I have been contacted by several people who have received a letter of demand from ex-ExCom member, Mr. Alan Hepple’s firm, Magnum Credit Consultants, demanding payment of arrear subscriptions supposedly due to the Marina da Gama Association. I don’t know how many of you actually received such a letter, but ExCom admitted that more than 50% of the Marina have not paid their subscriptions so I assume that there are many of you who have or will be receiving such a letter.
Personally, I have not received such a letter yet, but this is probably due to the fact that the Association knows that there is no way I will pay them and that they will have to take me to court and then prove, in court, that they are entitled to such monies. I am confident that they will be unable to do so.
What you do is up to you, but in the unlikely event that I should receive a letter of demand from Mr. Hepple, this is how I would reply to his letter of demand:
Dear Mr. Hepple
As an ex-ExCom member of the Marina Da Gama Association you are aware that the legitimacy of the constitution of the Association is in question. Thus far, ExCom has been unable to establish the validity of the constitution of this Association to any satisfaction and I therefore question the Association’s right to charge me any fees.
I therefore kindly ask you to supply me with adequate proof as to the Marina Da Gama Association’s right to demand any moneys from me. In this regard, I request the following documentation:
- The approved and signed Minutes of the Marina Da Gama Association’s Annual General Meeting where its constitution was approved and adopted by the members and
- proof that Cape Town City Council and/or Provincial Government ratified a copy of the Marina Da Gama Association’s constitution and
- a copy of such approved and ratified constitution and
- any other documentation whatsoever proving that this Association is indeed the Association referred to in my title deed.
In terms of the Debt Collectors Act of 1998 you may not make any fraudulent or misleading representations to me. Failing you producing any evidence to the contrary, I deny membership of or association with the Marina Da Gama Association or any indebtedness thereto.
Yours faithfully
Should you receive a letter of demand, these are the things you should know:
- By law, only an attorney or advocate is allowed to represent the Association in court. Collection agents are not qualified attorneys and may not represent them in court. This means that should Mr. Hepple collect debts on the Association’s behalf and attempts to recover any fees from you, he would be contravening the law.
- You cannot be blacklisted until judgement has been taken. For this to happen, summons has to be issued and judgement has to be taken against you by a court of law - a highly unlikely scenario, seeing that the Association has been unable to establish the validity of its constitution (in other words, they are unable to produce a valid contract which gives them the right to charge you anything.)
In my opinion, ExCom is only trying to scare people into paying the subscriptions and will not take the matter further. Should you however receive an actual summons, immediate action is necessary. I will be willing to help anyone in this position and will produce testimony and/or give information should the need arise. You can contact me at 082 3522 620
Anita Koetsier
1 user commented in " Letters of Demand "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackbacka member of Excom serves as debt collector for the association? uh hallo conflict of interest?
i have specifically requested details of related party payments - alas the mdga/excom refuse to comment.
we’re still denied access to the association’s records contrary to the mdga’s constitution (which you can now view in all its discriminatory glory on the mdga website). why?
the appointment of this debt collector, the related party relationship and its contractual terms & conditions should have been formally approved by members at an agm, and should have been reassessed at each subsequent agm as part of the budget process - with comparative quotes of course.
as for the subscription now being demanded of us, i didn’t receive the proposed amendments before the agm (after I’d requested this timeously) and the new subscription was approved without any budget.
excom maintained at the sahrc mediation session that subs are not intended for postage & stamps. so i ask with tears in my eyes why must i pay money to an association that can not or will not produce a detailed budget with full disclosure at the appropriate time and has little appreciation for the fact that postage & stamps is one of the MAIN reasons for raising subs?
why should i contribute to the mdga’s coffers when excom maintained at the same sahrc mediation that a mere 2/3’s constitutional vote is STILL all that is required to kick-start the exorbitant levies and marina-wide security scheme? a legal opinion holds that a reasonable interpretation of the preface page to its amended constitution is that 90% of ALL MEMBERS must VOTE in favour of any proposed levy/security scheme (take a look and see for yourself).
worried about being sued for subs? not at all.
concerned about an association that doesn’t understand and abide by it’s own constitution? absolutely.
Leave A Reply