State of Bias and act of Mala fide from Standard Bank and NFOCSA

Bias resolution from the senior adjudicator of NFOmbuds Scheme SA on case GVDM/*** on the matter of the student loan . In my view is an act of Mala fide from the both the bank and the ombuds . Furthermore, undermining our constitutional rights in section 32(1) of the Costitution of the Republic of SA; Act 108 of 1996.Rights to access of our information and transparency . The resolution taken by the ombuds on my case against standard bank was bias and unacceptable .The NFOSSA was infaviour of the bank the fact that I was expected to further pay an alleged debt, in my view is a prescribed debt until evidance is provided in terms of the signed document of the student loan that was applicable from February 2016 to March 2017. The capital debt of R77600.00 and interst of R37065.00 was paid into the account to the sum of R115560.00 from the period of 7years February 2016 to December 2023; for the loan that was taken and applicable for one year. Failure to provide evidence of the signed agreement we have no business on the alleged debt since it was started that the signed document cannot be retrived from their archives due to the rentention period over 5,years period. The report of the ombuds stated that the bank have the unsigned documents of student loan of 2016 .This is not acceptable and *****ulent in my view .I would like the bank to clarify why my case was regarded not in favor of In- Duplum .How does the Rule work in their business with the client if the sum of R115560.00 was paid into the loan to cover the capital debt and the interest thereof .The documents cannot be retrieved from their archives as per report from their senior adjudicator . Furthermore, in the resolution taken by the bank senior adjudicator there is an elememt of bias and contradictions statement on the matter of my refund stated by the bank if I agree to pay the outstanding balance on monthly repayments of R2000.00 on monthly basis with no loan terms stated on the report. How do I pay the so called outstanding balance if the initial signed contract cannot be provided as a legal binding evidence.Currently there is no legal binding evidance from standard bank.The alleged outstanding balance as per report from the NFOSSA is a prescribed debt and must be written off , since there is no evidence proving my debt to Standard Bank..The bank must stop the harassment which is viewed as a state of mala fide. I am willing to prove my case in a court of law seeking for fairness and justice against standard bank .Enough is enough