Saturday, October 13, 2012

How Nedbank uses underhand tactics to drive their point home

Because the events described are in all probability going to form part of litigation, some vagueness will be used to avoid compromising the matter. The event which gave rise to this was an agreement between Nedbank and another prominent bank in 2009 that resulted in Nedbank assuming the role of credit provider, as well as debt generator on my account.
When I discovered the collusion and demanded the mandate that Nedbank must have had from me, in order to transact on my account, my requests and demands went unanswered for 10 months, despite between 15 to 20 written requests and numerous fruitless telephone calls to various departments within the organization. 

Towards the end of this period, I received a summons (incomplete and incorrectly addressed) for the amount in dispute. I immediately forwarded said summons to my legal representative, and due to the highly contentious nature of the dispute, filed a motion to defend. Unknown to me at that point, was that Nedbank had already written the spurious “debt” off, but the reason for the summons was that they had in turn “sold” the debt to a bottom feeding collection agency.  Nedbank had also at the same time, very kindly listed me with Trans-Union ITC for “bad debt written off” in July of 2012.
Bear in mind, that there exists no reply to the requests for documentation repeatedly submitted to Nedbank, in fact, no correspondence whatsoever was ever received in reply. Neither form Nedbank, nor from their fellow colluders at a Major Bank, although the Major Bank knew full well of their part in the scam. I have e-mails on record to prove they were active participants in that. Bear in mind as well, that when Nedbank sold the debt on to the collection agency, they were no longer the owners of the original debt, and had no claim any longer as they had “written it off” but still saw fit to sell it on as part of probably a whole trache of other “written off debt”. No doubt the last acrimonious telephone conversation I had with a faceless manager at their credit card center was too much for them to handle and they decided that a blacklisting would put in me in my place.

Nedbank’s first proper reaction to all of my communication, came after I started posting about this issue on Twitter, it appears from their reaction that public scrutiny on a social media platform is something they wish to avoid. What I would have wanted was for them to have engaged with me ten months ago when this issue became pressing, and they started by sending me threatening SMS messages instead of replying to correspondence, which was not only delivered and opened, it was read and ignored. All credit to the people in charge of Nedbank’s Social media platforms for being able to respond in the time that they did, regrettably they were not able to reverse the ITC listing immediately, and toward the latter part of the day their input decreased dramatically, although I went to the extent of arranging drop-box facilities to allow them to review the extensive documents I have on the matter, as Nedbank’s mailboxes still have a 2Mb mail message limit when most mail systems today cater for 10 Mb. Banking hours after all are the subject of a certain degree of sanctity, it appears.

Despite the efforts to get documentation to them, and numerous unanswered telephone calls to ensure they had received the information, that matter remained unresolved on Friday and I remained, at least to the best of my knowledge, blacklisted for a “written off” allegedly bad debt.  In reality I remained a victim of an institution too arrogant to admit it was wrong.

So Nedbank, decided that the best way to cover up their errors was to act in a vindictive manner, by utilizing their access to Trans-Union ITC and blacklisting me. I am in the process of acquiring vendor accreditation with Trans-Union ITC to enable me to also blacklist individuals, the question is, will I use spurious reasons to do so?