TS
Thomas S
Active since Aug 2018
22
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
22 reviews4 months ago
Responsibility for Time and Expense
Allow me to share a letter to FNB (First National Bank), which I think will be self-explanatory: Dear FNB, I visited your Bayview branch on 18 December 2025, where Dumisa Mqushulu, shortly after 9:00 am, promised me that I would receive a call in the board room, in 15 minutes' time, to open a major investment account. After nearly an hour, no call came through. Sorry, said Ms. Mqushulu, I would receive a call within 24 hours, not 15 minutes. After a few attempts to resolve this, I left shortly before 11:00 am. Then I received three calls almost at once, about the investment account. Accordingly, I am billing FNB R500 for lost time (about an hour) and travelling expenses (about 25 km). Any disagreement about the amount may be discussed. About this payment, a manager commented, “That will be awkward.” Yet FNB has some responsibility for clients’ time and expense, of course. My account details follow: ACCOUNT NAME (visible behind the scenes) FNB Gold Cheque Account no. *******9476 Universal Branch Code no. 250655 Encore Aspire Current Account Yours sincerely,
53 replies
4 months ago
Attorneys Fail to Return File
On 24 October 2025, Hildebrand Attorneys terminated their client (myself)—improperly in my view. My offending words appear below.* I gave Hildebrand 7 days then in which to return my file to my postal address. It stands to reason that a client needs their file in going forward. Now we are 40+ days since I asked for its return—and this precisely was my original problem with Hildebrand. They are wasting time. Further, the file should include information as to whether a fact-finding report was delivered. Specifically, Candidate Legal Practitioner Niso Sithole reported that he had sought to deliver it via WhatsApp. Whether it was delivered or not should be there in the file. Since this concerns a missing R2.3 million, I should have that response. * My terminal words: “Hildebrand has now taken 112 days to deliver a fact-finding report to the intended recipients—after that report was finalised. I wrote that, after 110 days, I would report Hildebrand to authorities for negligence.”
0 replies
6 months ago
High-Handed Attorneys
I approached Hildebrand Attorneys to write up an independent fact-finding report. They established that, inter alia, I was owed R2.3 million by my past employer, a Church. However, this report was more than 150 days in the making—and this had me worried. The standard is said to be up to 30 days, for a complicated report, including delivery to recipients. Then, after completion of the report, Hildebrand took well over 100 days to (not) deliver the report to recipients. And from start to finish, Hildebrand broke clearly agreed time-lines. I said to them that this had run on “abnormally” long, and I would lodge a complaint. At this, Hildebrand terminated my mandate. However, according to legal and moral guidelines, this apparently is “invalid” behaviour on their part. In fact, Hildebrand should rightly have taken their ill-disciplined employees to task—not turned on the client. In the end, there was no courtesy, no kindness, no humility, no sympathy with my near-endless patience, but an irate and accusatory lawyer Jan Hildebrand who appeared to lose his composure at 00:27 am and terminate me. He accused me of ************, too—which would be an offence. I sought an opinion on this, on the basis of our full correspondence. The answer was no, not at all. No ************. He was making it up. Further, artificial intelligence judges, for what it is worth, that “your response (to Hildebrand) was appropriate", throughout. I have said to Hildebrand: let us re-set, and try again. Among other things, it is no small matter to drop an issue of R2.3 million, possibly within days of wrapping it up. A little kindness, a little patience, would surely have been warranted. Hildebrand's own advertising states: "We are proud to serve the German community, offering personalized legal assistance with a warm and welcoming approach. Our clients’ needs and interests are at the forefront of our practice, and we strive to create lasting relationships built on trust and understanding." This does not match my own experience. “And now, Lord, for what do I wait? My hope is for you. From all my transgressions deliver me.” Psalm 39:7-8.
0 replies
6 months ago
Didactic Body Dead
The South African Council for Educators is the first stop (apart from the local school) when one wishes to report a teacher for an offence. It is the statutory body responsible for maintaining the professional and ethical standards of educators. I contacted the Council twice through their established channels, to report an offence. I received no reply. This morning I contacted them a third time. Watch this space ...
0 replies
15 months ago
Discovery Health Non-Accountability.
I wrote to Discovery Health on 2 January 2025: "I have Key Care. Your Medical Scheme Comparison chart shows as little as R1,102 for Key Care. I am paying R1,607. How is this explained?" Discovery Health rep**** on 13 January 2025: "Premium: R1,381.00 ... If you have more questions, please ..." and so on. This really is a non-answer. It fails to explain the original question. The person responsible for the non-answer is Devashnee Abid. As will be seen, I have rated this response 1/5. Discovery Health routinely move discussion off public forums such as this, then terminate. I request a complete answer here.
0 replies
22 months ago
Inflated Premium
I am subscribed to Discovery Health Keycare, which costs "from R1,102 a month". However, Discovery is billing me R1,607 a month, or 46% higher. In the past, they have inflated my subscriptions -- then reduced them on complaint. I wrote to Discovery Health about the above. While I have received a letter since, it has an invalid password (my birth date), and cannot be read. I would like to start and finish this on Hello Peter. In the past, Discovery has inflated my subscription. When I put the matter on Hello Peter, they said can we continue this discussion in private? Then they told me where to get off.
106 replies
26 months ago
Making the Poor Poorer
Vodacom today offered me 30% off airtime payments (which I make through FNB) if I will use the Vodacom app. To put this another way, I must pay 30% more if I will not use the app. Now, I have many devices, but none of them runs the app. Many other people, like me, are unable to run the app. This inevitably disfavours the poor, who less often have devices which will run it. This 30% penalty, call it, seems therefore to be discriminatory -- in its own small way making the poor poorer, and the rich richer. Who ever thought it up? May I suggest that Vodacom correct this, and further make some kind of reparations to the poor.
224 replies
31 months ago
Maverick Master.
I addressed a tentative, preliminary, and private enquiry to the Master, to raise concerns about an Executor. The Master, without question, copied this to all, opening everything up carelessly and prematurely. The Master further admitted evidence to their office which appeared to fall far below the standards of proof, or the requirements of law. A discussion needs to be conducted in a predictable manner, where the ground rules are clear. While I do not know the legal implications, I am distressed, too, that the Master permits a man previously convicted of ***** to serve as Executor, in this case perpetuating behaviour for which he was at first convicted.
0 replies
36 months ago
Facebook "Erasure" Without Check
I submitted several ads to Meta, for display on Facebook. Meta checked each one separately, and approved them. Then they banned them all, writing, "your account will be permanently erased", which they said could be any moment. The ads, though, were still "under review" at this moment (Facebook hadn't double-checked them yet). And the problem was "multiple reports" (which, presumably, is public opinion). I carefully went over Meta policy, and could find no fault. At the same time, Meta reported two attempted hacks of my ad account, from Europe. This means that there was a two-pronged attack on the ads, though not necessarily from the same source. Meta restored my ads. However, this is sub-standard behaviour. They apparently made a string of fundamental errors in their own vetting process (if the original approvals were in error, I don't think so). Then they banned someone, who was posting good-heartedly, not on checks against policy but on reports. Suppose, e.g. that some people were averse to the word "Postmodern" in my ad. This in fact caused a problem on Goodreads. Trying to guess what could be wrong, I removed some editorial reviews from my ads. But these reviews are official publisher reviews, have long been public on multiple sites, and should not present the slightest problem. History has too many examples of people removing materials from circulation, not on sound criteria, but on "reports". Meta's choice of the word "erased" to describe their action (it evokes "erasure", a key term in postmodernism and existentialism), is either what they really mean, or seems to be a striking philosophical misjudgement.
0 replies
38 months ago
The Non-Existence of a Book.
A professor in the USA sent me an insured parcel, a book. Firstly, an unnamed depot demanded a surcharge, in advance, before I should fetch it. This had me confused at first, but it was a scam, apparently a Post Office inside job. Then, a few days ago, a real depot -- Vlaeberg Post Office 8018 -- required a surcharge, to be paid at the depot. I went to the depot today. A postal official went into the tangled womb of the building -- then produced proof, with official stamp and all, that someone else had claimed the book. I pressed him. Another postal official took the paper from his fingers, and lo! she produced the book. I said how, then, do you hold proof that you don't have this? The first official shouted, "Yes! Sir!" and turned on his heel, and I grabbed my book and counted myself thankful. The question is of course, what is going on? In this case, a valuable book would have been rerouted ... where? What measures would ideally have been in place to prevent this? My parcel was: Certificate of Posting of an Insured Parcel No. 2867. Vlaeberg 8018, Received by UH048407371US.
53 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
1 (4.545454545454546%)
2 Star
9 (40.90909090909091%)
1 Star
12 (54.54545454545455%)