FNB expects pensioner who is homeless to take them to court

I have been walking weekly (3 or more days of the week) with a number of homeless people based in Bellville. I have heard many stories over this time, but the story of Selina Neil is clearly showing how the system works against the weak and unportected.

I have been able to get the relevant information from FNB now at long last after they have given us the run around for almost three months. The customer opened a business account. Funds were credited in this account and then withdrawn again from an ATM mostly. Somoebody lodged a claim of ***** with FNB or another bank - I could not ascertain that fact. FNB subsequently blocked the account.

I visited the bank branch where the ***** Investigator asked the customer questions. He obviously was not getting the answers he was hoping for.

I have asked for a case number and details of the ***** case that was opened at the police station. The bank declined to provide that.

My position is that you are innocent until proven guilty. I understand the the legislation in SA supports the same principle.

The bank wants the customer to prove what the business services are/were that she rendered to the customers who paid money into her account. My contention is that it is a civll matter - if customers were or are unhappy about the services that was rendered or not rendered they need to follow the legal channels for that.

If they claim ***** (which claimants often do to put more pressure on the bank) then they should go to the police to lay a charge.

It is not the role of the bank to find a person "guilty" without presenting the evidence. If the evidence is clear (which I am sure it is not) then the bank need to proceed with a ******** case.

That brings me to the Constitution: The bank violated the Constitution in fhe following way: a) she was not informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer the charge b) to be presumed innocent c) unwillingness to address the person in her own language for her to understand the allegations d) to remain silent - the bank tried to force a confession! e) administrative action by the bank was not precedurally fair f) the branches refused her access to information to her accounts for years (since Sep 2018 until I became involved) - they claimed that only the ***** Department could do this. g) the bank furthermore discrimanated against her because of her age and her limited ability to understand the matters at hand and to express and assert herself. h) they tried to use her vulnerablity to force her into a "confession" of sorts.

This is what the last response is from the bank - "In absence of the answers from Ms Niel we will await a court order to act." Now this may be an adminstrative official overstepping the boundaries of his authority.

IF FNB on the other hand maintains this position then three things would need to happen: a) all pensioners (or people with assets or investments at the bank ) should withdraw all of their assets - the risk to leave your money their is just not worth the approach from the Bank. b) a court order must be obtained to force the bank to release the funds or to take further action c) parliament need to get the banking fraternity to report about the ways they are maintaing the Constitution in cases where they suspect "*****" - you cannot suspect ***** for three years and not get evidence together.

I personally will start to reduce my investments with FNB (luckily it is just a few rands) - but it is the pricniple that matters here.

It is a sad day when a big giant like FNB is forcing a destitute pensioner to take them to court or to "confess"!