Pay back the wages.

<p>Hello,</p> <p> <br />The issue I am trying to resolve and find closure for is related to UIF payments.</p> <p><br />In April 2014, I received a single payment from the Department of Labour for the amount of R8175.12. Before I could use the benefits to pay rent, food and finding other employment, First National Bank deducted R4409.85 for penalties, bank fees, 3 months credit card payments (where a customer protection plan was in place), and to the most aggressive debtors. Thus deducting 50% of the benefits. See statement here.</p> <p>Before claiming I did some research and discovered the UIF Act which is the law for everything UIF related. In section 33 of the act, it states that the benefits paid out may not be attached, assigned or set of to debt. It also lists 2 exceptions where benefits may be reduced 1) Child support and 2) If funds were paid in error. This knowledge gave me the assurance that I would have the entire amount of R8175.12 to get myself re-employed, fed and have a place for my daughter to come and visit. However this was not the case. I contacted the bank to inform them of the error but FNB claims that it was me who authorised the deductions of 50% and told me I am no longer a client of FNB. Needles to say I was unable to finance the plan I came up with to live and re engage the workplace due to a 50% hole in my plan.</p> <p><br />I have documented correspondence with the bank, Department of Labour and Ombudsman but in 3 years I have received nothing that provides a comprehendible explanation for what happened. In most cases I have received nothing but an email saying that my mail had been received.</p> <p><br />All the research I have done clearly shows that the compulsory UIF benefits are paid out in a spirit of assistance with the goal of re-engaging the workplace. Section 33 of the act says so in normal english. I cannot imagine a single scenario where the actions of FNB actually benefits FNB. Surely if I was able to use the money to find another job FNB would stand a much better chance of recovering any debt I owe them. Instead what happened is FNB sold off the debt off to collection agencies which relentlessly call and demand payment. Leaving me in a situation where I am inundated with debt and no means to pay.</p> <p><br />I strongly believe that I am not the only person who has had UIF benefits deducted by FNB. There must be thousands of South Africans who are either not educated enough or unable to access the information on the internet to know the law laid out in the UIF Act. Even those that are educated and have access to information might have complained to FNB but gave up after FNB stonewalled them. Unemployed people do not have the financial means to hire lawyers, make phone calls or even travel to the Department of Labour. In my experience, every effort spent to resolve this issue has been a complete waste in 3 years. Another consideration is that this does not only affect unemployed people. It affects women on maternity leave, workers who have been injured and many more protected by the UIF Act.</p> <p><br />The government of South Africa goes through a lot of trouble to ensure that that the fund is administered, contributions are paid, workers are treated fairly, preventing ***** and they even ensure that the worker will 100% of funds by law. FNB prides itself by being the most tech savvy bank is SA. While they are able to use technology to flag an account as bad payer or blacklisted they seem to be helpless when it comes to creating a UIF status preventing the funds from being used for anything other than re-engaging the work place, even when a UI-2.8 form must be stamped and signed by the bank before the payment is made.</p> <p><br />The Department of Labour reported a savings of 33 million Rands in July 2006 when switching from conventional cash drop centres to electronic banking via the worker's bank account. So it seems fair that the Department of Labour should use some of its 175 million Rand surplus to tie up any loose ends to smooth over the new venture until it is compliant with the law laid out in section 33 of the UIF Act.</p> <p><br />FNB is without doubt in violation of section 33 of the UIF Act as can be seen in this cheque account statement. FNB’s technology could easily have a system where they digitally communicate with Labour each time a payment is made. This can be done when the worker takes the UI-2.8 form to be stamped by the bank. This way the FNB system would detect the code and flag it accordingly as they currently do with accounts flagged as slow payer or blacklisted.</p> <p><br />The last thing our country needs is more victims, more reason to believe banking elite conspiracies and more stories of *********** government departments failing the good people of South Africa. We can use this as an opportunity to grow as a country. As long as we all look at this situation as a way to improve then there is a positive way forward. That way we can all be heroes working together to solve a problem. However, in 3 years the Department of Labour and FNB have not even acknowledged the problem.</p>