1 reviews | Active since Jul 2013
Standard Bank has no care for clients! Be ware clients/consumers!
To whom it may concern,
Standard bank has shown severe disloyalty to me as customer/client. I have been a client of theirs since primary school in the early 90's and my mother worked for Standard Bank for many years, winning them awards and bringing them closer to achieving greater customer service. But it has officially come to mind that all she did, and my years of loyalty and blindly accepting the fees and ******* have been futile. I begin illustrating the abovementioned in the following incidents.
Since 2016 I informed them of the co-bond holder not wanting to remove the debit order off of my account, as he was abusive and was trying various ways to get money out my family and I via various ******ing ways. I even went so far as to inform the bank of these severely disturbing personal issues with the co-bond holder so as to let them know there was a an extremely great possibility that he would manufacture various lies (as he continues to do) to justify his sick actions and that to ensure Standard Bank was to receive their monies for the bond each month that they remove the debit order off my account, and both parties would be able to pay their owed fund over as an account payment. I even sent the bank lawyers letters where this was stated to the co-bond holder, and Standard bank chose to ignore it. The co-bond holder "hi-jacked" the property in about 2016 and made sure I was not allowed on the property while he began renting out the property from the January (unrecorded income by the co-bond holder as he is very slimy when it comes to wanting and making money) onwards. I informed the bank thusly. Again, all my loyalty and informing them of such fell on deaf ears. Twice the co-owner and his parents claimed that a bond was being generated and that they were buying my half of the property occured. I have evidence thereto and to all my statements I am making. After his girlfriend at the time, acting on behalf of him as some kind of representative found out that one of the 3 persons (or whomever) had a judgement against them, I came up with the notion via research that in order to finally get rid of the co-owner and his abusive, malicious, lying ways, by stating that then an easysell mandate must be sought so that the property is registered as a distressed property to be sold. I forwarded all of these attorney letters and more to your company. Even the one where the co-owner's attorney stated that an easysell mandate is not necessary and the last resort, etc. My attorney at the time and I proceeded to request for the easy sell mandate and I filled it in. My attorney (who I never just "dropped" and is available to validate my claims) then sent the easysell mandate with my portion filled in to the co-bond owner's attorney. Without their knowledge, I sent Standard Bank this easysell mandate with my portion filled in too. The dates and statements I am making are available via the evidence I have maintained. Even though the co-bond holder and his attorney stated and maintained that they preferred the property to go on the open market and refused to follow through on the easysell mandate (my attorney sent various requests asking for a copy of the filled in mandate for our files) the said co-bond holder submitted this to your bank without even informing me nor sending me a copy. YOUR BANK NEVER SENT me a copy of the completed mandate to this very day. I suddenly only started receiving calls from property agents and Myroof to go do inspections at the property and I had no clue what was going on, and stated repeatedly that I do not have access to the property due to the co-bond holders "arrangements", to put it politely. I kept referring all these calls to my attorney, as during all of this, the co-bond owner continued his abusive tyranny to the point that I had to take him to court and face this malicious socio-path. Still, after we came to agreements in court regarding his conduct (NB: the cases were never thrown out nor ignored by the magistrates court) the debit order continued to go off my account and I kept informing Standard Bank of all the events and occurances. You have continued to ignore my requests, and have even gone so far as to make it impossible for me to open bond account statements as someone has made it so that the pdf's can only be opened using the "primary" bond account holders id number- that of my abusive, tyrranaical, malicious lying ex-boyfriend. Yet he has pocketed so much rental income and abused me financially, went of trips to Cape-Town and Switzerland to watch bands play, and I had to go into deficit on my credit card to try make ends meet, and pay legal fees to fight this person. I even informed your company about the financial abuse, as prior to 2015 I was always up to date with my credit card payments etc, and was totally debt free to your company. Yet admin fees and the debit order just continue to go off my account willy-nilly, and someone allowed for the co-bond holder to ensure that the debit order date was changed to try get funds out of my account, no matter what excuse or "pass-the-buck" method nor law/financial jargon is used, I believe this is still the case.
Your credit card division has never re-issued me with a credit card, and yet I get charged "card fees". If I somehow managed to get fund to make the card payment, all sorts of strange cash finance charges and strange jargon filled wording has been used to justify that the payment is used for other things, as opposed to trying to get myself out of debt created by a financially abusive relationship with a person who wanted things, and things and more things, and me to pay more and more and more- as this was the cycle of abuse with this sociopath.
I have requested on various occasions for the debit order that has been taken off to be reversed, as you have previously not assisted me, you are enabling an abuser who smacked, tackled and choked me (amongst various other violent and sick abuses). I am trying to get on with my life and try minimize the debt owed to the credit card, yet it appears you are in favour of working with the abuser to just get your monies for the bond. No matter what I have informed you of for approximately 3years now.
I have paid the legal insurance fees for over a decade, and not only are they difficult to get hold of (see hellopeter complaints and emails to Izinga sent in 2014/2015), but I was told on many occasions that they could only advise me telephonically about my hassles with the co-bond holder, and not represent me not take on my case (as my policy doesn't cover it blah blah blah, more excuses, more *******).
You charge me the most exhorbetant fees after the bond debit order goes off and my other items orders bounce. I have never ever heard of such insane fee amounts, and even charge me an admin fee when I literally don't have enough money and the bond debit order bounces.
I never get updates of policies or any information for the 2 insurances I took out with your company, and you encourage your staff to sell these policies in the hardest fashion possible, to ensure the sale is closed. But where are the updates of these policies? You are aware that South Africa's postal system is barely functioning, and the entire world has gone digital? What is my coverage? Is any of what I have been paying for still viable? In the timeframe from when these insurances have been taken out until now, your company has not done anything but take my money, and definitely make it hard to get any assistance whatsoever. Your company finds a way to legitimise shoddy and shady goings-on with fancy jargon, and some kind of "pseudo-law", whereby us consumers feel done-in and hopeless as your refuse to assist or do as we say. Yet we pay your salaries, in actual fact!
Part 1 end...
Thank you for posting a comment.
One of the consultants will be in contact with you regarding the issues at hand.
Regards,
Complaint Resolution Centre
***
***
Thank you for posting a comment.
One of the consultants will be in contact with you regarding the issues at hand.
Regards,
Complaint Resolution Centre
***
***
Nomsa Motshegare, NCR's chief executive, said yesterday (Monday) the ruling would result in consumers giving banks permission to transfer funds from savings accounts in order to honour credit debts.
“The NCR welcomes this judgment as it protects consumers from financial difficulties caused by the arbitrary transfer of funds from their accounts by banks”, said Motshegare.
Two years ago the NCR took Standard Bank to task for debiting accounts of customers without their permission based on a loophole in the application of the common law principle called set-off.
The NCR approached the court for a declaratory order to clarify whether Section 90 and 124 of the National Credit Act (NCA) rendered the common right of law set-off in was applicable in credit agreements.
The common law set-off principle permits the bank to debit money immediately from a client’s account as soon as there is money without authorisation and any amount the bank considers to be due to it.
“Banks should obtain permission from consumers before transferring funds from consumers’ accounts to pay amounts due under credit agreements”, Motshegare said.
Judge Raylene Keightley on Friday ruled that section 124 excludes the operation of the common law set-off in all credit agreements that are regulated by the NCA.
“While set-off provides a means by which the consumer/ debtor can avoid defaulting on her debt, there is no need why she should be excluded from the process. It seems to me to be precisely for this reason that section 124 preserves a system of set-off but requires the consent of the consumer before it can be affected,” said Keightley.
Standard Bank had opposed the NCR’s application arguing that if a credit agreement arguing that the set-off principle was important in the banking industry as it allowed it to recover the debt as soon as the creditor’s account was in its favour.
The South African Human Rights Commission was also a friend of the court in the case arguing that the set-off principle negatively impacted basic rights including socio-economic rights.
Cliff Johnson, the vice-chairman of the National Consumer Union (Sancu), which represents millions of consumers, said the ruling was very good news for consumers.
“It means that banks can no longer take money deposited into your account and use it to offset outstanding debt you might have on a credit agreement with the same bank, without your express permission," Johnson said.
Nomsa Motshegare, NCR's chief executive, said yesterday (Monday) the ruling would result in consumers giving banks permission to transfer funds from savings accounts in order to honour credit debts.
“The NCR welcomes this judgment as it protects consumers from financial difficulties caused by the arbitrary transfer of funds from their accounts by banks”, said Motshegare.
Two years ago the NCR took Standard Bank to task for debiting accounts of customers without their permission based on a loophole in the application of the common law principle called set-off.
The NCR approached the court for a declaratory order to clarify whether Section 90 and 124 of the National Credit Act (NCA) rendered the common right of law set-off in was applicable in credit agreements.
The common law set-off principle permits the bank to debit money immediately from a client’s account as soon as there is money without authorisation and any amount the bank considers to be due to it.
“Banks should obtain permission from consumers before transferring funds from consumers’ accounts to pay amounts due under credit agreements”, Motshegare said.
Judge Raylene Keightley on Friday ruled that section 124 excludes the operation of the common law set-off in all credit agreements that are regulated by the NCA.
“While set-off provides a means by which the consumer/ debtor can avoid defaulting on her debt, there is no need why she should be excluded from the process. It seems to me to be precisely for this reason that section 124 preserves a system of set-off but requires the consent of the consumer before it can be affected,” said Keightley.
Standard Bank had opposed the NCR’s application arguing that if a credit agreement arguing that the set-off principle was important in the banking industry as it allowed it to recover the debt as soon as the creditor’s account was in its favour.
The South African Human Rights Commission was also a friend of the court in the case arguing that the set-off principle negatively impacted basic rights including socio-economic rights.
Cliff Johnson, the vice-chairman of the National Consumer Union (Sancu), which represents millions of consumers, said the ruling was very good news for consumers.
“It means that banks can no longer take money deposited into your account and use it to offset outstanding debt you might have on a credit agreement with the same bank, without your express permission," Johnson said.
