Anthony P

Active since Mar 2023

Reviews

Industries

Reviews

27 reviews

2 months ago

Pay Upfront, Wait Two Weeks, Then Enjoy the Luxury of Being Ignored

Absolutely shocking experience with Durban Concrete Fencing on Gillitts Road, Pinetown. This company expects upfront payment yet appears incapable of properly checking their own bank statements. After payment was made, they prematurely claimed they had not received the money, causing unnecessary frustration and inconvenience. Once payment was eventually “found,” they scheduled the installation two weeks later, claiming they already had other jobs allocated. Fine — I waited patiently. The day before the scheduled installation, I phoned to confirm and was assured they would definitely be coming through. The next day? Nobody pitched up. No courtesy call. No explanation. When I contacted them, they acted confused and disorganised, saying the director was at another site and would call me back. Unsurprisingly, no call ever came. The level of dishonesty, poor communication, and unprofessional conduct is unacceptable. A company that takes upfront payments should at the very least honour commitments, communicate honestly, and respect customers’ time. Instead, this experience was filled with excuses, confusion, and empty promises. Would not recommend this company to anyone looking for reliable or ethical service.

0 replies

Experian SA

5 months ago

Experian South Africa - When "Compliance" Means "You Do Our Job For Us"

Experian has discovered a magical loophole in the National Credit Act that nobody else knows about. It's called Section 72(3) - The Invisible Clause. According to Experian, this clause reads: "The consumer must do all the work while we sit back and demand paperwork." Here's what happened: Someone opened a Truworths account in my name. *****. Identity theft. The works. I dispute it with Experian Their response? "Please provide: Affidavit. Police case. Certified ID. Proof of residence. Six signatures. Blood sample. Firstborn child. Okay, I made up the last two. But you get the idea. Here's the funny thing though. I actually read the National Credit Act. Like, the actual law. And Section 72(3) says something completely different: "The credit bureau and the data provider must... find credible evidence supporting the challenged information." "THE CREDIT BUREAU MUST - Not "the consumer must." Not "the victim must prove their own innocence." The bureau must find evidence. From Truworths. Within 20 days. or remove the data. So here I am. Paying for their laziness. Funding their non-compliance. And watching a *****ulent account sit on my credit profile while Experian plays procedural games with a law they're supposed to follow.

5 replies

Truworths

5 months ago

Desperate for Business

Truworths appears so desperate for business that it is willing to open accounts in other people's names just to keep its dying business afloat. I was recently informed by my credit bureau that an account had been opened at Truworths in my name something I obviously never did. This suggests that Truworths is extremely loose and careless when it comes to opening accounts, which is a clear sign of a struggling business. Do not drag me into your failing business. I have nothing to do with Truworths and nothing to do with Truworths. liberately avoid store accounts for exactly this reason- because of companies that operate like this.

0 replies

LexisNexis South Africa

6 months ago

LexisNexis South Africa: When “Premium Legal Services” Comes with Premium Surprises

In South Africa, we are unfortunately no strangers to businesses that rely on glossy marketing and selective transparency to entice unsuspecting customers. What is more disturbing, however, is when this conduct appears to come from companies that position themselves as pillars of credibility and custodians of trusted information. Enter LexisNexis South Africa — a brand that presents itself as a leader in legal and property information services. One would reasonably expect clarity, integrity, and full disclosure from such an organisation. Instead, what customers encounter is a masterclass in how to say just enough… but not quite everything. The advertised offering sounds straightforward and reassuring: Full deeds searches Access to Deeds Office records The ability to obtain Surveyor General (SG) plans All very impressive. All very convincing. You register. You are prompted to purchase credits to use the services. Fair enough — services cost money. You purchase the credits. Only then — at the point where you are about to conduct your first search — does the small but very significant detail appear: you will be charged for the search even if it returns no results. Yes, you read that correctly. Whether you find what you’re looking for or not, the meter runs. This critical piece of information is conveniently absent during the marketing phase and notably absent when you are encouraged to purchase credits. It materialises only after your money is safely secured. At that stage, what is a customer to do? The credits have been bought. There is no turning back. So you proceed — as most reasonable people would — trusting that a “Deeds Office search” will, at the very least, locate a legitimate property. Except… it doesn’t. You try again, perhaps thinking it was a minor input error. Another charge. Another null result. More credits deducted. Still no property found — on what is supposedly a Deeds Office search platform. The following day, you raise the issue. You explain that it is unreasonable to be charged repeatedly for null results. The response? A polite but firm refusal to refund. The explanation: “The Deeds Office charges for every search.” That may very well be the case. But here’s a novel concept: disclose that clearly and upfront. Place it boldly in the marketing material. State it before customers are required to purchase credits. Transparency is not a radical business model — especially for a company trading on the strength of its credibility. Instead, customers are left feeling as though the business model depends less on successful searches and more on the inevitability of repeated, billable attempts. For a company operating in the legal information space, where trust and ethics should be non-negotiable, this approach is deeply disappointing. When profit eclipses transparency, credibility becomes collateral damage. LexisNexis South Africa, perhaps it’s time to reflect: integrity is not a premium add-on. It should not require credits.

2 replies

FNB (First National Bank)

8 months ago

FNB App Collapse: When Banking Meets Comedy

In a shocking turn of events absolutely no one is surprised by, the FNB Banking App has once again collapsed into a digital heap, and the entire bank is standing around like they’ve just discovered electricity for the first time. Word on the street is the coding for the FNB app was apparently done by the same alien civilisation that built the Pyramids, which explains why fixing it requires cosmic intervention… a level of effort FNB staff have zero interest in providing. FNB is now officially clueless, helpless, and proudly displaying both traits like corporate badges of honour. But don’t worry — their “best minds” (yes, all two of them) are currently tied up doing something far more important: fighting a losing battle in the Pinetown Small Claims Court under the illustrious case number SC127/2025. And in a plot twist that deserves its own documentary, when the matter moved to the Durban High Court (Case: 2025/192872), FNB bravely decided to… not oppose it at all. Instead, the bank is reportedly crossing its fingers, sitting in the corner, and whispering prayers into the void, hoping that luck will achieve what competence never could. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the same institution South Africans trust with their money. We are in deep, deep trouble. Meanwhile, FNB, we’re still waiting — popcorn in hand — to see how long it takes you to fix the app’s chat feature so customers can actually exit a chat instead of being held hostage. By the way, that little design flaw? Yeah… that’s a POPIA breach. But I’m sure FNB will treat that with the same level of care they treat everything else: none whatsoever.

2 replies

FNB (First National Bank)

8 months ago

FNB — The Bank That Can Fight Court Cases but Can’t Fix a Simple App Button

Let’s give FNB a round of applause. Really. Not for competence — they don’t have any, But for their ongoing dedication to setting new records in customer neglect. Here we are again: The FNB app’s existing chats function is STILL dead, lying there like a fossil from the Jurassic period. And FNB’s response? Oh, that’s easy: Silence. Absolute, impressive, Olympic-level silence. No feedback. No update. No acknowledgement. Just the digital equivalent of them pulling the blanket over their heads and pretending I’m not knocking. And before FNB pretend they “didn’t know” — let me refresh their memory, which seems to be suffering from chronic amnesia: I’ve already taken them twice to: Pinetown Small Claims Court case number: SC127/2025 Durban High Court case number: 2025/192872 In both cases, FNB attempted their usual routine of bullying the customer, and both times it blew up in their faces spectacularly. It wasn’t just a backfire — it was a full-blown Chernobyl of incompetence, and they were the only ones standing next to the reactor without a helmet. After their courtroom circus act, FNB vanished into the mist. No follow-up. No accountability. Just pure, unfiltered corporate ghosting. Now, FNB… if your social media intern, or your “digital team,” or whoever’s actually awake in that building is reading this: FIX THE APP. Not tomorrow. Not next year. Not in your next budget cycle. Now. Because if you can spend time, money, and energy fighting a customer in court for no reason — and losing with style — surely repairing a broken chat feature shouldn’t require a national prayer meeting.

2 replies

FNB (First National Bank)

8 months ago

FNB A Case Study in Miscommunication and Mismanagement

If someone ever asks me to explain the limits of corporate understanding, I will simply hand them my email chain with FNB Marketplace. My experience between 6 November and 2 December 2025 was nothing short of a spectacular performance in confusion, contradictions, and utter failure to grasp even the simplest instruction. ⭐ 1. When I Asked FNB to “Delete the Advert to Fix It”… They Thought I Wanted It Gone Forever Let’s clear this up: I requested the advert to be temporarily removed so the issue could be fixed properly. You know — the logical assumption any normal person would make when dealing with a “tech team.” FNB took this as: > “Please delete my listing entirely and never restore it.” Not only did they delete it, they later insisted: > “Your listing was NOT removed.” This was said AFTER they removed it because I asked for it to be removed for repair, not destroyed like a *******ed file. This misunderstanding alone would be funny if it weren’t coming from a major bank. ⭐ 2. A Month of Contradictions That Deserve a Netflix Series Here are just some of the statements I received from FNB during the same month: “The issue is resolved.” “The issue is still being investigated.” “Your listing was not deleted.” “You must reload the listing because it was deleted.” “Buyers can view your contact details.” “Buyers cannot view your contact details.” “The chat exit function works perfectly.” “Please send screenshots proving the chat exit function doesn’t work.” If consistency was a currency, FNB would be bankrupt. ⭐ 3. The Chat System That FNB Cannot Comprehend The entire reason this saga started: > You cannot exit chats with buyers on the FNB Marketplace app. I reported it repeatedly. I supp**** proof. I even suggested they test it themselves by replying to my advert. Instead of confirming the obvious, FNB kept giving me inspirational quotes like: “We escalated to Tech.” “Tech resized your images.” “Tech will advise.” “Tech resolved this last Friday.” At this point, it genuinely felt like “Tech” was the name of a fictional character in an internal children’s storybook. ⭐ 4. The “Escalation to Tech” Myth Continues Every email repeated the phrase: > “I have escalated this to Tech.” Tech must be the busiest department in the world — or the least productive. In my experience, “Tech” at FNB is similar to: A unicorn A mirage A distant cousin who always says “I’m on my way” but never arrives Tech never answered. Never communicated. Never clarified anything. Just existed as a vague entity used to stall customers. --- ⭐ 5. The Moment I Asked for Accountability, FNB Went Silent On 2 December 2025, after weeks of contradictions, I sent: > “Please confirm whether the problem exists and provide a timeframe. Verification should not take an inordinate amount of time.” And that’s when FNB made their boldest move yet: They disappeared. Completely. No reply. No update. Not even a templated apology. Nothing. The moment responsibility was required, FNB exited the conversation faster than their own app allows customers to exit chats. ⭐ 6. Final Opinion (Based on My Experience) After thirty days of what felt like training a confused AI with memory loss, I have formed these personal views: FNB Marketplace does NOT understand customer instructions. They misinterpret requests with breathtaking ease. They contradict themselves weekly. Their internal communication is non-existent. Their “Tech” department is either overwhelmed, invisible, or mythical. Their app is unstable and unreliable. Their follow-through evaporates the moment accountability is requested. If their customer service was a school assignment, it would be marked: 📉 “Incoherent. Lacks comprehension. Must redo.” My confidence in FNB Marketplace after this experience? Lower than the battery percentage of a forgotten phone. ⭐ Rating: 0/5 ⭐ Would I trust FNB Marketplace again? Only if I'm conducting a social experiment.

2 replies

LinkedIn South Africa

8 months ago

LinkedIn actually for nonprofessionals

This company sends out spam emails and no way to unsubscribe, thus rendering the company substandard and unrefined

0 replies

FNB (First National Bank)

9 months ago

5 star Masterclass in Institutional Failure

A Thirty-Year Mistake: A Eulogy for Competence at FNB Let me begin with a confession. For three decades, I have labored under a tragic misapprehension. I believed that a bank, an institution entrusted with the very lifeblood of one's financial existence, required a baseline of competence, professionalism, and functional technology. I was wrong. FNB has not just disabused me of this notion; they have taken it out back, stabbed it repeatedly with a broken, dysfunctional app, and left it to die in a ditch of apathy and lukewarm coffee. I am a professional. For 30 years, I have conducted myself as one. My relationship with FNB spans longer than most of their employees have been alive. And in that time, I have witnessed their glorious devolution into the spectacular circus of incompetence they are today. This isn't just a bad review; it's a warning from a ghost of clientele past. This is what happens when a bank decides that professionalism is a liability and that employing sentient caffeinated sloths is a sustainable business model. My story is not one of a simple error. It is a Shakespearean tragedy of technological despair, played out on the stage of their laughably named "digital banking" platform. Act I: The Gauntlet of the Upload. My quest was simple: to list my property on their app. A task a child could perform on any other platform. But FNB’s app isn’t just an app; it’s a digital monument to failure. After numerous attempts to upload pictures were thwarted by this digital gremlin, I reached out for help. The response from customer "service"? A symphony of condescension. They operated from the core FNB tenet: The client is always an idiot. They acted as if I had never held a smartphone, suggesting the problem resided between the chair and the screen, not in their catastrophic code. Only after a public shaming on platforms like Hellopeter did they deign to do what should have been simple—upload the photos I emailed them. A round of applause for this monumental achievement. Act II: The Illusion of Function. The advert went live. Hope, that fickle fool, flickered. Being a prudent professional, I decided to test the listing. I enlisted a friend, a venture that required more coordination than a bank heist, all to simulate a potential buyer. And what did we find? The "Contact Owner" feature was a cruel joke, a digital void that returned only errors. The advert was a mirage—beautiful to look at, but utterly devoid of life or purpose. A perfect metaphor for FNB itself. I returned to the fray, speaking to a certain Adrian from Home and Structural Lending "Solutions." The title is a misnomer; there are no solutions here, only problems with a name tag. Adrian, a virtuoso in the art of client-blaming, insisted once more that the fault was mine. I then reached out to the Client Ambassador, Pam, a title so dripping with irony it should be considered a biohazard. Her ambassadorship, it seems, involves a profound and unwavering commitment to ignoring emails. Her inbox is a black hole from which no client concern escapes. Act III: The Lingering Ghost and the Bottomless Coffee. With a heavy heart, I did the only logical thing: I removed the useless advert. But FNB’s incompetence is a persistent ghost. The listing, like a bad reputation, remained online. I was not surprised. Why would their system start working now? It would be out of character. And where are our heroes, Adrian and Pam? One can only assume they are engaged in a critical, days-long strategic meeting, dissecting the nuanced complexities of their coffee machine, a device that presumably functions with more reliability than their entire digital infrastructure. We must be patient. Attending to a 30-year client’s desperate plea is surely a minor task, to be slotted in between latte art and extended sighing breaks. The Final, Devastating Analysis: FNB, you are not merely "hopeless." You are a case study in corporate decay. You have systematically recruited and cultivated a culture of unprofessionalism so profound that it has become your brand. You set the unqualified upon the professional and wonder why there is friction. You cannot understand how your "shabby behaviour and low-level operations" impact us because you are, quite simply, operating on a different, lower plane of existence. To the public: Read this and weep. Weep for the degradation of service. Weep for the death of accountability. Feel disgust for a institution that takes your money and offers this in return. To the employees of FNB, especially Adrian and Pam: You should feel a profound, burning shame. Not because you are inherently bad people, but because you are cogs in a machine that is designed to fail its clients. You have been failed by your leadership, your training, and your culture, and in turn, you fail us. The shame is not yours alone to bear, but you are its public face. And to FNB senior management: This review is my final withdrawal from the account of patience I have held with you for 30 years. The balance is zero. You have proven yourselves to be the most ***********, tone-deaf, and unprofessional financial institution it has been my profound displeasure to encounter. The only acceptable response to this categorical failure is not just an apology, but a tangible reward for the sheer emotional distress and wasted time you have inflicted. It is the very least you could do, which, given your track record, means you almost certainly won't do it. You are what happens when a bank forgets it is a service. You are a joke, and the punchline is always at the client's expense.

2 replies

FNB (First National Bank)

9 months ago

FNB’s Contradictory Litigation Strategy – A Customer’s Experience

I initiated a Small Claims Court case against FNB for R25,000 for a non transparent penalty clause not disclosed on inception and contrary to the Financial Sector Regulation act section 7, which was deducted from my investment account. FNB defended the claim vigorously, instructed attorneys, and contested the matter through to judgment. The claim was dismissed, resulting in judgment in their favour. I then exercised my legal right to apply for a High Court review of that judgment. Here's where the dilemma arises: FNB has now chosen not to oppose the High Court review, despite having invested time and resources in defending the original judgment. The Contradiction That Defies Logic At the Small Claims Court: FNB clearly considered this matter important, enough to appoint their attorneys and defend it. At the High Court: FNB appears to consider that same victory unworthy of defence. This paradox raises serious questions: If it was important enough to defend initially, why is the judgment now not worth protecting? If it is now too trivial to defend, why expend resources to contest it in the first place? The Inevitable Outcome With no opposition, the High Court may: 1. Set aside the Small Claims judgment which FNB fought so hard to obtain 2. Order a fresh hearing before a different officer 3. Effectively nullify FNB’s so-called victory 4. Force all parties back to square one My Attempts to Understand and Resolve 1. I contacted Ms Ramsunder (FNB’s Small Claims representative). Her response: “Please communicate via attorneys.” No explanation. 2. I contacted G***** Kannieappan Inc., FNB’s attorneys. I warned them that: A reasonable out-of-court settlement remains available An unopposed High Court review may become permanent public record on SAFLII The precedent this sets may empower other customers to challenge FNB Their response: Silence. No engagement at all. Why This Matters to All FNB Customers Precedent risk: High Court judgments are published permanently on the South African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII). This could establish: • FNB’s Small Claims victories can be successfully challenged • FNB may decline to defend review applications • A route for other customers to follow Reputational impact: The narrative may become: “One of South Africa’s largest banks defended a case, won it, then abandoned that victory when challenged by a self-represented litigant.” False economy: By avoiding immediate legal costs (± R30,000-R50,000), FNB may incur: • Guaranteed re-litigation costs when the matter returns to Small Claims • An increased number of review applications from other customers • Long-term reputational damage far exceeding any short-term savings What This Reveals About FNB’s Approach As a mathematics graduate, I’ve analysed this systematically. The most probable explanation is that FNB’s attorneys did not anticipate or plan for a High Court review when formulating the Small Claims strategy. This suggests either: Inadequate strategic foresight Underestimation of a self-represented litigant’s capability Failure to correct course even when error became apparent What’s truly concerning: even after I explicitly offered settlement discussions and warned of the consequences, FNB chose silence over resolution. The Bottom Line This entire approach “smacks of a novice business owner”, not a sophisticated financial institution with fiduciary responsibilities. For me personally: if the matter proceeds unopposed, I will end up in South Africa’s legal archives as the self-represented litigant who obtained a High Court judgment against FNB — not because of superior resources, but because of FNB’s own strategic failures. That is not the outcome I sought when I started. But it is the one FNB’s decisions have made probable. My Question to FNB Why defend a case, win it, then refuse to protect that victory — while ignoring all attempts at reasonable settlement? FNB’s silence and strategic inconsistency speak volumes about how the institution treats customers when challenged. This review is twofold: (1) to inform the public about how FNB handles disputes, and (2) to invite confirmation from FNB’s CEO and Board of Directors that they approve of how FNB handles this matter. I would like that confirmation in writing. References : 1. Pinetown Small Claims Case Number SC127/2025 2. Durban High Court Case Number 2*** Message to the Public If FNB provides this written confirmation, I will post it here for transparency. If they do not, that in itself will speak volumes.

6 replies

Review Distribution

5 Star

1 (3.7%)

4 Star

0 (0%)

3 Star

0 (0%)

2 Star

0 (0%)

1 Star

26 (96.3%)

Anthony P

Reviews

Pay Upfront, Wait Two Weeks, Then Enjoy the Luxury of Being Ignored

Experian South Africa - When "Compliance" Means "You Do Our Job For Us"

Desperate for Business

LexisNexis South Africa: When “Premium Legal Services” Comes with Premium Surprises

FNB App Collapse: When Banking Meets Comedy

FNB — The Bank That Can Fight Court Cases but Can’t Fix a Simple App Button

FNB A Case Study in Miscommunication and Mismanagement

LinkedIn actually for nonprofessionals

5 star Masterclass in Institutional Failure

FNB’s Contradictory Litigation Strategy – A Customer’s Experience

Review Distribution

About

Community

Businesses

Follow Us