Nedbank has paid out over R15 000 to a Cape Town couple for stress and compensation. But this is small recompense after they were forced to sell their home because of the bank's mistake.
Christopher and Nicky Chapman, of Plumstead, needed R70 000 to buy a business and approached their bank, Nedbank, for a loan in December last year.
Nedbank initially declined to give them a second bond on their property. They were also denied a business loan and a personal loan with surety, despite a senior bank business manager assuring the Chapmans that the business was an excellent buy and a viable proposition.
Nedbank eventually agreed to give them a second bond on their home to pay for the business. In January this year, Nedbank sent the Chapmans a letter which stated that the bank would grant them a second bond to the value of R70 000.
On the assurance of their branch manager, who had phoned three departments to confirm that the second bond had been approved, the Chapmans took bridging finance so they could go ahead and buy the business in the meantime.
However, just as the Chapmans were about to sign the documents for the second bond, they received shocking news. Their attorney's office called to say the home loan was for R12 000 only.
The Chapmans made countless fruitless approaches to the bank.
In order to repay the bridging finance without incurring unnecessary interest, the Chapmans put their home on the market and sold off most of their belongings.
"After one-and-a-half years of living in the house, we had done all the alterations we wanted to do to the house and had just started to really enjoy it when we had to sell," Nicky Chapman says.
The Chapmans complained to the Banking Adjudicator and also contacted Personal Finance.
Subsequently, but too late to save their house, Nedbank contacted the Chapmans to say they could get the R70 000 second bond on their property. The second bond was ap-proved on March 5 and it took the bank seven days to contact Nicky Chapman with the information. The sale of the house took place a few days before.
"We lost our home and money because we had to sell our house to the first buyer who came along because we were desperate. All because of Nedbank's mistake," Nicky Chapman says.
Neville Melville, the Banking Adjudicator, recommended that Nedbank pay the Chapmans R15 600. A total of R10 000 was for "undue stress", R2 800 for the deposit that the Chapmans had to put down on a house they are now renting for themselves and their two children, and a further R2 800 was for the first month's rent.
It's very sad when a big bank such as Nedbank treats its clients in this way, Chris Chapman says.
Ironically, the Chapmans were regarded as "VIP" clients and had an excellent 17-year track record with Nedbank.
Asked whether the bank was admitting liability by paying the Chapmans the R15 600, David Harrison, a Nedbank spokesman, says the bank was complying with the adjudicator's recommendation.
"It is regrettable that the Chapmans experienced bad service, and we apologise sincerely for the trauma caused. As soon as the bank's error was noticed, it was conveyed to the Chapmans and we endeavoured to stay in verbal contact with the Chapmans while we were resolving the issue. Unfortunately, this did not happen until after the speedy sale of the Chapmans' house," Harrison says.
* The Banking Adjudicator can make either a recommendation or a ruling on a complaint against a bank brought by a member of the public. A ruling is binding on a bank, but a recommendation is not. If a bank does not follow a recommendation, the adjudicator re-serves the right to publish the fact.
Both a ruling and a recommendation may be appealed by a bank to an appeal panel consisting of three retired judges. Consumers do not have the right to appeal, but can take their complaint to court or to some other dispute resolution mechanism.