The Financial Services Tribunal (FST) has confirmed that altering delivery dates and witness details on vehicle-finance documentation can justify debarment – even where there is no allegation of forged client signatures or falsified financial information.
In a decision delivered on 29 January 2026, the FST dismissed an application to reconsider a debarment by NMI Durban South Motors (Pty) Ltd.
The applicant was employed by NMI as a finance and insurance consultant from July 2017. She was debarred in September 2025 on the basis that she no longer met the fit and proper requirements of honesty and integrity.
The grounds for the debarment arose from two transactions processed in April and May 2025.
Delivery date amendment
In the first transaction:
- On 24 April 2025, a customer applied for finance through Volkswagen Financial Services (Pty) Ltd.
- Insurance cover for the vehicle was issued by Santam on 25 April 2025, before delivery.
- The vehicle was delivered on 30 April 2025.
- Thereafter, comprehensive cover was arranged with OUTsurance, effective 2 May 2025, and that inception date was communicated to the financier.
The Tribunal stated that the applicant changed the delivery date from 30 April 2025 to 2 May 2025. On 5 May 2025, she submitted the amended delivery note to VW and requested payment.
In response to the notice of intention to debar, the applicant said she did not realise the seriousness of the amendment at the time. She said she believed she was acting on an instruction from the bank to align the delivery note with the new inter-plan date. She maintained the amendment had no bearing on service delivery, financial aspects, her relationship with NMI, or any personal benefit.
In her reconsideration application, she asserted that the alignment did not affect the customer or her employer and did not amount to unethical conduct.
The Tribunal held that changing the delivery date after the vehicle had been delivered conveyed untruthful information. The fact that the applicant did not appreciate the seriousness of the amendment did not remove the untruthfulness of what was done.
The Tribunal further held that she was not bound by the bank’s request if it resulted in inaccurate documentation.
Alteration of signature date and witness
The second transaction involved a repeat customer whose vehicle later broke down. A replacement vehicle was sourced and a new finance request submitted to the same financier, VW.
The decision records that after documentation issues arose and the transaction was delayed, the customer re-signed a release note, with his wife signing as witness. VW declined to accept the re-signed documents with the spouse as witness.
The Tribunal recorded that the applicant then:
- Altered the delivery receipt’s signature date from 5 May 2025 to 26 April 2025;
- Removed the wife’s signature as witness;
- Added her own signature as witness; and
- Resubmitted the documents to VW.
In her response, the applicant stated there had been no forgery of the client’s signature and no falsification of financial information. She described the issue as an administrative inaccuracy made under operational pressure and said the matter was later corrected when the customer re-signed.
In its evaluation, the Tribunal held that altering the signature date and substituting the witness signature displayed dishonesty. The absence of forged client signatures or misrepresented financial data did not alter the character of the conduct.
The Tribunal said the fact that the documents were later discovered and corrected did not cure what it described as the untruthfulness of the alteration.
The Tribunal concluded that NMI had not erred in determining that the applicant no longer met the fit and proper requirements. The application for reconsideration was dismissed.
