DP
Dr P
Active since Aug 2025
10
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
10 reviews1 month ago
Poor tech support by GFS
Two weeks in a row there was no OTP sent to me leaving myself and the drivers stranded with no point of contact to rectify the matter. This is why established courier companies will always outcompete emerging service providers.
0 replies
1 month ago
********* & Harassing Conduct by ITC Business Administrators (ITCBA)
I am formally reporting ITC Business Administrators (ITCBA) for egregiously ********* behaviour and persistent harassment. I am a consumer who has repeatedly and formally requested documented proof of the alleged debt (Ref: 4002409595) and evidence of an account takeover, including detailed proof of efforts made by myself as the consumer. ITCBA has failed to produce any verifiable or auditable trail linking me to the debt owed to Ampath. Instead of providing the required verification, I continue to receive threatening emails demanding payment, with escalations that include threats of credit bureau reporting and additional recovery costs. This conduct constitutes harassment in violation of the National Credit Act (NCA). ITCBA is facing numerous similar complaints on platforms like HelloPeter regarding the persistent collection of disputed and unverified debts. It is a disgrace that such conduct continues without tangible action from the National Credit Regulator (NCR). My formal request for proof of debt and a documented audit trail has been ignored. Attached below is the correspondence where ITCBA fails to address my legitimate legal requests, instead continuing with threats and ************ tactics. Do not engage with this agency. If contacted, exercise your rights under the NCA, demand written proof of debt, and immediately file complaints with the NCR and the Credit Ombud. The NCR must take visible, tangible action to mitigate this predatory behaviour. I am calling on the NCR to investigate ITCBA's practices without delay. Action Required from ITCBA Provide an auditable, verifiable proof of the alleged debt, a detailed account of the takeover with a documented chain of custody, and immediate cessation of all collection efforts until such proof is provided and verified. ITC Business Administrators (ITCBA) is not a credit bureau but a third-party collections agency that relies on ************ and harassment. I will be escalating this matter to the NCR, the Credit Ombud, and legal counsel. Regards Dr P
0 replies
3 months ago
Pathetic joint venture – Telkom and Vumatel are failing customers together
I am writing to express my extreme dissatisfaction with the so-called "partnership" between Telkom and Vumatel. As a customer, it is appalling to experience firsthand how these two entities pass the buck while paying customers are left without essential internet services. My fibre connection has been faulty for an extended period. The WiFi indicates "Connected without internet," yet neither company is willing to take accountability. Telkom agents are inept and unable to assist with technical faults logged under Ticket #92101038 (Service TIN3655048), while Vumatel fails to dispatch technicians or provide diagnostics . This experience has revealed a deeply flawed joint venture: 1. No Accountability: Telkom blames Vumatel, Vumatel blames Telkom. Customers are stuck in the middle with no resolution . 2. No Communication: Despite multiple calls and the issue persisting, there are no updates, no follow-ups, and no urgency . 3. Unacceptable Downtime: In an era where internet is essential for work and daily life, being left without connectivity for days is simply pathetic . It is clear that both companies are happy to debit accounts at month-end but refuse to take responsibility when their infrastructure or support systems fail . If this partnership cannot function well enough to provide basic technical support, customers should not be expected to pay. I demand an immediate resolution and a technician dispatched to 76 Komari Avenue, Paulshof. If this is not resolved urgently, I will be escalating to the relevant ombuds and moving my business elsewhere. DR P.
3 replies
3 months ago
Pathetic joint venture – Telkom and Vumatel are failing customers together
Pathetic joint venture – Telkom and Vumatel are failing customers together I am writing to express my extreme dissatisfaction with the so-called "partnership" between Telkom and Vumatel. As a customer, it is appalling to experience firsthand how these two entities pass the buck while paying customers are left without essential internet services. My fibre connection has been faulty for an extended period. The WiFi indicates "Connected without internet," yet neither company is willing to take accountability. Telkom agents are inept and unable to assist with technical faults logged under Ticket #92101038 (Service TIN3655048), while Vumatel fails to dispatch technicians or provide diagnostics . This experience has revealed a deeply flawed joint venture: 1. No Accountability: Telkom blames Vumatel, Vumatel blames Telkom. Customers are stuck in the middle with no resolution . 2. No Communication: Despite multiple calls and the issue persisting, there are no updates, no follow-ups, and no urgency . 3. Unacceptable Downtime: In an era where internet is essential for work and daily life, being left without connectivity for days is simply pathetic . It is clear that both companies are happy to debit accounts at month-end but refuse to take responsibility when their infrastructure or support systems fail . If this partnership cannot function well enough to provide basic technical support, customers should not be expected to pay. I demand an immediate resolution and a technician dispatched to 76 Komari Avenue, Paulshof. If this is not resolved urgently, I will be escalating to the relevant ombuds and moving my business elsewhere. Dr P
0 replies
5 months ago
Three Weeks of Silence: How Standard Bank Proves It Does Not Value Its Customers
Three weeks ago, after a Kafkaesque battle over a pension-backed loan application, a battle where Standard Bank’s system ignored a multi million pension fund and sworn legal declarations, I received a final, formulaic rejection from a department head. The letter, riddled with misinterpretations of the National Credit Act, closed with an invitation to escalate to the Ombudsman and an assurance that they “remain committed to supporting you.” That was the last communication I ever received. 20 days, there has been only silence. No response to my rebuttal. No response to the specific, legal points raised. No response from the “escalated” senior management that was supposedly engaged. Just a void. This silence is not an oversight; it is Standard Bank’s final, unambiguous message to its clients: “We have your money. We have your fees. We do not owe you an explanation, engagement, or basic respect.” My case laid bare their failures: 1. A Product Lie: Their “Pension-Backed Lending” product ignores the pension security in its assessment. 2. A Process *****: Their “regulatory” assessment overrides documented evidence, making a mockery of responsible lending. 3. A Service Deception: Their “Private Banking” is a fee-extraction scheme with no authority, no discretion, and no advocacy. But the ultimate failure is this: a complete lack of corporate dignity. When confronted with a detailed, evidence-based challenge to their logic, their final move is to simply stop talking. They hope you will go away. This is the true character of Standard Bank. It is an institution that: · Blames clients for the shortcomings of its own rigid systems. · Names individual employees in public to deflect from systemic failure. · Misstates the law to justify its denials. · Ghosts its customers when truly held to account. Do not be fooled by their branding. This is not a bank that partners with you. It is a bureaucracy that consumes your time, your money, and your patience, and when questioned, it retreats behind a wall of silence. If you value your time, your intelligence, and your financial dignity, look elsewhere. This institution is fundamentally broken. Dr. P
6 replies
5 months ago
From "Promised the World" to Robotic Decline: How Standard Bank's Private Banking Failed a Professor & Ignored Multi Million in Security
I write this not merely as a complaint, but as a profound cautionary tale for any professional, especially high-earners and academics, who believe Standard Bank's "Private Banking" offers sophistication, expertise, or common sense. My journey is a masterclass in how a revered institution can fail its clients at the most fundamental level. My husband and I, both senior professionals (I am a Head of Department at a university, he is a unit manager and scientist), were enticed by the promise of Private Banking: personalised service, expert financial guidance, and a relationship built on understanding. We paid the fees, expecting the partnership. That promise shattered completely during my application for a Pension-Backed Home Loan—a product where the loan is secured directly against one's pension fund. The security is the entire point. My pension, with the National Tertiary Retirement Fund, is valued at a substantial multi million rand amount CURRENTLY. Furthermore, my husband provided a signed, sworn declaration stating he alone covers our existing home loan, municipal bills (rates, water, electricity), and other major household debts, freeing my income significantly. Yet, Standard Bank's "assessment" was an exercise in absurd, robotic inflexibility: 1. They duplicated our existing bond as my expense, despite documented proof it is my husband's sole responsibility. 2. They added R11,000 for municipal costs to my liabilities, again, despite the sworn declaration. 3. Most egregiously, they completely ignored the multi million pension fund securing the loan. The very asset that defines the product and eliminates the bank's primary risk was treated as if it did not exist. The result? A cold, automated "affordability decline" from the Pension Backed Lending department. When challenged, the Operations Manager stated they are "not permitted" to remove the bond or living expenses from my calculation, as they are "based on your income" via an NCA calculator. Let that sink in: a bank offering a secured lending product openly admits its system cannot account for the security provided, nor for legally presented proof of expense allocation. This is not just poor service; it is a fundamental failure of logic and fiduciary duty. I am charged private banking fees for what? To be treated with less intelligence and flexibility than a chatbot? The "personal banker" became a mere messenger for a flawed, unthinking system. I feel deeply misled. The "world" I was promised was one of expert judgement and tailored solutions. The reality is a rigid, algorithm-driven process that would shame a fintech startup. One is left wondering if I would have received more logical, responsive service from Capitec, or if I must now seek a truly private institution that understands wealth, security, and evidence. To Standard Bank Management: You have not just declined a loan. You have destroyed trust and exposed a dangerous flaw in your risk assessment model. You have shown that your "private" service is a hollow label. To the Public: If you are a professional with complex finances, a spouse with separate responsibilities, or you rely on logic and documentation, be warned. Standard Bank's system may be incapable of seeing you. Your documented truth and solid assets may be irrelevant against their inflexible calculator. Your private banking fees may be buying you nothing but frustration. This is more than a complaint; it is a public service announcement. Dr. P
9 replies
8 months ago
Mistreatment and negligence by Private banker
I requested a change of private banker and branch due to mistreatment and great negligence but nothing has been done but this major bank with compromised competence. Regards Dr Pillai
0 replies
10 months ago
ABSA the benchmark for banking excellence
Case Reference: C-56679732 Bravo ABSA bank. You put Nedbank and Standard Bank to shame. The competence and resolution of my query was handled with great dignity, promptness and exemplary procedural knowledge. I have faith that the South African community is in good hands.
1 reply
10 months ago
Nedbank incompetence and poor record keeping
I am writing to expose Nedbank’s shocking incompetence in handling review processes, a failure that has caused severe financial and reputational harm. Despite clear legal documentation, Nedbank has repeatedly: 1. Failed to recognise a magistrate-ordered rescindment ignoring binding court instructions 11 years ago 2. Incapable of distinguishing between a formal withdrawal and a clearance certificate, despite explicit evidence provided (including a registered FORM 17.4). The Facts: - A formal withdrawal notice was issued in 2014 - Nedbank still demands a "clearance certificate" for a process that was legally terminated years ago, proving gross negligence. - The bank’s actions falsely label the consumer as "under a red flag," damaging their credit profile and defaming their financial standing. Nedbank’s Unacceptable Response: - Ignored submitted legal documents. - Blamed external parties while refusing to update their own records. - Forced the consumer into endless loops of bureaucratic escalation with zero resolution. I did not evade poverty and destitution to be treated without dignity. I have grave concern how such incompetence by a billion rand enterprise would affect the vulnerable South African community Regards Dr P PhD-holder
0 replies
10 months ago
Standard Bank mistreatment of Private banking customer who is a reputable scientist
Standard Bank mistreatment of Private banking customer who is a reputable scientist: @StandardBankSA has repeatedly deleted unread emails from a PhD-holder battling genetic illness while refusing to: 1. Acknowledge NCR's review of customer status 2. Honour magistrate's rescindment order **Violations:** ✓ **Section 27 Constitution** (Healthcare access): Ignored medical hardship evidence with attached lab reports ✓ **CPA Section 54(1)(b)**: Unfair ************** against vulnerable consumers ✓ **CPA Section 72**: Systemic non-response to documented communications ✓ **Section 26 Constitution**: Housing rights impeded via invalid red flags **Evidence Ignored:** • Magistrate rescindment confirmation confirming no red flag • Genetic disorder diagnosis + medical bills **Demand:** 1. Immediate case escalation to EXECUTIVE OFFICE 2. Written apology for email deletion 3. Correction of incorrect flags The leadership copied were: To: [email protected] [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Govinden, Ivan I <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
13 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
1 (10%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
0 (0%)
1 Star
9 (90%)