FirstRand / Hammond Pole Attorneys – Rescinded High Court Judgment Yet Continuing Credit Listing and Financial Prejudice | Case No. 35922/2020 | Multiple Regulatory Complaints Now Active

I am posting this after multiple attempts to resolve the matter directly and privately with FirstRand Bank / FNB and Hammond Pole Attorneys over an extended period. A default judgment was previously obtained against me and subsequently rescinded by the High Court on 21 January 2026 through an unopposed rescission process initiated by the bank’s own attorneys. Despite the rescission of the judgment, adverse credit listing consequences have continued for months thereafter, resulting in ongoing financial and reputational prejudice. The unresolved position has required: • formal Section 72 National Credit Act disputes, • regulatory escalation, • Legal Practice Council engagement, • FSCA-related complaints, • and continued correspondence with the relevant parties. The matter concerns, among other things: • the obtaining and subsequent rescission of a default judgment, • continuing adverse credit bureau consequences after rescission, • repeated attempts to resolve the matter directly, • and ongoing prejudice affecting access to finance and normal financial activity. I have repeatedly attempted to resolve the matter constructively and commercially before posting publicly. Multiple written communications, settlement-oriented proposals, procedural correspondence, and regulatory escalation steps were undertaken prior to this post. The High Court record already contains extensive documentation and annexures relating to: • the rescission proceedings, • procedural correspondence, • disputed service issues, • continued adverse listing prejudice, • and the chronology of the matter. Relevant annexures and references already forming part of the broader record include: • Annexure M – written FNB correspondence regarding prescription and judgment concerns, • Annexure R – subsequent clarification correspondence from FNB Legal, • Annexure G – Ombud-related correspondence, • Annexure Q – issues relating to proof of service, • Annexures TC-2 to TC-8 – procedural filings and High Court correspondence. The continued unresolved listing position has caused ongoing prejudice, including difficulty obtaining finance and continued impairment of my credit profile despite the rescission of the judgment. Although Hammond Pole Attorneys only subsequently instructed Experian on 25 May 2026 to remove the adverse listing, the adverse listing nevertheless remained active for more than four months after the rescission order granted on 21 January 2026, with the resulting prejudice and adverse consequences continuing unabated as at the date of this publication. This is particularly concerning given that, on my version and according to the documentary record presently before the High Court, no adverse credit listing ought to have been recorded in the first instance following the disputed and subsequently rescinded default judgment granted during 2023.” This post is made in the public interest and for factual record purposes only, particularly given the prolonged procedural history and the ongoing prejudice that continues despite repeated attempts to resolve the matter directly. Regulatory / complaint references connected to this matter: • LPC Ref: 526/2026 • FSCA Ref: 1-351255 • Experian Ref: EXPERIAN-*** These references are included purely for factual and record purposes. Should any regulator, journalist, attorney, or similarly affected consumer require verification of the referenced documentation already placed on record, correspondence may be directed to: *** All disputes, allegations, and regulatory concerns referenced herein remain subject to applicable legal, regulatory, and judicial processes. I remain willing to engage constructively toward final resolution.