Wed Oct 26 04:20:23 CAT 2016
Mkhwebane leaves Zuma‚ Van Rooyen interdicts

The new public protector says she will leave the dispute over the state capture report prepared by h.

family in bond tangle

By unknown | Feb 03, 2010 | COMMENTS [ 0 ]

ANOTHER family has accused Nedbank of trying to repossess their home on the grounds that they owe arrears on their home insurance.

ANOTHER family has accused Nedbank of trying to repossess their home on the grounds that they owe arrears on their home insurance.

The demand to pay the mysterious amount has infuriated Melusi Dladla and his wife because they say Nedbank should have cancelled his home insurance and transferred the house into his name when they paid it off.

As far as this couple is concerned their bond on their Soweto home was fully paid in December 2007 and they have proof.

But unlike Lizzie and Seeko Mokholo, aged 74 and 78 respectively, who have also accused Nedbank of trying to repossess a house they paid for in 1997, the Dladlas succumbed to the bank attorney's demands and paid R11000. Consumer Line published an article about the case a week ago.

In the Dladla's case, Nedbank first paid R2000 in four instalments of R500 and in December they paid R9000 into the trust account of the bank's attorneys, Louw and Hely.

Nedbank delayed an instruction to their attorneys to transfer the property into their names.

"When they finally instructed the attorney they had already paid R6000 towards my home insurance without telling me," Dladla said.

Dladla had to pay the R6000 that Nedbank had paid towards their home insurance in April 2008 without his knowledge and he heard about this news from their attorneys only in October 2008.

"What kind of bank would pay money on my behalf and keep quiet about it?" he asked.

This was vital information that the bank should have disclosed when he enquired about the delay in transferring the deed, Dladla said.

He said he agreed to pay the R6000 in monthly instalments, which he made intermittently because he was no longer employed.

A year later the bank voluntarily paid a further R6000 on his behalf and also kept quiet about it, Dladla said. He then went to the bank and asked them to cancel the home insurance. Dladla was told his file was closed and he was referred back to the lawyers.

"I was again told the account was closed and that their attorneys controlled my bond account," he said.

So far he has paid R11000 and feels it is unfair of the bank to automatically pay his home insurance without telling him, instead of cancelling his bond.

Dladla also accuses the bank of enriching itself at his expense.

"I am scared they are going to repeat this process again this year and that I will be indebted to the bank for the rest of my life."

Dladla is still awaiting an explanation as to why he should pay insurance when he had instructed the bank to cancel it.

He also wants his money back since it was not his fault that the bank failed to cancel it.

"If the bank hired people who do not have the interest of the clients at heart, that is their problem and I should not be funding their failure to perform," Dladla said.

In the Mokholos' case, the bank's attorney, Conrad Schoonbee, denied demanding any arrears payment from the family.

He said they received instructions only in June 2009 from Nedbank to cancel the bond.

"According to Nedbank the bond was fully paid up at that stage. Whatever transpired between 1997 and June 2009 did not involve us," he said.

"We did not demand R42 000. We only requested payment of our bond cancellation fees of R854."

Schoonbee said their Deeds Office search picked up an attachment against the property by a third party.

"As a courtesy to Mrs Mokholo we made contact with the attaching attorneys and provided her with details of the claim. She can now deal with the attorneys directly.

"The attachment does not concern Nedbank and we are proceeding with the cancellation of the bond," he said.

Consumer Line is in possession of the bank's letter of demand stating they owed R43254. This includes legal fees to the amount of R7524.

The Mokholos claimed that Nedbank, through its attorneys, had demanded the money on the pretext that they had failed to pay their home insurance premiums over 11 years.

The Mokholos' problem started when they paid off their house off in 1997. Their home loan was never cancelled though they maintain that they settled the account.

They said they paid no premium after paying off the bond and did not cancel their bond to get their title deed from the bank's attorneys.

Miyelani Shikwambana of Nedbank said Mrs Mokholo applied for a bond cancellation in June last year.

"We are proceeding with the bond cancellation. However, transfer of the property cannot take place while the attachment exists," Shikwambana said.

He said Nedbank was still investigating Dladla's matter.


Login OR Join up TO COMMENT