 statutory caps.

For reckless lending:

Although the 2018 guideline and a 2021 NCR release quoted a R1,500 reckless-lending assessment fee, later NCR reporting says charging reckless-lending fees was treated as a compliance contravention. Do not present R1,500 as a currently permitted fee without the missing final authority chain.

Withhold:

• “R50 is the definitive 2026 statutory maximum.”
• “Every amount in 001/2018 was prescribed by the Minister.”
• “All debt counsellors’ registration conditions expressly incorporate every fee cell.”
• “Circular 06 finally adopted the 60-business-day refund.”
• “The 75% withdrawal fee is current.”
• “R1,500 remains chargeable because the 2021 release quoted it.”
• “The fee review was finalised in 2025.”
• “No later instrument exists.”

G3. Source and authority search audit

G3.1 Actual official search routes and queries

G3.2 Failed and limited accesses

The dtic entities annual-reports page identified a 2025/26 NCR annual-report listing in search metadata, but direct opening timed out. No underlying PDF was obtained, so it is not used to claim a 2025/26 enforcement or fee position. C038. Trade and Industry Dept.

The P05 NCR documents-root failure at https://www.ncr.org.za/documents/ was not repeated. P07 instead used the functioning official Circulars and Guidelines publication pages. The prior failure remains a dated P05 access fact and is not “freshened” into a new source conclusion.

No API, hidden endpoint, developer tool, scraping mechanism, CAPTCHA bypass, backend call or record request was used. No named registrant or case was searched.

G4. Four conditional evidence workflows

These are invented classification tests. They do not quote a fee to a consumer or decide a real dispute.

Workflow 1 — Allegedly new “final fee PDF” without authority or an effective date

Assumed facts: A PDF appears online with new amounts and a title resembling “Debt Counselling Fee Structure 2026,” but it does not identify the issuer’s legal authority, final approval, effective date, transitional rule or whether it is a draft.

Qualified answer: The document is not a current fee authority merely because its title and filename appear newer.

Adverse branch: A later authenticated instrument may validly replace 001/2018 even if it is not titled “Circular.” The content and legal authority, rather than the filename, control.

Remaining proof: Signed/final body and the official adoption/effective chain. C015–C016, C029–C032.

Workflow 2 — Generic registration condition expressly incorporates the guideline

Assumed facts A: A current generic condition states that a registered debt counsellor must comply with Guideline 001/2018, as amended or replaced.

Result: That would materially strengthen the guideline’s status as a registrant obligation, subject to the condition’s lawful imposition, exact wording, effective date, amendment treatment and applicability to the actor.

Assumed facts B: A condition merely says the registrant must comply with the NCA and conditions generally, without identifying fee guidance.

Result: It does not by itself prove incorporation of every amount and timing cell.

Private-remedy limit: Even express incorporation into a registration condition does not automatically answer whether a consumer has a direct refund action, whether the whole service agreement is void, or what remedy follows.

Remaining proof: Complete current generic conditions and the exact fee clause. C010–C016, C030, C033.

Workflow 3 — R1,500 quoted after an announced intention to withdraw

Assumed facts: A fee quotation relies on the 2018 table and 2021 media release; the adviser omits Circulars 05/06 and the 2024/25 annual report.

Classification:

• 2018 table: official NCR guideline amount.
• Circular 05: intention to withdraw.
• Circular 06: proposed amendment/comment process.
• 2021 release: later regulator communication still quoting the amount.
• 2024/25 annual report: still-later regulator practice treating charging reckless-lending fees as a contravention.

Qualified answer: The later practice evidence makes it unsafe to treat R1,500 as currently permitted. But P07 has not located the formal final withdrawal instrument or complete fee-related condition.

Adverse branch: If a final withdrawal circular or incorporated condition exists, it could provide a clearer operative date and transitional rule. If a later final instrument expressly reinstates a fee, it would require separate analysis.

Remaining proof: Final withdrawal/adoption body and operative transition. C023–C025, C032.

Workflow 4 — Refund demanded under the 2011 rule or Circular 06 proposal

Assumed facts: A consumer asserts a 100% restructuring-fee refund based on the 2011 60-business-day term or the similar wording in Circular 06; another party asserts the 75% historical withdrawal fee.

Classification:

• 2011 provisions: historical NCR guidance effective 1 August 2011.
• Circular 06 refund wording: proposed amendment invited for comment.
• Final 2018 table: did not itself display the historical standalone 75% cell.
• P07 search: did not establish final adoption of the Circular 06 refund.

Qualified answer: Neither historical/proposed provision is certified as a current 2026 entitlement or current charge.

Adverse branch: An actual service agreement, registration condition, later final guideline or other consumer-law remedy could independently create a right or obligation.

Remaining proof: Current final instrument and the actual contract/work chronology. C026–C028, C030.

No new numerical recalculation is offered because P07 found no new final numeric rule. The eight P05 examples remain dated illustrations of the 2018 guideline and are not converted into current price quotes.

Material authority/currentness crosswalk

Full source register — C_ZA-P07-S001 onward

All fresh P07 bodies were accessed 26 October 2026 PDT / 27 October 2026 UTC. Exact source-specific clock times are unknown.

Complete atomic claim/evidence register

Exact reviewed-gap reconciliation

Complete granular coverage register

Core coverage — G1

Core coverage — G2 fee categories

Core coverage — G3 source/currentness audit

Core coverage — G4 workflows

Core coverage — G5 reconciliation

Explicitly deferred families

Territorial register

Evidence-backed article and document opportunities

Self-check and actual row counts

Consistency self-check

• No P06 PDA fee or client-money conclusion was adopted.
• No 2019 debt-intervention search was rerun.
• Circular 01 is used to establish NCR administrative issuance, not Ministerial prescription.
• Current public posting is not equated with binding legal force.
• Annual-report enforcement practice is not equated with a private consumer remedy.
• R50 is not presented as a certified 2026 maximum.
• R1,500 is not presented as currently permitted.
• Circular 06 is not promoted from proposal to adopted refund rule.
• The 2011 75% withdrawal fee is not revived.
• The 2025 position paper is not called a final revision.
• Search and index failures are not converted into absence claims.
• No named registrant, provider, person, licence, borrower, property or case record was searched.
• No contact, request, complaint, application, filing, account change or publication occurred.
• No local or coordinator file was written.

Exact next primary-source question

Did the NCR or Minister, after Circular 10 of October 2025, issue a final approved debt-counselling fee guideline, Ministerial regulation under NCA §45(5)(c), circular, amendment or generic registration condition that expressly replaces or incorporates Guideline 001/2018—particularly the reckless-lending fee, the proposed 60-business-day refund, the application-fee inflation adjustment and any transitional rules—and what exact effective date and private/regulatory consequences does that final instrument state?

Final P07 disposition

• 001/2018 administrative adoption: answered.
• Ministerial statutory prescription of every cell: unresolved.
• Generic registration-condition incorporation: unresolved.
• Current public regulator treatment of guideline compliance: materially supported.
• Reckless-lending fee: later NCR practice treats charging as noncompliant; final formal withdrawal chain unresolved.
• 60-business-day refund and 75% withdrawal: not established as current.
• Application-fee 2026 maximum: unresolved.
• Post-2024 fee review: progressed but remained ongoing in October 2025; no final replacement established by the bounded current index review.
• Country/province/A097/A098 acceptance: held.

END C_ZA PASS-07