Johannesburg - If Roux Shabangu’s R500m police lease deal is deemed invalid by the courts, it would have “far-reaching ramifications” for government’s similar BEE property deals financed through all the major banks.

This is the contention by Nedbank, which loaned Shabangu R248m to buy and refurbish the Middestad building in Pretoria in 2011, in papers lodged with the North Gauteng High Court this week.

The bank is “intervening” as an “affected” respondent against the department of public works, which wants the court to nullify Shabangu’s lease agreement.

In the court papers, Nedbank’s legal head, Lisa Ruch, warns that all similar property deals “will be in jeopardy” and if the court ruled in favour of the department, “public sector funding by the major banking institutions may be materially and adversely affected”.

“Not only would the validity of the lease agreement and many similar agreements be affected, but BEE property financing by Nedbank in general would be seriously compromised,” contends Ruch.

Nedbank’s litigation comes hot on the heels of an announcement last week by Minister of Finance Pravin Gordhan that the department would probe 3 867 lease contracts worth R300bn that the department entered into with property companies.

Nedbank’s application adds a twist to the leasing debacle that has claimed the scalps of two ministers and led to the suspension of police commissioner Bheki Cele and two directors-general.

The bank is blaming senior department officials, including axed Minister of Public Works Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde, for the police leasing debacle and said it wanted to withdraw from funding Shabangu’s purchase of the Middestad building in Pretoria, but the department reassured Nedbank the lease was valid.

Nedbank’s affidavit reveals that on more than seven occasions the department gave Nedbank “repeated assurances” that it would honour the lease and proper processes were followed when the lease was signed.

Ruch claims that in a meeting on September 14 2010 between the department and representatives of the five major banks – Standard Bank, FirstRand Bank, Absa, Investec and Nedbank – suspended public works director-general Siviwe Dongwana reassured the executives that none of the leases signed by the department would be set aside due to the controversy over Shabangu’s lease with the department.

According to Ruch, this was after the banks expressed concerns about the department not fully committing to Shabangu’s lease agreement despite Shabangu’s lease being similar to leases used by all banks to fund mainly government BEE property deals.

Nedbank argues that the main reason banks have doled out finance for property is because the financee, like Shabangu, held a valid and binding lease.

“This is because the funding model used in this case is widely employed by the banking industry in order to provide public sector funding.

“This funding is entirely reliant on the validity of the underlying government leases and the efficiencies of the department in making monthly rental payments,” says Nedbank.

Ruch contends that the department gave reassurances that the lease agreement complied with sections 66 and 68 of the Public Finance Management Act, Treasury regulations and the department’s BEE strategy
tender policies.

But the department’s assurances contradicted Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s finding last year that Shabangu’s lease was unlawful and invalid.

State attorney Moipone Mosidi said they were studying Nedbank’s application and were yet to decide whether to oppose it, although last year her office had declined the bank’s request to intervene in the case.

There are fears that if the public works investigation into the leases uncovers more rot, companies that are found to be on the wrong side of the law could face Shabangu’s fate, and the funders of those lease contracts could find themselves in Nedbank’s position.

But if banks are anxious about the outcome of the department’s case against Shabangu, they are not showing it.

Instead, banks approached by City Press for comment welcomed Gordhan’s announcement of a probe into leases.

Said Marcel de Klerk, an executive from Absa retail and business banking unit: “We have taken note of the investigation by the department of public works and would support any measure that ensures improved transparency.

“We are engaging with the Banking Association of South Africa and the department of public works in this regard. We are comfortable with our existing exposure to the department and all lease commitments are being met.”

Sizwe Nxasana, the chief executive of banking group FirstRand, said he was not concerned about its outcome.

“The investigation is not a major issue in our lives. I am not losing sleep over it,” Nxasana said.
Billion Group, led by property tycoon Sisa Ngebulana, said it was hoping for a speedy conclusion to the investigation.

Said Mike Rodel, Billion Group’s chief operating officer: “We believe the (tendering) system is not as transparent as it could be. It is in everybody’s interest that the investigation is concluded as soon as possible so that the government can move forward with awarding new leases for new office space.” - City Press

Johannesburg - If Roux Shabangu’s R500m police lease deal is deemed invalid by the courts, it would have “far-reaching ramifications” for government’s similar BEE property deals financed through all the major banks. This is the contention by Nedbank, which loaned Shabangu R248m to buy and refurbish the Middestad building in Pretoria in 2011, in papers lodged with the North Gauteng High Court this week. The bank is “intervening” as an “affected” respondent against the department of public works, which wants the court to nullify Shabangu’s lease agreement. In the court papers, Nedbank’s legal head, Lisa Ruch, warns that all similar property deals “will be in jeopardy” and if the court ruled in favour of the department, “public sector funding by the major banking institutions may be materially and adversely affected”. “Not only would the validity of the lease agreement and many similar agreements be affected, but BEE property financing by Nedbank in general would be seriously compromised,” contends Ruch. Nedbank’s litigation comes hot on the heels of an announcement last week by Minister of Finance Pravin Gordhan that the department would probe 3 867 lease contracts worth R300bn that the department entered into with property companies. Nedbank’s application adds a twist to the leasing debacle that has claimed the scalps of two ministers and led to the suspension of police commissioner Bheki Cele and two directors-general. The bank is blaming senior department officials, including axed Minister of Public Works Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde, for the police leasing debacle and said it wanted to withdraw from funding Shabangu’s purchase of the Middestad building in Pretoria, but the department reassured Nedbank the lease was valid. Nedbank’s affidavit reveals that on more than seven occasions the department gave Nedbank “repeated assurances” that it would honour the lease and proper processes were followed when the lease was signed. Ruch claims that in a meeting on September 14 2010 between the department and representatives of the five major banks – Standard Bank, FirstRand Bank, Absa, Investec and Nedbank – suspended public works director-general Siviwe Dongwana reassured the executives that none of the leases signed by the department would be set aside due to the controversy over Shabangu’s lease with the department. According to Ruch, this was after the banks expressed concerns about the department not fully committing to Shabangu’s lease agreement despite Shabangu’s lease being similar to leases used by all banks to fund mainly government BEE property deals. Nedbank argues that the main reason banks have doled out finance for property is because the financee, like Shabangu, held a valid and binding lease. “This is because the funding model used in this case is widely employed by the banking industry in order to provide public sector funding. “This funding is entirely reliant on the validity of the underlying government leases and the efficiencies of the department in making monthly rental payments,” says Nedbank. Ruch contends that the department gave reassurances that the lease agreement complied with sections 66 and 68 of the Public Finance Management Act, Treasury regulations and the department’s BEE strategy tender policies. But the department’s assurances contradicted Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s finding last year that Shabangu’s lease was unlawful and invalid. State attorney Moipone Mosidi said they were studying Nedbank’s application and were yet to decide whether to oppose it, although last year her office had declined the bank’s request to intervene in the case. There are fears that if the public works investigation into the leases uncovers more rot, companies that are found to be on the wrong side of the law could face Shabangu’s fate, and the funders of those lease contracts could find themselves in Nedbank’s position. But if banks are anxious about the outcome of the department’s case against Shabangu, they are not showing it. Instead, banks approached by City Press for comment welcomed Gordhan’s announcement of a probe into leases. Said Marcel de Klerk, an executive from Absa retail and business banking unit: “We have taken note of the investigation by the department of public works and would support any measure that ensures improved transparency. “We are engaging with the Banking Association of South Africa and the department of public works in this regard. We are comfortable with our existing exposure to the department and all lease commitments are being met.” Sizwe Nxasana, the chief executive of banking group FirstRand, said he was not concerned about its outcome. “The investigation is not a major issue in our lives. I am not losing sleep over it,” Nxasana said. Billion Group, led by property tycoon Sisa Ngebulana, said it was hoping for a speedy conclusion to the investigation. Said Mike Rodel, Billion Group’s chief operating officer: “We believe the (tendering) system is not as transparent as it could be. It is in everybody’s interest that the investigation is concluded as soon as possible so that the government can move forward with awarding new leases for new office space.” - City Press Michael- March 4, 2012 at 19:00 Nedbank is a Third African Bank who have been saved from Bankruptcy four times , The first time in the 70's with the Louis Lyte Deal in Richards Bay. They steel money every month from our Corporate Accounts , and our staff complain about fees they are taking from them as well . Nedbank authorise a Company  NUDEBT in Alberton have private details of peoples Bank Accounts and then let NUDEBT remove money from your accounts. It is not safe to Bank with Nedbank , and it is far safer to keep your money at home under your bed than to let Nedbank operate your savings or Investment account and Steel your Money.Moodie should down grade them to a D minus. Paul- March 4, 2012 at 15:58 LOL... Yes Nedbank. How could this possibly affect BEE deals? There was no tender. Should that not have set off the alarms. Nedbank is already in the crapper with Pinnacle as well. From their dealings with Pinnacle, I would say their hands are far from clean when it comes to supporting BEE. I laud the government for investigating the corruption. Tshekedi- March 4, 2012 at 22:05 I totally agreen with you Paul. Nedbank seems to be playing an unfair game with the Property BEE deals. Pinnacle's share is worth 0.01c at the moment with with how they played their hand with Pinnacle and ABSA on a single equity stock. I now wonder, on their principles, if they are again involved. Kevin- March 5, 2012 at 06:29 COME ON NEDBANK - ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.I WILL NEVER DEAL WITH THIS BANK goyougoodthing- March 4, 2012 at 16:03 Screw all the banks, they were all fully aware of not only the situation, but also that is was and is ethically flawed. They only care about money, not citizens. Screw them all. Craig- March 4, 2012 at 16:58   Nice to see the Banks get screwed for a change, but they just gonna put up their Bank Charges 10% to recover money. Life is tough as "Joe Public" brett.macdonald1- March 4, 2012 at 16:03 Take the knock Nedbank! If you buy a stilen car, it still belongs to the original owner! It will teach you to get yourself involved in insider-trading with corrupt politicians! acsteyn- March 4, 2012 at 16:06 HOW ABOUT RACISM IN REVERSE? BEE property deals financed through all the major banks. Ruch contends that the Public Works department gave reassurances that the lease agreement complied with sections 66 and 68 of the Public Finance Management Act, Treasury regulations and the department’s BEE strategy tender policies. Said Mike Rodel, Billion Group’s chief operating officer: “We believe the (tendering) system is not as transparent as it could be. It is in everybody’s interest that the investigation is concluded as soon as possible so that the government can move forward with awarding new leases for new office space.” Racism is never transparant when it comes to money, is it? Didi Schoeman- March 4, 2012 at 16:08 I'm pretty sure Nedbank knew exactly what they where getting into... Over inflated rentals and dodgy BEE property deals, its a very long gravy train and they knowingly facilitated it. Trying to cash into a corrupt system is bound to get you burned as many companies are going to find out... What comes around goes around! trevor.padayachee- March 4, 2012 at 16:18 Nedbank is just worried about the loss of revenue should this deal be cancelled, my concern is that many corporates both SA and multi-nationals are doing "deals" with both goverment and individuals that they would have shunned 5-10 years and this all in the name of greed. In the case of public works leasing buildings from people like Roux Shabangu, why can't the department get treasury/SARB to fund these leases or even better buy these buildings instead of outsourcing to companies that rely on banks to fund the deals who anyway get their money from the reserve bank. This is when I have to question Capitalism??? Paul- March 4, 2012 at 16:55 I agree with trevor. Why does government not purchase or build offices. Why the middle man? Kevin- March 5, 2012 at 06:28 They deserve to not only lose revenue earned at the expense of the taxpayer , someone must do time. Craig- March 4, 2012 at 16:47 Tsk...Tsk...Tsk... and the Banks trusted the Goverment to tell them the truth??? You IDIOTS... hehehehe louis.langenhoven- March 4, 2012 at 17:05 I'm afraid two wrongs don't make a right Nedbank...(and I bank my meager little earnings with you nogal!) I guess what needs to be done is to find all the persons guilty of corruption, take them to the cleaners and Nedbank can get whats left...if anything. Then you will increase our bank costs again to the 9'th but we are used to that already... Sam- March 4, 2012 at 17:51 Wow, a lot of knee-jerk bank haters here, whose prejudice seems to be taking the place of rational thought. The contract in question may well not have been properly authorised, but if it was correctly signed then that doesn't make it fraudulent as such. The whole system would collapse like a house of cards if one party to a contract could cancel at the drop of a hat. Nedbank in this case is a third party who entered into a loan agreement on the strength of a government contract held by their client, and it appears to have exercised due diligence by confirming the validity of the contract with the Department. What else was Nedbank supposed to do? It's easy with hindsight, but that isn't how real life works. Even if Fin24 readers don't want their fun spoiled... goyougoodthing- March 4, 2012 at 18:27 Sam this is not knee jerk. The 'legality' of these contracts does not make them 'morally right'. They deserve what they get. They are basically all thieves, banks and government alike. Mitch- March 4, 2012 at 18:35 Valid point.... HOWEVER this transaction smacked of corruption and Nedbank should have questioned this deal when it was first tabled. Surely the exhorbitant rentals that were going to be paid versus the purchase price of the property should have set off alarm bells? Did Nedbank not think of questioning the ethics of being party to the deal? or were some "fortunate" Nedbank employees "paid" to grant the facility? Mitch- March 4, 2012 at 18:37 Valid point.... HOWEVER this transaction smacked of corruption and Nedbank should have questioned this deal when it was first tabled. Surely the exhorbitant rentals that were going to be paid versus the purchase price of the property should have set off alarm bells? Did Nedbank not think of questioning the ethics of being party to the deal? or were some "fortunate" Nedbank employees "paid" to grant the facility? Hugh- March 4, 2012 at 18:54 Try the same tricks with a bank and they will throw you out the door at the blink of an eye. When the boot is on the other foot they can smell a blatent rip off. What I cannot understand is that under FICA banks have an obligation to report on the possibility of criminal activity Or does the bank see the rip of the tax payer as not being criminal. braamc- March 4, 2012 at 18:12 I wish it hits your bottom line, filthy corrupt bank anyhow. Derek Gerber- March 5, 2012 at 05:45 They should have done their homework. The banks are part and parcel of supporting corruption when it suits them. Where does all the corrupt officials bank? What about the so-called FICA procedures that should establish the sources if deposits? Kevin- March 5, 2012 at 06:26 At such an inflated price Nedbank must have known this was a scam. There property division would have known the lease was ridiculous.Nedbank had a duty to the public and taxpayer.Sounds like alot of people are running scared and quickly trying to cover their arses, There are norms in the industry and it would be nice to see if even one of the lease deals makes it into the norms. Comrade- March 5, 2012 at 07:08 no wonder Nedbank turned down my vehicle finance loan last year.....it spent all its funds on FLAWED B E E DEALS!... NEDBANK - YOU SUCK!! Grant- March 5, 2012 at 07:21 South African society is corrupt fom the head (Zuma) down to the lowest official who feels that if the bosses are coining it, why can't they get a piece of the pie? If all corrupt offials were arrested there would be nobody to run the country. I don't know all the ins and outs of this case but I presume if Nedbank got repeated assurances from the department of public works (in black and white) then the bank can sue and the tax-payer foots the bill again. Sadly we've become just another failed African state.

Source : Thug watch

THIS IS WHAT NEDBANK IS DOING TO THEIR CLIENTS

We read daily about the importance of your Credit rating but a unprofessional Bank such as Nedbank are tarnishing the Credit Ratings of their Clients on a daily basis

For some unknown Brain Dead Reason Nedbank deceided to return two cheques  one for R 15,000-00 and one for R 10,000 -00 correctly made out from cleared funds which had been deposited from one of the TOP blue Chip companies in South Africa

At Great Speed the Nedbank penality Charge was leveared on the two transactions

We spotted the Transactions at Nedbank and threatened them with an urgant application to correct the position. I called the Attorneys and Nedbank recalled the two cheques and credited the account for 2 x R 75-00. To date they have not responded to our claim for costs or apoligised for the matter. We had a black mark mark recorded against our name at ITC

a

Source : Nedbank Client for 40 years

THE NEDBANK PHONE SCAM ?

 Is this another Nedbank Scam organised by their staff or the ongoing incompetence at the bank ?

 When you purchase Nedbank Airtime  It instructs you to  :

Dial 555 <LISTEN> PRESS 5

What you will get are the instructions to transfer your airtime to another cell phone account.

It is a big risk to purchase airtime from Nedbank, however if you are forced to,  the correct instructions to enter your purchased  airtime from  MTN are

* 141* PIN voucher #  Ok/Dial Button.

If it is a Vodacom Voucher the Correct Instructions are

Dial *100*01*Pin Voucher # and Call / Dial

DO NOT USE THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY NEDBANK on their Slips -  IT COULD BE A SCAM !

NEDBANK - are now running SPE

Money is syill missing from our axccount which Nedbank

NEDBANK - are now running SPE

Nedbank Card Division have refunded a  Professional Fraudster his Application and Pending Membership fees which were forfeited to the Society in terms of Society rules and Constitution, with total disregard to Engineering Profession rules both locally and Internationally , and without any Communication to our Society. The Money has been removed ( STOLEN )  from our Bank account without any notification to the Society. We have a full signed document authorising the Credit Card transaction as shown below. It also confirms the the Applicant abides by the rules of the Society.

This is the first time in my 18 years that this has ever happened to our Society.

We have banked with Nedbank for over 21 years and the Executive Director  being the same person for the last 18 years.

Nedbank card division by their actions clearly Condone Fraud and an acceptable norm in South Africa.

It also indicates that NEDBANK  have a no care attitude to their Customers and in our case they are setting the Rules of Membership of our Society and how the Professional Engineers do Business.

We have no contact Name, or contact Numbers at Nedbank ( as all their business is done via a call centre with Brain dead staff  ) so we have to go public via Name and Shame at www.nameandshame.biz   and Hollo Peter at www.HellopeterPeter.com to get some action. 

 A major warning to South Africa Banking Clients.

Nedbank are now running the Society of Professional Engineers and have amended our  Constitution and rules to accept Fraudsters and people with false Qualifications, and Nedbank they will give you your money back !

Visit : www.professionalengineers.biz to view all documents

Source: President of SPE

Value of Listing R 2,800-00

Nedbank at the same rubbish again and has done the same thing to it's Clients

NedBank have started their Rubbish again - I had a call from a previous disadvantaged PD  who called  me on my Cell phone from a ZAP number 078 804 4631 at 18:45 on Thursday 6th October 2011 and demanded to know my ID number etc.,She said her name was Leah and her number was 086 010 3117  She informed that I had not paid my instalment amount of R 1084.92 for the month of September and that she had been Instructed to make arrangements for me to pay the amount. I have checked my bank Statements and all debits sent by Nedbank by their debit orders to a Nedbank account are up to date and no amounts are owing as shown below.

This seems to be the most incompetent Bank in South Africa employing 3rd World Staff. Do they ever stop

This is what Nedbank Does to it's Clients

E MAIL EXCHANGES WITH NEDBANK OVER 6 Months and their no Care Attitude

From: xxxxxxxx
Sent: 08 June 2011 12:23 PM
To: Nedbank
Subject:

 Dear Sir, 

I am in receipt of your letter which is dated 2010 ( You cannot even get the correct year ) and take exception to your no care attitude to the problem. To openly admit that because you are Nedbank ‘’ errors can happen” is unacceptable.   Nedbank (inventors of the penalty bank charges) in order to boost profits, will charge me a penalty if I make a mistake in the addition on a deposit slip, or charge a penalty when you return a debit order, knowing full well that it can take 3 days for funds to reach Nedbank from another bank,  is completely unacceptable.  It is also unacceptable to send letters to customers threatening legal action when  their accounts are up to date.  I am levelling a penalty against Nedbank for the Value of R 1 500.00 plus R 1200-00 costs for sending out an illegal & defamatory letter( in your own words) “ to a good client”.  Bankers need to start taking responsibility for their actions and mistakes.

Yours Faithfully,

xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

From: Doyle, C. (Carmen) [mailto:CarmenDo@Nedbank.co.za]
Sent: 07 June 2011 12:55 PM
To: xxxxxx
Subject: Apology xxxxxxxxxxx

Good day Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx 

This letter was drafted and it’s seems that it has not been sent to you. 

Please find an apology letter from our head of customer service attached.

 Regards,  

Carmen Doyle

Manager : Customer Service

Nedbank Personal Loans

9th Floor, 100 Main Street, Johannesburg

Tel: +27 11 556 1083

Email  : carmendo@nedbank.co.za

Sent: 20 May 2011 10:05 AM
To: 'CEM Escalations'
Subject: RE: Emailing: Nedbank Letter xxx

Dear Pamela

Please let me know what is going on with the escalation of my complaint or

has this matter been brushed under the carpet and Nedbank hopes that I will

go away. I have give it more than enough time for a answer and not just a

sorry it was a computer glitch and then trying to spin the story say that in

2009 I missed a few payments. Nedbank is trying to avoid the issue of

sending threatening letters when an account is up to date. I'm sure the

ombudsman would love to see this letter.

Regards 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----

From: CEM Escalations [mailto:CEMEscalations@Nedbank.co.za]

Sent: 11 April 2011 01:54 PM

To: Subject: RE: Emailing: Nedbank Letter

Dear xxxxx

Thank you for the letter.

I have forwarded your email to the head of our collections team and will

revert with feedback shortly.

Regards,

Pamela Pillay

Executive Service Support

-----Original Message-----

From: xxxxxxxx

Sent: 11 April 2011 12:37 PM

To: CEM Escalations

Subject: Emailing: Nedbank Letter

To Whom it may Concern

Please see attached letter that was sent to me in January2011 telling me

that I would be handed over if the amount of R 1084.92 was not paid.

Check your Records and you will see there were no skipped payments. In

fact in December I was asked if they could take the "DEBET ORDER" off

early and I informed you 5 times that you must keep the debit order on

the same day and not change it. Yet you still took it off early. I guess

that when you say You are in charge of your account you actually mean

Nedbank is and does what they want on the customer's account and they do

not listen to what the customer tells them. I complained about this in

January and only now do I get some sort of response. The days are over

when Nedbank sends out letter's that threaten the consumer with pending

legal action and all they can say is just disregard the letter if they

are in the wrong. The Consumer is standing up and not taking it any

more.

I want this sorted out in the next 48 Hours, if not I will be publishing

you ( Nedbank) on the Web Site Name and Shame. 

Regards 

xxxxxxxxxxx

Nedbanks apology Letter - They cannot even get the date correct. It should read 2011!

What a 3rd World Bank !

Source: Client

Value of Listing R 2,800-00

 Credit Card complaints against American Express. 

I was invited years ago to get an American Express Card with no limit set, but which I could afford.  I do not make regular use of my Card, but recently used it to make a large purchase.  The cashier informed me that there was a problem with my Card and they would have to contact the Amex Credit Department.  The amount was approved but the experience was very embarrassing and left me feeling like a criminal. 

Having phoned to complain to Amex about the incident, I was informed that the limit was way in excess of what it should be, although I reminded them of the original agreement, and they said I was lucky it was approved. 

If Amex changes the terms, customers should be kept informed to avoid this sort of embarrassment, but Amex makes no comment.

Margaret Sandton

by e-mail

 I was not informed of a ‘credit limit’ when I applied for my Amex Card and have used it before to buy air tickets etc without a problem.  However, problems which have subsequently arisen are never dealt with and as a direct result of the lack of understanding, communication and failure of the CEO of Amex to respond by phone or email to my telephone calls, I have decided to cancel my American Express Gold Card, which I have had for some years and stick to Mastercard.

Gregory Jones Randburg

by e-mail

American Express travellers cheques are not the easiest way to carry cash when traveling abroad. 

If your cheques go missing the countless calls to an Amex Call Center, endless repeating of references and information “to prevent fraud”, can take so long that you only get the refund after you return from holiday and if you are relying solely on the American Express travelers cheques you would be sunk. 

Master/Visa cards and cash are surely the way to go.

Leslie Evans

Via e-Mail

            Nedbank discards their aged clients

Dear Sandton.biz 

I am appalled by the misleading adverts from Nedbank ‘Make things happen’, which appear on billboards and on the TV.

My late husband  passed away two months short of our sixty first wedding anniversary in June 2004 and when my daughter was finalizing his affairs, she found an original share certificate No 2016 dated 5th July 1935, embossed by the South African Permanent Mutual Building and Investment Society, covering two-fifty Pound shares- numbers A5110 x 5111, each to the value of fifty Pounds in the Capital Stock of the South African Permanent Mutual Building and Investment Society.  It brought back sad memories of when my late husband tried to cash the Shares and was told that they were worthless!

His father H Simpson, emigrated in1909 to Kimberley from Scotland and was with De Beers until his retirement.  He also held the position of Principal of the first Engineering School in South Africa at Kimberley which was later to became the Engineering faculty at Wits University. 

The family grew up with the South African Permanent Building Society as it later became known, as it was a part of the Kimberley way of life. His elder brother became a mining engineer and was Manager of the Pulsator.

His middle brother Dr D Simpson was a geologist who discovered uranium and my late husband attended  UCT and was awarded a B Com degree and they all did their military service in  South Africa, North Africa and Italy.

On a sadder note in his eighties he arrived home from his weekly banking at South African Permanent in Randburg, with the news that his account at South African Permanent had been transferred to People’s Bank, because he no longer fitted the profile or had the financial resources to be part of the South African Permanent or Nedbank. He had been sent to the Poor Peoples Bank. 

It broke his heart that this long association with the South African Permanent had been broken because of the Bank’s criteria of not wanting elderly people or pensioners.  On his death we found a R5000-00 fixed deposit which he had kept in order not to server his relationship totally with the Bank his family had dealt with for so many years.  Attached was his latest receipt and membership card for Kimberley Boys High Old Boys Club which he kept up and was current. 

He moved most of his limited savings to ABSA in Randburg.  The ‘make things happen’ slogan is a very real warming to future clients.   

Nedbank does not show their elderly or longstanding client any loyalty. 

Signed:

JES