Fais Ombud endorsed ******* selling of my shares

Good evening,

OMBUD endorsed ******* selling of my shares as ******* by PSG when they made a ruling against me today .I submitted the all the evidence.

The unauthorized sale of my shares by PSG, without my explicit consent, is a staggering breach of trust and fiduciary duty. Moreover, the Ombud's endor*****t of this action as lawful is deeply troubling and undermines the principles of investor protection.

This decision suggests a disturbing lapse in regulatory oversight and raises critical questions about the effectiveness of safeguards designed to prevent such abuses of power. The Ombud's ruling sets a worrying precedent, potentially exposing investors to unchecked exploitation and eroding confidence in the financial system.

I urge a comprehensive review of this decision, a thorough examination of the circumstances surrounding the unauthorized sale, and a clear explanation from the Ombud regarding their rationale for endorsing PSG's actions as lawful."

The Ombud's ruling against me is deeply flawed, as it relies on the erroneous claim that PSG was justified in selling my shares due to having my old email address on file. However, this reasoning is demonstrably false.

Contrary to PSG's assertions, I had, in fact, re-established contact with them as far back as 2019, when I explicitly inquired about my investment. PSG responded promptly by creating a PSG Jira Mailer, which was sent to my Gmail account. However, despite having my correct contact information on their system, PSG failed to follow up or maintain communication with me after this initial response.

This unequivocally demonstrates that PSG was in possession of my updated contact information well before the unauthorized sale of my shares in 2023/2024. The Ombud's failure to acknowledge this critical piece of evidence raises serious concerns about the fairness and impartiality of their decision-making process. I urge a thorough reappraisal of this ruling, taking into account the clear evidence of PSG's awareness of my updated contact details."

PSG's claim that they were unaware of my updated contact details is unequivocally disproven by their own systems and records. Specifically, the Jirah system, which is integral to PSG's operations, explicitly documents and confirms the update of my contact information.

Furthermore, I had taken proactive steps to ensure PSG had my correct details, and their records demonstrate that they indeed received and acknowledged this updated information. During INVESTIGATIONS, I submitted the screenshot as evidence

Consequently, when PSG sold my shares after 2024, they were undeniably in possession of my accurate and up-to-date contact details, including my email address and new cell phone number.

This irrefutable evidence directly contradicts PSG's assertions and underscores the need for a thorough re-examination of the circumstances surrounding the unauthorized sale of my shares.

Again, I have lost my case because PSG claims I was at their offices in 2015, I have never been at the offices of PSG and be in contact with their representatives , the communication has always been via email.

I chose a Non-discretionary account because I wanted to maintain control over my investments or have specific investment goals or strategies but today OMBUD ruled that I agreed that PSG sells my shares.By definition, a non-discretionary account prohibits PSG from executing trades or selling shares without my prior approval.

Clause 5.2 and Clause 6 The agreement I signed with PSG contains two relevant clauses. Clause 5.2 authorizes PSG to deduct management fees from my investment portfolio's cash balance or, if insufficient, from the sale of securities or units. However, this clause does not grant PSG unrestricted authority to sell my investments. In contrast, Clause 6, titled "PROHIBITION FROM SELLING OR BUYING CERTAIN INVESTMENTS," imposes restrictions on PSG's ability to sell or buy specific investments. This provision was implemented by PSG Wealth to prevent potential manipulation or *****, demonstrating their awareness of the need for safeguards. Again , ombud ignored clause 6 and made a ruling against me .

Crucially, my account with PSG was a Non-discretionary account, which explicitly meant that I, the account holder, retained full control over investment decisions. PSG's role was merely administrative, not advisory.

It is utterly astounding that PSG unilaterally sold my shares without my explicit consent, a brazen breach of trust and fiduciary duty. What's even more alarming is that the Ombud has inexplicably endorsed this egregious action as lawful.

This decision raises profound questions about the Ombud's interpretation of investor protection laws and the integrity of the financial regulatory framework. If PSG's actions are deemed legal, it sets a perilous precedent that undermines investor confidence and exposes vulnerable individuals to unchecked exploitation.

I demand a thorough reappraisal of this decision and a rigorous examination of the circumstances surrounding the unauthorized sale of my shares. The Ombud must provide a detailed justification for their ruling and clarify the measures in place to safeguard investors from similar abuses of power.

The Ombud's failure to consider the evidence in my case has resulted in a devastating loss: the value of R7,500 in shares that I held 14 years ago and worth millions. This is not only a significant financial loss but also a profound breach of trust.

The fundamental question is: where was the Ombud's duty of care to protect the interests of investors, as mandated by their role? The Ombud's inaction and neglect of evidence have, in effect, disenfranchised me of my rightful assets.

Is it fair that an investor, who has placed their trust in the system, is left to suffer the consequences of the Ombud's oversight? The answer is unequivocally no.

The Ombud's primary responsibility is to safeguard the interests of investors. In my case, they have fallen woefully short of this standard. I demand a re-examination of my case, with a thorough review of the evidence, to ensure that justice is served and the interests of investors are protected.