Category : Unfair treatment
Date : 21 August, 2015
Status : In Process
Case 1
The deceased had maintained a current account with one of the banks. During preparations for the funeral one of his uncle was appointed by parents temporarily to request for funeral expenses from the employers of the deceased. After the funeral the said uncle refused to have his mandate withdrawn as he maintained he also had a say in the way his brother’s assets had to be apportioned.
On enquiry with the deceased former employer there was no will, nor any document available to confirm the heir to the deceased estate. The bank on the advise of its attorneys could neither allow the uncle whose mandate was cancelled by the deceased parents’ resolution confirmed by the District commissioner nor allow the rightful heir, a son who also had papers confirmed and attested to by the local authorities and District Commissioners’ office, to close the account and draw the money.
The Banking Adjudicator recommended to the bank to facilitate payment, and that the cheque be drawn in favour of the “Legal Representative of the late XYZ’. This way the bank would have done its part, as it would be making payment to the legal representative of the deceased in good faith, and the duty of care on the part of the bank would have been discharged. The bank only paid after receiving another letter similar to the previous one made out by the District Commissioner but made in Gaborone . By the time this matter was concluded the beneficiaries to the deceased estate had incurred increased legal expenses as they had to borrow money to defend an action of rental default for the house the deceased stayed in.
Case 2
Complainant submitted the relevant forms for opening a business account. On enquiring after some days as to how far the account opening was, he was advised that he has not submitted the Memorandum and Articles of Association documents. He tried to explain to the bank that he has indeed submitted all the required documentation and even referred the officer to the checklist they were using to cross check all the documents before submission. After 5-10 days he was called by the bank and advised that his documents have been found.
The bank confirmed that indeed the documents were submitted, and that the office who assisted the customer had misplaced them in the office. The account was opened and the customer requested that the bank apologize for their mistake and further wanted to know what action was taken against the concerned bank official. The bank did not respond until after two years.
After investigations were completed on the matter, the Banking Adjudicator recommended that the customer be paid an amount of a P1000.00 for distress and inconvenience. The bank maintained that it was not in a position to pay the recommended amount since the customer did not incur any financial loss. Finally the Banking Adjudicator settled for P500.00 as a determination.
