Standard Bank accused of R2bn over-statement
Emerald van Zyl, a usury expert, has his sights on Standard Bank, which he claims has over-stated its financial statements by as much as R2bn since 2009 through a R50 a month admin charge that was declared illegal by the SCA in 2013.
According to a Moneyweb report, Van Zyl says it actually started out as a R5 a month admin charge, which was introduced in 1990 under the Usury Act as a compromise to stop banks discriminating against the low-cost, predominantly black housing customers.
Rather than charge low-cost (black) customers higher interest rates, banks were allowed to levy this R5 a month charge to compensate them for any financial harm they might suffer by treating customers equitably.
When the National Credit Act (NCA) came into effect in 2007, the banks were allowed to bump this R5 admin fee to a maximum R50 a month, which would henceforth be called a ‘service fee’, provided a new written agreement was entered into with the customer.
Van Zyl says even though Standard Bank lacked written agreements, it went ahead and charged the R50 a month fee – in violation of the law.
In 2012 the National Credit Regulator took Standard Bank to court over this, and eventually won the case in the SCA. The Moneyweb report notes the court found that Standard Bank was violating the NCA and demanded customers be refunded by January 2013.
In a press release issued in January 2013, Standard Bank announced that all prejudiced clients had been refunded. However, Van Zyl alleges the bank was stretching the truth. Based on a sample of 120 customers, he found only 50% had been refunded. And that the refunded amount was just 45% of what was due.
Standard Bank spokesperson Ross Lindstrom says the bank took the decision to credit the home loan accounts of a large number of customers six years ago in light of the SCA decision.
‘The amount of R2bn suggested by Mr Van Zyl is without any factual foundation and is disputed by Standard Bank.’ Lindstrom argues that Van Zyl continues to make unfounded allegations against the bank and is trying to benefit financially by pursuing his claims of over-charging.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
