Charl Cilliers, the Banking Ombudsman, has lambasted banks for questionable practices in a long-awaited report released this week.
The ombudsman's office handled a total of 1 899 complaints from November 1997 up until the end of April this year.
Complaints about home loans (19 percent) make up a big chunk of the those received by his office, followed by complaints about fraudulent cheque or savings withdrawals (11 percent).
More than half the complaints warranted full investigation and almost half of these were resolved partly or wholly in favour of the consumers.
The total sum paid by banks to consumers as a result of the ombudsman's intervention amounted to just over R1 billion. Many complaints involved comparatively small amounts.
Some of the issues Cilliers criticised the banks for are:
* Not telling you how long it takes to clear a cheque;
* Delaying unreasonably before warning you that a cheque that you paid into your account has bounced;
* Closing your bank account while it is in credit; and
* Holding onto a suretyship even though the purpose for which the suretyship was given has fallen away.
He has called for a privacy code to protect personal information about you held by the bank and he says that banks have a role to play in protecting you from loss at ATM machines, which they know to be at risk.
At the same time, though, Cilliers criticised consumers who "frequently display apathy and a lack of concern" about their own affairs "which makes them responsible for their problems".
Failing to check your bank statement, for instance, shows a lack of concern.
Illiteracy, lack of education and language problems frustrate effective communication between banks and their customers, he says.
Problems also arise as a result of the customer's lack of understanding of basic economic facts and bank procedures, but banks are partly to blame for this, because they do not always communicate effectively with customers, Cilliers says.
Not all complaints resulted in money being paid out. Some were resolved in other ways, by, for instance, providing information or sorting out an administrative problem.
When it comes to ATM fraud, Cilliers says there is little his office can do to assist consumers who compromised their personal identification numbers (PIN) or failed to cancel a card in time for a loss to be prevented.
Even so, 19 percent of complaints about ATMs were resolved partly or wholly in favour of consumers and just over R45 000 was paid out to these people.
One of the main benefits of the ombudsman's office is for consumers to get a speedy solution to their problem and to avoid costly and protracted litigation. It took an average of four months to resolve a fully investigated complaint, he says.
"One of our main concerns is to reduce the time taken to resolve a complaint. Both the banks and our office are working to achieve this," he says.
He says the main obstacle to solving problems is failure by either the bank involved or the consumer to provide the information required for an investigation within a reasonable time.
Cilliers points out that the ombudsman's office may not investigate any complaints concerning commercial decisions by banks, so it's no use running to him if your bank does not want to grant you credit, or if you have a gripe about your banking charges, or about increases in interest rates.
"There is nothing we can do about interest rate increases," he says.
"These are commercial decisions taken by banks and the ombudsman has no mandate to intervene. Only if there is an element of unfairness in the way in which the interest rate has been administered may we be able to assist a complainant.
"We would also investigate a matter if a bank charges interest at a rate higher than agreed with the borrower."
And if you are suing your bank, the ombudsman will not intervene, Cilliers says.