We believe that the banks have been avoiding answering these questions at all costs because it may directly implicate them in ongoing deceitful activity and possibly may even incriminate them in fraudulent activity that runs into the TRILLIONS of Rands worth of extortion and fraud perpetrated against the South African people.
Below is the email and list of questions that was sent to the following bodies and ministers today - 12th September 2012. We have allowed them 14 days to answer.
Minister of Justice; Minister of Finance; Ombudsman For Banking Services; National Credit Regulator; Banking Association SA.
Mike Van Niekerk - Ubuntu Party
Re: COMPLAINT WITH REGARDS TO JURISDICTION OF BANKS WHEN DEBT IS SECURITISED
Dear Mr Conradie (Office of The Bank Ombudsman)
I write to you on behalf of the UBUNTU Party, a newly formed South African political party that has part of its mandate to help liberate South Africans from the ever-growing financial hardships. It is in the interest of the greater public that we require your urgent response to the matter and questions below. Since this is a public matter of the highest order that affects every homeowner, this communication will be made public via the media in anticipation of your response.
It has come to our attention that during the process of securitisation the banks have sold their rights as creditor, therefore it cannot in accordance with current legislation demand, collect and institute civil proceedings against their debtors. Furthermore the South African Reserve Bank does not purport to control nor administer the processes of securitisation by the banks.
Irrespective of the above standing the banks however continue to ‘act’ as creditor in violation of section 78(1)(g) of the Bank Act, 94 of 1990 by not giving notice to the debtor that its asset (debt) has been sold on to a third party, and that the bank now acts as agent, intermediary or other legal entity, other than a bank. Given the seriousness of these findings and the devastating effect it has had on the people of South Africa, we urge you, as a matter of urgency, to answer with absolute clarity the following questions:
- Since the banks do not have locus standi or right to institute pre-legal or legal action against its debtors under the conditions mentioned above, why are the actions by the banks to persist in acting as creditor not guided or regulated by yourselves?
- In relation to the above, what steps has your organisation/department taken to curb, interject or assist the public to determine whom the debt belongs to after a securitisation process?
- Furthermore, if a bank places a default debt onto a credit bureau list, it is doing so without the proper legal authority to do so. Why has this not been brought to the attention of the different credit bureaus?
- What steps have you engaged in or taken to bring the public’s attention to the aforementioned aspect?
- What, if any, proposed steps should be taken to correct infringements like credit reports, judgments and current actions pending before courts, by banks without the legal right to do so?
- What steps are you going to take to bring the aforementioned to the attention of the public?
- What corrective measures do you propose, would be reasonable, to correct the unlawful infringements of more than a decade, under which securitisation had been practiced by South African Banks?
- What corrective measures do you propose to be launched by the banks to resolve and repay the damages caused by their historical action where unlawful legal action took place?
Your comments and answers to the above will be appreciated within the next 14 days hereof.
As this matter is of substantial public concern, we advise you that a public statement will be made by us to the media on these questions.
Mike van Niekerk
Vice President – UBUNTU Party.