Abstract
The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) came into full force in April 2011. An important corollary of this Act, and the National Credit Act 34 of 2005, is the obligation that consumer documents must be in plain language. It has long been debated whether it is possible to make legal documents available in plain language for lay consumption. The aim of this study is to investigate the successes and failures of the plain language project five years after the CPA became operational. This study relies on data collected through focus group interviews with bank employees in both language units and legal divisions. Findings indicate that, in general, both legal and language practitioners concur that legal documents can be simplified under certain conditions, although consensus has not been reached about the degree of simplification and the types of legal documents that can be simplified. Interviewees experience difficulty with the vagueness of the plain language obligation. Findings also show that legal practitioners are concerned about prejudicing the legal status of documents and are reluctant to deviate from traditional styles of drafting. According to the language practitioners interviewed, legal practitioners use this as an excuse to avoid plain language, and lack of clear enforcement measures for non-compliance results in window-dressing and paying lip service to the intent of the plain language obligation. Findings also reveal that the location of the language services unit in the institution has a marked effect on the successful implementation of plain language in the banking sector. Banks prefer a combination of approaches to plain language, but no testing is done on real consumers. Among others, poor coordination, outsourcing, lack of (ongoing) training, limited use of indigenous languages and the absence of dedicated plain language style guides impact success. Based on the findings of this study, a model for plain language in the financial services and other industries is proposed.
Highlights
A new era for language practice has been introduced in present-day South Africa with the promulgation of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA) and the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA)
The aim of this paper is to investigate the successes and failures of the plain language project in the banking sector in South Africa, five years after the http://spil.journals.ac.za implementation of the Consumer Protection Act of 2008 (CPA) in April 2011
In order to achieve the overall aim of this study, it is necessary to determine, among others (i) how major banks in South Africa interpret the definition; (ii) the specific approach they follow to ensure compliance; and (iii) what yardsticks, if any, they use to determine whether a document is in plain language. This qualitative study is directed by the following research question: Is it possible to make complex, legally binding bank documents available in plain language and if so, how can this be achieved? The ways in which three major South African banks approach the plain language directive are explored by focusing on three levels, from high level ideas to project in action in divisions within the institution: (i) macro processes and procedures on a regulatory level, relating to legislative requirements, compliance, and issues of interpretation, (ii) meso approaches on an institutional level, relating to policies, practices and workflow processes within the bank; and (iii) micro strategies on the language services level relating to specific editorial practices and translation issues
Summary
A new era for language practice has been introduced in present-day South Africa with the promulgation of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA) and the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA). The right to information in plain and understandable language is a basic right of consumers. Traditional styles of legal drafting result in texts that often exceed the processing capacity of lay readers, rendering such readers vulnerable. This creates a language-based problem “with a clear language component” (Webb and Kembo-Sure 2004: 3).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
