Category: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTHERN AFRICA LIMITED

FIRSTRAND BANK LTD and RIVASH BASANTH

FIRSTRAND BANK LTD (formerly known as FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SA LTD), Plaintiff, and RIVASH BASANTH, First Defendant, and NIESHIE BASANTH, Second Defendant – NOTICE OF SALE

FNBLogo(The sale shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the High Court Act, No. 59 of 1959 and the Consumer Protection Act No. 68 of 2008 and the Rules promulgated thereunder) Description of property and particulars of sale:

The property which, will be put up to auction on the 12th day of December 2014 at 10h00, at the Sheriff’s Office, Inanda Area 1, Ground Floor, 18 Groom Street, Verulam, consists of:

Certain: Erf 1473, Shastri Park, Registration Division FU, Province of KwaZulu-Natal, in extent 574 (five hundred and seventy four) square metres, held by Deed of Transfer No. T15246/07, subject to the conditions therein contained and subject to the restraints against free alienation, situated at 197 Palmview Drive, Shastri Park, Phoenix. The property is zoned: Residential. Improvements: The following information is furnished, but not guaranteed: The property is improved, without anything warranted by a single storey dwelling, consisting of a main dwelling with 1 lounge, 1 dining room, 1 kitchen, 3 bedrooms, 1 shower, 1 wc, 1 verandah. Nothing in this regard is guaranteed and the property is sold voetstoots. The sale shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the High Court Act and the Rules made thereunder and to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 and the Regulations published thereunder in the Government Gazette No. 34180, published on the 1st April 2011, Regulation No. 293, whereof a copy can be obtained at www.greengazette.co.za. The Purchaser (other than the Execution Creditor) shall pay a deposit of 10% of the purchase price in cash at the time of the
sale. The full conditions of sale and the rules of auction may be inspected at the offices of the Sheriff, Inanda Area 1, 1st Floor, 18 Groom Street, Verulam.
Take further notice that:
1. This sale is a sale in execution pursuant to a judgment obtained in the above Court.
2. The Rules of Auction are available 24 hours before the auction at the office of the Sheriff Inanda Area 1, 1st Floor, 18 Groom Street, Verulam.
3. Registration as a buyer is a pre-requisite subject to the conditions, inter alia:
(a) Directive of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008;
(b) FICA—legislation i.r.o. proof of identity and address particulars;
(c) Payment of a registration fee of R10 000,00 in cash;
(d) Registration conditions.
The Office of the Sheriff, Inanda Area 1 will conduct the sale with either one of the following Auctioneers, Mr T. Rajkumar and/or Mr M. Chetty and/or Mr R. Narayan and/or Mr S. Singh and/or Mrs R. Pillay. Advertising costs at current publication rates and sale costs according to Court Rules apply.
Dated at Durban on this 11th day of November 2014.
Woodhead Bigby Inc. (Ref: SB/BC/15F4680A7.)

FIRSTRAND BANK LTD and GREGORY DEANE SPILLER

FIRSTRAND BANK LTD, Judgment Creditor, and GREGORY DEANE SPILLER, Judgment Debtor – NOTICE OF SALE IN EXECUTION

FNBLogoIn execution of a judgment of the High Court of South Africa (KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg) in the abovementioned suit, a sale without reserve will be held at 17A Mgazi Avenue, Umtentweni, on 15 December 2014 at 10h00, of the undermentioned property of the Execution Debtor on the conditions which may be inspected at Sheriff’s Office, 17A Mgazi Avenue, Umtentweni, prior to the sale. Certain: Erf 516, Margate Extension 1 Township, Registration Division ET, Province of KwaZulu-Natal, being 22 Valley Road, Margate Extension 1, measuring 2 225 (two thousand two hundred and twenty-five) square metres, held under Deed of Transfer No. T028718/2007.
The following information is furnished re the improvements, though in this respect nothing is guaranteed and no warranties are given in respect thereof. It is the buyers’ responsibility to verify what is contained herein. Main building: Vacant stand. The sale shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the High Court and the Rules made thereunder and the Purchaser (other than the Execution Creditor) shall pay a deposit of 10% of the purchase price and auctioneer’s commission plus VAT thereon in cash by bank-guaranteed cheque or via EFT at the time of the sale. The full conditions of sale may be inspected at
the offices of the Sheriff of the High Court, Port Shepstone at 17A Mgazi Avenue, Umtentweni.
Take further notice that:
1. This sale is a sale in execution pursuant to a judgment obtained in the above Court on 24-02-2014.
2. The Rules of this Auction are available 24 hours before the auction at the office of the Sheriff, Port Shepstone at 17A Mgazi Avenue, Umtentweni, during office hours.
3. Registration as a buyer is a pre-requisite subject to conditions, inter alia (Registration will close at 10:00 am):
(a) In accordance to the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (http://www.info.gov.za/view/downloadfileAction?id=99961);
(b) FICA—legislation i.r.o. proof of identity and address;
(c) Payment of a registration fee of R10 000,00 in cash;
(d) Registration conditions.
(e) Special conditions of sale available for viewing at the Sheriff’s Office, 17A Mgazi Avenue, Umtentweni.
(f) Advertising costs at current publication rate and sale costs accordant to Court Rules, apply.
Dated at Boksburg on 11 November 2014.

Angry client blasts FNB with banner

Angry client blasts FNB with banner
Angry client blasts FNB with banner

The banner, with the FNB slogan changed, reads: “In the interest of the public, FNB slogan sucks.

When FNB stole, lied, in high Court and committed fraud, I asked for help…No help given!

Dubbed the rotten bank, Niemand tells his experience of “bad service” he received at FNB.

“How Can We Help you?” Not in my case. Not the FNB Care Hotline, not the CEO of Home Loans, Jan Kleynhans and not the CEO of FNB, Michael Jordaan at any time during my nightmare dealings with FNB, lived up to the ‘so-called’ promise relayed to the public in all their advertising campaigns.

The disgruntled Niemand claims this is a personal vendetta against him by FNB institution.

“I own various properties in the Johannesburg area, bonded by FNB and which are all rented out. One very specific property in Brixton and FNB’s dealings with me with regards to this property, has been the cause of my now deteriorating health, financial insecurity and total loss of trust in this financial institution,” said Niemand.

“My property was sold on auction on the 10th December 2009 for an amount of R272 000. This whilst I had an offer of R735 000 and the purchaser had provided proof to FNB of the availability of his funds.

This caused me severe financial stress. I had bargained on the approximately R500 000 that I would receive from the proceeds to sort out my life and make sure all my other bond payments on the other properties are up to date, added Niemand.

http://rottenbank.co.za

http://citizen.co.za/273823/angry-fnb-client-posts-scathing-banner/

Beware of angry consumers – http://youtu.be/NvByeDG2ohY

First National Bank – racist bond rates

FNBLogo

Are principles really necessary if one wishes to lead a good and stress-free life? Jo Maxwell, a long-time reader posed the question in nose148. She went on to relate how one of her early principles had come about through the shenanigans of the lotto board, which held on to the money as if it were glued to their fingers – and managed to distribute millions to a wellknown sports club, while those feeding the hungry were left to find other means of keeping people from starving.

“I swore I’d never buy another lotto ticket.  And I have stuck to that principle,” she said.

At one stage she thought to change her bank, but then found – through Noseweek – that every bank, perhaps not Capitec, is ripping us off, so decided one devil is as bad as the next. “Hard to make an on-principle choice when there are no choices,” she quite rightly observed.

More recently, having just read in nose147 how Coca-Cola screwed a much smaller guy and left him penniless, she decided not to allow another sip of Coke past her lips. (Although she did admit this was not too difficult as she hardly drinks Coke, Appletiser or Valpré.)

Oh, and she doesn’t fill her car with fracking Shell.

She concluded with a plea: “Please, Noseweek, keep me on my toes. I’d hate to miss out on making more on-principle choices.”

Jo Maxwell has put her finger on something – something peculiar about Noseweek and most of its readers: we hang on, for dear life, to our freedom – our right to choose. And we believe the good life, the life well led is, ultimately, a life of principle.

We choose not to eat dogs. On principle: dogs are man’s best friend.

We won’t eat meat culled from cruelly confined and abused chickens and pigs. Goodbye KFC. (I have received more emails from readers alerting me to that grotesque video on YouTube about the cruel culling of egg-laying hens than on any subject under the sun, ever.)

We choose not to buy or use products that have been tested on rabbits and dogs in cruel and bizarre pseudo-scientific “trials” devised by sadists.

We won’t buy ginger beer and “traditional” drinks from Woolworths because they stole the idea from the legitimate originator, a small guy like most of us. (To their credit, Woolies got the message and have stopped production.)

We don’t tolerate liars and cheats. Or pompous old farts. On principle. We have at least one good laugh a day – on principle.

Which brings us back to the subject of which bank to choose; we have recently found serious reason to reconsider our position on that one. Until now we’ve rated one pretty much as bad as the other – you may have noticed, they all choose not to advertise in Noseweek – making our reasons for choosing or staying with one rather than another all fairly arbitrary. Mostly its “now we’re there, we may as well stay.”

In our case it’s been FNB since the day we started up in 1993. In all that time we have had no serious reason to complain. On the news front we have had huge fights culminating in a showdown in the high court. But then we have had equally damning things to report about the business ethics of Investec, Nedbank, Standard Wank and Absa. Until now, not much for choice. They all steal, lie, cook the books and abuse their financial power and controlling grip on the legal profession. But there is one sin that you dare not commit in South Africa: you dare not be racist. The wounds are too raw, too deep; the issue too dangerous.

FNB, as hard as it is to believe, has remained racist on at least one front. It has actually set up it’s systems to steal – consistently – more from its black bond clients than it dares steal from its white bond clients.

FNB lied from day one about the position of the 80 000 bond clients it took over from Saambou. That, Noseweek readers have known almost from day one. We told you all about it in August 2002.  Saambou had for years been charging their bond clients an illegally inflated interest rate, and been calculating the interest in an illegal manner, resulting in all these accounts reflecting hugely inflated outstanding balances.

FNB has for the past 10 years failed to rectify the position, regularly proceeding to seize clients’ homes and sell them in execution, based on false outstanding balances – which they know to be false – when, as often, the client has in fact long paid off his or her loan and it is the bank that owes the client tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of rands. That part of the scandal we knew. (Everyone knows it. The government knows it. Even the courts know it: on 28 January in the High Court in Pretoria yet another FNB sale in execution was stopped on the basis of the bank’s fraudulent interest calculation. This was the 179th such case. On each occasion FNB was forced to withdraw. But still it carries on, presumably because enough clients are too uninformed to know that they have been robbed by a bank and don’t resist when the sheriff arrives. And for all those years that he was the responsible minister Trevor Manuel never cared – presumably because most Saambou clients were white Afrikaners, or so we thought.

What we did not know is that the victims are almost exclusively black – as in black-black. And that they have been deliberately targeted with illegally inflated interest rates that are substantially higher than the rates the bank charged its white bond clients. Which puts a whole new colour on Trevor Manuel’s neglect.

Look at the two graphs above: the one on the right, a white client, is charged an interest rate very close to the prime bank rate, which is regularly adjusted up or down in tandem with the Reserve Bank’s repo rate. The one on the left, a black client, signs up at a rate much the same as his white compatriot, but very soon the bank secretly starts upping the rate above the rate it charges white clients. When the repo rate drops, it reduces the rate it charges black clients later and by less, exploiting the opportunity to open the gap even more.

In this particular case, the black client ended up paying R150 000 more than he should have paid. Proof that the racial discrimination is deliberate is found when the Saambou/FNB bond accounts are examined by suburb. An analysis of the bond accounts of over 2 000 white clients in four Pretoria suburbs with a similar number in four of the city’s black townships in 2002, shows that black clients were charged on average 2.5 percentage points more than white clients. In Monument Park, Pretoria, an overwhelmingly white suburb, most clients were charged between 13.5% and 15%. But the two obviously black clients living there, a Mr Phoshoko and a Mr Sibeko were charged 16.5%.

The decision to target black clients with an illegally inflated interest rate was taken in December 1993. Even when Saambou was under curatorship instituted by the Reserve Bank, the practice persisted: white clients paid 5% above prime, black clients were charged 6.5% above prime in March 1992. The gap was further widened in August 2004. By these devious means, the bank managed to up the bond clients’ debt by as much as 32%. The suffering they have inflicted on innumerable households is immeasurable.

FNB has to date refused to rectify the matter. The total amount it owes the 80 000 bond clients it acquired from Saambou could total billions. Most of it is owed to its black clients.

We are putting FNB on notice: unless it comes clean and declares its willingness to voluntarily rectify this outrageous wrong before our next issue goes to press, we will be closing all our FNB accounts, and inviting our readers to do the same. We have a choice and we intend exercising it.

http://www.noseweek.co.za/article/2691/Dear-Reader-FNBs-racist-bond-rates

Thwala and Another v First National Bank Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, NORTH GAUTENG DIVISION

HELD AT PRETORIA

CASE NO. 28787/12

NOT REPORTABLE

NOT OF IMPORTANCE TO OTHER JUDGES

DATE: 11 DECEMBER 2013

In the matter between:

DELPHIN LOUISA THWALA……………………………………………………………………………………….First Applicant

GODFREY THWALA……………………………………………………………………………………………..Second Applicant

and

FIRST NATIONAL BANK LIMITED…………………………………………………………………………..First Respondent

LUCAS MOLOBELE…………………………………………………………………………………………..Second Respondent

RACHEL PINKIE BODIBE……………………………………………………………………………………..Third Respondent

THE SHERIFF OF SOWETO WEST……………………………………………………………………….Fourth Respondent

JUDGMENT

A VAN NIEKERK AJ

Introduction

[1] The applicants reside at 1[…] K[…] Rd, M[…] E[…], S[…], also known as Erf […], M[…] T[…]. Their home (‘the property’) was sold in execution in April 2010. In these proceedings, they seek an order declaring the saie in execution to have been null and void, alternatively, rescinding and setting aside the default judgment on which the sale was based. The judgment was granted by registrar of this court on 16 July 2003, almost seven years prior to the sale.

[2] The application is opposed by the first respondent (‘FNB’). The third respondent filed what is termed an ‘opposing affidavit’ but appears to have taken no further steps to prosecute her interests in the matter.

[3] Given that the default judgment was granted in 2003, it predates the protections conferred by measures such as the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 and the amended Ruie 46(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court, where residential property is sought to be declared executable.

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2013/514.html

Court case between Nkata v Firstrand Bank Limited ZAWCHC 1

courtcase

Download complete PDF document.

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2014/1.html

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT

Case No: 14272/2010

DATE: 16 JANUARY 2014

In the matter between:

NOMSA NKATA……………………………………………………………………………………………APPLICANT
And
FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED……………………………………………………..FIRST RESPONDENT

SHERIFF IN THE DISTRICT OF DURBANVILLE…………………SECOND RESPONDENT

KRAAIFONTEIN PROPERTIES / EIENDOMME………………………..THIRD RESPONDENT

WESTERN CAPE DEEDS OFFICE……………………………………….FOURTH RESPONDENT

Coram: ROGERS J

Heard: 21 October 2013

Delivered: 16 JANUARY 2014

JUDGMENT

ROGERS J:

Introduction

[1] This is an application for the rescission of a default judgment granted against the applicant (‘Nkata’) by the registrar of this court on 28 September 2010. Judgment was thereby granted against Nkata in favour of the respondent in the present proceedings (‘FRB’) for payment of R1 472 506,89 together with interest from 1 June 2010 to date of payment, allegedly owing to FRB in terms of a mortgage loan agreement secured by a mortgage bond over Erf 8832 Durbanville situated at 3[…] V[…] D[…] Street in Durbanville (‘the property’). An order was also granted declaring the property to be executable for the amount of the judgment.

[2] Nkata seeks not only the rescission of the default judgment but also the setting aside of the writ of attachment issued by the registrar on 28 September 2010 and an order declaring the sale of the property in execution on 24 April 2013 to the third respondent (‘Kraaifontein Properties’) to be invalid. An interdict to restrain transfer of the property by the sheriff to Kraaifontein Properties was resolved by an undertaking pending judgment.

[3] The factual background to the matter is as follows. Nkata purchased the property in March 2005. The property was at that time undeveloped. Nkata obtained mortgage finance from FRB which resulted in the registration of a first bond in June 2005 and a second bond in May 2006. Nkata built a home on the property and took up occupation there with her two daughters during 2007. In the first bond Nkata chose the mortgaged property as her domicilium citandi et executandi. In the second bond she chose as her domicilium C/04 D[…] H[…], Rondebosch. This was the flat at which she was residing prior to the completion of the house she was building at the Durbanville property.

[4] During 2010 Nkata fell into arrears with her mortgage bond repayments. There were numerous telephone calls to her about this from the bank over the period March to November 2010. On 1 June 2010 FRB’s attorneys, Cohen Shevel Fourie (‘CSF’), in the person of Mr TO Price (‘Price’), addressed a letter to Nkata in terms of s 129(1) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (‘the Act’). This letter was addressed to 2[…] V[…] D[…] Street (not 35 V[…] Doux Street, the address selected in the first mortgage bond). On 4 June 2010 a further s 129(1) was addressed to Nkata at ‘c/o 4 D[…] H[…]’ in Rondebosch (not C/04 D[…] H[…], the address selected in the second mortgage bond). Neither of these letters reached Nkata. The second was retrieved CSF on 14 June 2010 as an uncollected item.

[5] FRB issued summons on 5 July 2010. The summons alleged that her chosen domicilium was 35 V[…] D[…] Street in Durbanville. The summons alleged compliance with s 129(1)(a), annexing in purported proof of that allegation a copy of the notice sent to the Rondebosch address. On 9 July 2010 the sheriff attempted service at ‘4 D[…] H[…]’ in Rondebosch. His return indicated that service at that address was unsuccessful because there was a block of flats there called Exmoore Court. FRB’s attorneys were requested to supply the unit number. On 27 July 2010 the sheriff effected service at the Durbanville address by affixing a copy of the summons to the outer or main door.
[6] Nkata did not enter appearance to defend. On 4 August 2010 she approached a debt counsellor, and on 20 August 2010 she made an application for debt review. FRB alleges that she probably took these steps because she had received the summons. Nkata denied having received the summons.

[7] As already mentioned, default judgment was granted by the registrar on 28 September 2010. A writ authorising the sheriff to attach and take the property into execution was issued on the same day. (The judgment of the Constitutional Court in Gundwana v Steko Development & Others 2011 (3) SA 608 (CC), in which it was held that rule 31(5)(b) was invalid to the extent that it permitted the registrar (rather than a court) to declare a person’s home executable, was only delivered on 11 April 2011.)

[8] According to Nkata, she only learnt of the judgment when she received a telephone call from an FRB employee in the first half of October 2010 informing her that the property was to be sold in execution. The sale was scheduled for 10 December 2010. On 13 October 2010 her then attorneys, Ahmen & Hamman Attorneys (‘AHA’), emailed FRB urgently requesting a copy of the summons and judgment. On 19 November 2010 Nkata, through the offices of AHA, issued a rescission application (‘the first application’). FRB delivered a notice of opposition, and answering and replying affidavits were filed. The matter was to have served before the duty judge on 10 December 2010. The application was postponed because the parties were discussing settlement. On the same day the first application was settled in terms contained in a draft order. The agreement was that the sale in execution of the property (scheduled for that very day) was cancelled. Nkata undertook to sign FRB’s standard Quicksell mandate. She agreed that while the mandate was in place she would pay monthly instalments of R10 000. If the property was not successfully sold pursuant to the Quicksell mandate, Nkata was to pay the full arrears to FRB within 14 days of such expiry. If she failed to do so, FRB would be entitled to proceed to sell the property in execution forthwith. If she did pay the full arrears, FRB agreed not to sell the property but Nkata was obliged to resume payment of the full monthly instalment. Nkata was to pay the wasted costs of the cancelled sale and was also to pay the costs of the rescission application ‘as taxed or agreed’.

[9] It was envisaged that this settlement agreement would be made an order of court. Nkata during March 2011 applied through the chamber book to have the settlement made an order of court but the duty judge declined to make an order, observing that the papers were incomplete and confusing and that there would need to be notice to FRB. Neither Nkata nor FRB took further steps to have the settlement made an order. Be that as it may, the property was not sold pursuant to the Quicksell mandate. Instead, and during March 2011, Nkata paid a lump sum of R87 500 which extinguished her arrears, and she resumed monthly payments. It appears that over the next 12 months she again fell into arrears but brought the account up to date in March 2012.

[10] In April 2012, shortly after extinguishing the arrears for the second time, Nkata asked FRB to agree to the rescission of the default judgment because the judgment was negatively affecting her credit record. FRB refused to agree. In May 2012 Nkata told FRB that she was battling to meet her monthly instalments. After visiting the Durbanville branch of the bank, she submitted a distressed debt application but the bank rejected the application, stating that the matter was under litigation. (The bank’s internal records note, against the date 5 June 2012, that although Nkata’s account was up to date, this was ‘after years in arrears’, that the bank had a judgment and that there was no justification for acceding to the distressed debt application ‘with this lack of financial behaviour’.)

[11] Nkata then approached another debt counsellor, Johan Wepener. The latter was informed by FRB on 19 October 2012 that the mortgage loan was excluded from any debt review because it was ‘under litigation’. On Wepener’s advice, Nkata in December 2012 submitted a fresh distressed debt application but this was again rejected by the bank.

[12] Despite her financial difficulty, Nkata continue to pay the contractual instalments until February 2013, when she again fell into arrears. FRB then caused the property to be sold in execution, which sale was scheduled for 24 April 2013. According to the bank, its staff contacted Nkata on numerous occasions over the period February to April 2013 in an attempt to arrange for payment by her of the arrears. The bank alleges that she made promises which she did not keep.

[13] The sale in execution took place on 24 April 2013. The property was sold to Kraaifontein Properties for R1,086 million. According to the bank’s records, her full debt as at 5 April 2013 was about R1 392 028, with the arrears being R33 716 (approximately three months’ instalments). Kraaifontein Properties purchased the property with a view to renovating and re-selling it. They immediately erected a for-sale sign at the property. On the day following the sale in execution (25 April 2013) Nkata signed a monthly lease with Kraaifontein Properties to allow her to remain in occupation pending the re-sale. According to Kraaifontein Properties, Nkata agreed that they could arrange show houses. They started renovations immediately, which were completed in May 2013. According to them, Nkata did not say that she intended to seek rescission. On 2 May 2013 Kraaifontein Properties on-sold the property but registration has by agreement been suspended pending the outcome of the present application.

[14] On 3 May 2013 Nkata paid her first month’s rent to Kraaifontein Properties. She failed to pay rent in June and July 2013.

[15] The present rescission application (the second such application) was issued on 13 May 2013. FRB and Kraaifontein Properties oppose the application. They were both represented at the hearing by Mr D van Reenen. Ms Dzai appeared for Nkata.

© 2020: Problem Bond | South Africa, All Rights Reserved | D5 Business Line Theme by: D5 Creation | Powered by: WordPress