NEDBANK IGNORE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CREDIT AMENDMENT ACT

POTENTIAL NEDBANK HOMELOAN CUSTOMERS – CONSIDER ANOTHER BANK ! My husband and I have numerous companies some is cash funds to our joint account and some have seperate bank accounts in one he was an agent for another company before and still does field service for them, while an agent this registered pty was a surety and intermediary for him to receive and pay over expences related to the principal under who's name he was trading which solely happened under their name and on their systems and for their debtors, and these pay overs including salaries was paid over, due to this my husband’s company do not have financial statements as it simply being an intermediary, however he has never taken direct withdrawals out of this account and like an employee has been receiving his pay via a payslip monthly showing his taxes, NETT pay and UIF- HE HAS ALWAYS HAD PAYSLIPS AND HE GAVE THE BANK THESE PAYSLIPS ALONG WITH HIS BANK STATEMENT SHOWING 1.8 MILLION RAND GOING THROUGH HIS ACCOUNT, OVER 6 MONTHS, YET THEY TURNED DOWN HIS APPLICATION AS SELF EMPLOYED - WANTING FINANCIALS. A BULLY TACTIC COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROVISIONS AND REGULATIONS OF THE CREDIT ACT. IS THE AIM OF THE CREDIT ACT NOT TO ENSURE THAT THE LOAN CAN BE AFFORDED? WHICH HE PROOFED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT HE CAN. According to the amendment to the credit act with the insertion of section 23A and the court case RULING of 2018 - Proof of income is sufficient in payslips and bank statements....we have given both and financial statements are only required WHERE THERE ARE NO PAYSLIPS. I quote out of the Credit Amendment act below: (Provisions which they simply ignore - take note of the contexts of the words "payslip" and "or" being used):

“CRITERIA TO CONDUCT AFFORDABILITY ASSESSMENT APPLICATION (3)A credit provider must take practicable steps to assess the consumer or joint consumer's discretionary income to determine whether the consumer has the financial means and prospects to pay the proposed credit installments (4)A credit provider must take practicable steps to validate gross income, in relation to:

-(a)consumers that receive a salary from an employer: -latest three(3) payslips; or -(ii)latest bank statements showing latest three(3) salary deposits;

-(b)consumers that do not receive a salary as contemplated in (a) above by requiring: -latest three(3) documented proof of income; or -latest three(3) months bank statements;

-(c)consumers that are self-employed, informally employed or employed in a way through which they do not receive a payslip or proof of income as contemplated in (a) or (b) above by requiring: -latest three (3) months bank statements; or -latest financial statements.”

THE ABOVE CLEARLY STATES THE WORDS "OR" AT SELF EMPLOYED - WHAT IS NOT RIGHT IS THAT MY HUSBAND RECEIVES PAYSLIPS AND PAYS TAXES AND SHOULD NOT BE UNFAIRLY PENALISED AND SCRUTINISED AS IT CLEARLY STATES IN (C) ABOVE THAT IT IS ONLY APPLICABLE IN CASES WHERE HE DOES NOT RECEIVE PAYSLIPS - HE GETS A MONTHLY SALARY AND THE BANK STATEMENTS WE GAVE THEM SHOWS THIS PLUS THE WORDS "OR" REFERS TO A CHOICE OF EITHER AND WE HAVE COMP**** ANYWAYS WITH BOTH PAYSLIPS AND BANK STATEMENT. FURTHERMORE HIS BANK STATEMENT SHOWS R1.8 MILLION RAND GOING THROUGH HIS ACCOUNT IN 6 MONTHS, SURELY THIS IS SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT HE CAN AFFORD TO PAY A HOMELOAN OFF AT R10 000PM? THE CREDIT REGULATIONS WAS FURTHER AMENDED IN 2018 BY A COURT RULING WHICH THE BANKS JUST PLAINLY IGNORE. IT FUTHERMORE WAS A JOINT APPLICATION ON TOP OF ALL OF THIS HE HAS 3 X BUSINESSES REGISTERED IN THIS NAME 2 OF THEM THE INCOME GOES INTO HIS ACCOUNT THE THIRD TO A 2ND AND WHAT IS VERY UNFAIR IS THAT I HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR HIM AS AN EMPLOYEE AND HIS FINANCIAL MANAGER - WITH ME NOT AS A DIRECTOR OR ANY OWNERSHIP IN HIS COMPANY AND I AM GETTING A PAYSLIP AS EMPLOYEE AND PROVED MY INCOME GOES INTO A BANK ACCOUNT TOO - THEY HAVE NOW CLASSIFIED ME AS AN OWNER AND SELF EMPLOYED TOO! BESIDES THIS WE RECEIVE RENT AND I HAVE A SMALL AFTER HOUR HOME SERVICE I PROVIDE, THIS INCOME IS PURELY JUST IGNORED AND TO STATE DUE TO HIM I AM SELF EMPLOYED WHEN I AM NOT A DIRECTOR IN HIS COMPANY AND I AM NOT EVEN MARRIED TO HIM IN COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY. THIS IS JUST PLAIN AND SIMPLY VICTIMISATION / ************** AND EXCESS SCRUTINY BEYOND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CREDIT ACT REGULATIONS OR THE NEW COURT ORDER RULING. THEY ARE GOING BEYOND THE NEED TO JUST PROVING AFFORDABILITY. WE NEED THIS MATTER LOOKED INTO AS THIS WILL BE SEND TO THE BANKING OMBUD.