Over the past few weeks Personal Finance has published a number of reports about banks based on some very valid concerns expressed by our readers.
South Africa's banking services are generally good and are better than those in a number of other countries of the developed world. It is one of the reasons why it is unlikely that any overseas player will attempt to set up shop in opposition.
However, the banks do have weak links. Take for instance that stupid decision Nedbank made a little while ago to charge customers if they input the wrong information at an ATM. Fortunately for Nedbank they quickly rescinded the decision before their customers started charging them for the inconvenience we all suffer when ATMs are not working.
Equally annoying is the decision by some banks to allow their assurance brokers access, directly or indirectly, to personal bank accounts. I for one would close my account immediately if I knew a bank assurance broker had such access.
In recent months I have seen a number of appalling examples of the way you should not be treated by your bank. The worst was the way Standard Bank treated a customer, who had been the target of some really nasty assurance mis-selling by a broker from Standard Bank Financial Services.
The treatment received by the customer from Standard Bank Financial Services was compounded by the fact that Standard Bank gave the broker division access to what should have been confidential information in the customer's bank account to gain unfair advantage in protracted negotiations.
And when people turn to publications like Personal Finance, they often face undue pressure.
Recently Boland Bank attempted to cut a deal with Personal Finance, suggesting that it would recompense a customer if we agreed not to publish a report. We quickly told them what to do with that proposition and added what we would be doing if they did not correct their foul up in a hurry. At that stage Boland Bank claimed there had been a misunderstanding.
The Council of South African Banks (Cosab), to which all banks belong, has now appointed an independent ombudsman an appointment which is long over due.
Until now the head of Cosab has also been the ombudsman, which as I have said before, was rather like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.
What was worse was that there was never any real reporting apart from a one-liner in the Cosab annual report about the activities of the ombudsman.
Not only should the ombudsman be independent, but he/she should be given real powers to enforce rulings and to initiate investigations into bad banking practices, such as not protecting the privacy of clients from commission-chasing bank brokers.
The banks have dragged their collective feet on this issue.
SABC radio consumer affairs programme presenter Pat Sidley only a few weeks back had Bob Tucker, the current head of Cosab and the ombudsman, as her guest.
It is a long time since I have heard so many platitudes and weak excuses from anyone on the spot. It was promises, promises and excuses.
Both the life assurance companies and the short-term insurance industry have for some years had independent ombudsmen who both feel they need greater powers to protect you.
Jan Steyn, the life assurance ombudsman, and Michael Bennett, the short-term insurance industry ombudsman accept that their respective offices have shortcomings and are actively working at improving the protection of individuals.
Both these ombudsmen report extensively and publicly on their activities, drawing attention to pitfalls and providing you with constructive advice.
The regulators are now talking about creating an ombudsman's office which will deal with complaints against all sectors of the financial services industry a good thing and let us hope the office gets plenty of powers.