--- title: "Digital Profiteers (Part Two): The banks and the costs of verifying social grant recipients" description: "In the previous article, we explained why the South African government is extending the use of banks to verify grant recipients in social grants administration and how this process works. In this article, we unpack how much these banks are charging to conduct their services for social grants administration and explore the implications of their services for grant recipients’ data." type: "NewsArticle" publisher: "Daily Maverick" site: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za" section: "OPEN SECRETS" author: "Abby May for Open Secrets" author_url: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/author/abby-may-for-open-secrets/" canonical_url: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-08-03-digital-profiteers-part-two-the-banks-and-the-costs-of-verifying-social-grant-recipients/" published: "2026-08-03T16:29:38" lang: "en-ZA" word_count: 4614 --- # Digital Profiteers (Part Two): The banks and the costs of verifying social grant recipients > In the previous article, we explained why the South African government is extending the use of banks to verify grant recipients in social grants administration and how this process works. In this article, we unpack how much these banks are charging to conduct their services for social grants administration and explore the implications of their services for grant recipients’ data. By Abby May for Open Secrets · Published 3 August 2026, 18:29 SAST ## Key points - The South African government is increasingly relying on banks for verifying social grant recipients, sparking concerns about costs and data privacy. - Bank charges for means-testing and cash transfer services vary, with some recipients facing reduced grant amounts due to fees, raising transparency issues. - A lack of clarity exists around mandatory bank verification processes, potentially complicating access for diverse users, especially non-English speakers. - As digitalisation advances, safeguarding grant recipients’ financial data from exploitation becomes crucial to avoid repeating past failures in grant management. ## Content In the [first article](https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-07-21-a-peek-behind-south-africas-digitalised-grants-system/) of this series, we reported Judge Leonard Twala ordering that the social relief of distress (SRD) grant to be increased to R624, along with other improvements on SRD grant regulations. The Department of Social Development, South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) and the National Treasury have since appealed against the ruling. In its [supporting affidavit](https://seri-sa.org/images/National-Treasury-Answering-Affidavit-1_21Dec2023.pdf) to the court, the National Treasury’s position on the R370 SRD grant was clear: it is a temporary grant that currently has no permanent funding source and is primarily being financed through borrowing. This argument remains a key point in the government’s appeal of the judgment. The bank verification process forms part of the conditions set by the Treasury on the Department of Social Development and Sassa for their budget allocations. In its February 2026 budget review, the National Treasury noted Sassa’s budget allocation for 2025/26 was conditional on the agency improving its biometric and income verification processes of grant recipients. [Part One Digital Profiteers (Part One): A peek behind South Africa’s digitalised grants system July 25, 2026 ![Image](https://cdn.dailymaverick.co.za/i/lha25XAWZtDduTOYjL_SKeUkMSM=/450x0/smart/file/dailymaverick/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/GroundUp-Sassa-recovers.jpg)](https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-07-25-a-peek-behind-south-africas-digitalised-grants-system/) The Treasury further [reported](https://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/National%20Budget/2026/review/FullBR.pdf) that by December 2025, Sassa had checked the bank accounts of six million clients and eight million credit bureau clients. As a result, more than 290,000 grant beneficiaries were reviewed and 34,661 grants cancelled. These cancellations are expected to save the government R170-million by the end of the 2025/26 financial period. By 21 July 2026, the Department of Social Development revealed in a media briefing that the number of grants flagged for review for 2025/26 period had increased to 420,000. The benefits for the government to use banks to assess grant recipients is well documented, but an underlying question needs be asked: *What are the banks getting out of this partnership?* Documents obtained by Open Secrets reveal the contractual agreements between Sassa and the banks conducting means-tests for the period between 2025-2027. The contracted banks are Absa Bank, African Bank, FNB, Nedbank, Standard Bank and TymeBank (now rebranded as GoTyme Bank). In this article, we unpack how much these banks are charging for their services and explore the implications of their assessments to grant recipients’ data. ### Where are the banks making money? In his 2025 interview with Open Secrets, Sassa executive grants manager Brenton van Vrede explained the two aspects of the role of banks in the social grants system: “One is when we’re \[Sassa\] using them for means-testing. The other one is when we use them for payments.”The banks contracted for 2025-2027 charge Sassa for both services. The documents show the banks are paid to conduct means tests for social grants and to facilitate mobile cash transfers payments for SRD grant recipients who do not have a bank account. All the banks charge the means-tests cost to Sassa and the fees differ depending on the means-test outcome. Grant beneficiaries who receive the SRD grant can be charged if they choose to receive their grant payment through a cash transfer. Below is a breakdown of the costs per bank and whether it is charged to Sassa, the grant beneficiary or both. ![OpenSecrets-Sassa-2](https://cdn.dailymaverick.co.za/i/DbCZPnrQx4Fy9Sd8GLU94w4Xv6M=/200x100/smart/filters:strip_exif\(\)/file/attachments/orphans/20260602_FinalGraphicSRDArticle2_SI2_764292.png) *(Graphic: Shakeelah Ismail)* The breakdown shows that FNB and African Bank directly charge fees to SRD grant recipients for payments using cash transfers. This means SRD grant recipients receiving payments of their grants through these banks may get less than the R370, due to the fees. In contrast Nedbank does not charge SRD beneficiaries for cash transfers. Absa charges Sassa for this service and TymeBank does not offer the cash transfer service. Standard Bank’s contract did not clarify who it charged the Instant Money transaction fees to. But in response to Open Secrets, it confirmed the R7.83 is charged to Sassa and explained that “Sassa issues payment instructions to the Bank, which the Bank executes in accordance with those instructions. In accordance with the Instant Money terms and conditions, funds may be accessed at participating ATMs and retailers. There are no additional costs involved in the process.” In its response to Open Secrets, Nedbank noted: “The fees charged by Nedbank to Sassa are nominal, as the objective of this service is not for profit generation.”In their responses, Absa, African Bank and FNB highlighted confidentiality around the contracts and did not comment on the fees. TymeBank commented*:*“The R0.03 and R0.02 fees are charged to Sassa and are not VAT inclusive.” Importantly, the contracts do not cover what happens with grant recipients who do not bank with any of these banks. How is income assessed if a beneficiary does not bank with any of the contracted banks used by the government? Another question is whether it is mandatory for an SRD grant recipient to undergo a means-test through a bank to qualify for the grant. Open Secrets put forward these questions to the Department of Social Development and Sassa. The department did not respond by the time of publication and Sassa referred Open Secrets to submit a Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia) request to access further information. ### Language barriers Along with a lack of clarity on how mandatory bank verification is a prominent feature throughout the digitisation of grants administration, grant applicants and beneficiaries also face language barriers when needing to engage with terms and conditions of applying and continuing to receive a social grant. As explained by a grant recipient in an interview published in a 2025 [report](https://hal.science/hal-05489761/document) by the Institute of Economic Justice: “Some questions are difficult and you don’t have someone to explain to you because some English you don’t even understand, the words is difficult there. Maybe if they talk to you with your language, maybe it will be easy because sometimes it’s easy to talk English, but to read its difficult, for me it was difficult.” The lack of a variety of languages in the digital system raises the complexities of providing consent in grants applications and payment reviews processes. If grant recipients cannot fully understand the terms and conditions of how Sassa and its private contractors like the banks are processing their data due to language barriers, does that qualify has an adequate means to provide consent? In response to a question by Open Secrets on whether the grant application forms provide effective informed consent, Van Vrede stated: “That’s a difficult question. It really depends on whether the person reads it, but it’s almost like the same situation most of us are in when we want something… There’s no way you can proceed with the application if you don’t accept the T&C’s \[Terms and Conditions\]. The person that is on the other side is saying these are the conditions I need to be able to assess you, which might not sound fair, but… if you don’t consent, we can’t assess you.” Van Vrede’s statement highlights the choices – and non-choices – grant applicants and recipients must face when engaging with a grants system digitally transforming in real time. How grant recipients’ data is used becomes increasingly important as the digitalisation of social grants administration increases the number of third-party private actors that assist Sassa in verifying grant applications. ### The protection of grant recipients’ data The government’s appeals process towards Judge Twala’s judgment means improvements on SRD grant regulations ordered by the ruling cannot be implemented until the appeal is heard. Pending the outcome of that process, the government can expand its digitisation of grant administration. As a result, exclusion errors by the bank verification process, language barriers and effective transparency around how fees are charged within this process may not be adequately addressed. This while the government and the private companies it contracts to assist in grants administration need to ensure that the introduction of more private players in the system does not repeat past failures. Recent publications [reported](https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-04-08-cps-ordered-to-pay-sassa-r813m-but-the-balance-sheet-says-good-luck/) Cash Paymaster Services (CPS) not having repaid Sassa the roughly R81-million it owes the agency from the contract to administer social grants payments that was declared invalid in 2014. But CPS parent company Net1 – now rebranded as Lesaka Technologies Inc (Lesaka) – continues to [profit](https://lesakatech.com/newsroom-all/sassa-grant-beneficiaries-fuel-lesaka-consumer-unit-boom) from the social grants market through its offering of the Lesaka EasyPay bank account to more than two million Sassa customers. At the heart of the business model Net1 pioneered was the company’s complete access to the financial data of grant recipients, and in turn using that data to market and sell Net1 subsidiary companies funeral and loan policies directly tied to a grant recipients Cash Paymaster Services account – often without their consent. It is a business model that is being adapted by [other](https://youtu.be/xWshDpUnhP0?si=I_Jtpc_7hPr9mNYJ) third parties. On 8 June 2026, Open Secrets investigators interviewed Lincoln Mali, CEO of Lesaka Southern Africa, George Roussos, head of Lesaka’s Consumer Division and Brenda Mangana, Provincial Head of Lesaka’s largest regions, North West and Gauteng. Lesaka reiterated that they were heavily regulated by data protection laws, consumer protection and credit regulations. Mali clarified: “The customers that we use data for, is data we only acquired when they become a customer of ours. Lesaka does not access or use any data derived from the CPS-Sassa contract. It’s data that is there because you have an EP \[Easy Pay account\].” Mangana added that, “We have a standing process where customers can escalate any dissatisfactions, and those details are freely available and visible in all our branches as well as publishing our NCR and FCP numbers. So that a customer is well informed on the next step should there be any dispute.” Mali did not shy away from the company’s past: “When I first joined, people kept saying, why don’t you move away from Net1. I said, we can’t run away from our past. We do not dismiss the experiences of customers who were poorly served in an earlier era; those experiences are precisely why this company was rebuilt, and they remain a reference point for everything we do.” ### Government oversight But as Lesaka seeks to improve from its past, the expansion of private players in the social grants system means government oversight on similar risks must remain vigilant. The full income assessment conducted by Sassa may require it to not only share grant beneficiaries’ data with the banks, but other potential third-party contractors that assist the agency with verifying grant beneficiaries’ details. The documents show that an additional step in Sassa’s income verification process is that a grant beneficiary also undergoes a fraud assessment check. Grant beneficiaries’ information is checked against databases provided by credit bureaus Southern African Fraud Prevention Service, Experian and TransUnion. Open Secrets sent questions to all three credit bureaus to clarify the nature of their role in the fraud assessment conducted by Sassa. Southern African Fraud Prevention Service responded that it would not provide comment. Experian had not provided comment by the time of publication. TransUnion informed Open Secrets that: “Our role is to provide data-driven insights and solutions that assist organisations in identifying risk indicators, verifying identity, and detecting potential fraud. These tools form part of broader decision-making processes, and TransUnion does not make decisions regarding eligibility for financial products, services or social support mechanisms.” Sassa informed Open Secrets to submit a Paia request for additional answers and the Department of Social Development had not responded by the time of publication. FNB and Standard Bank clarified that the fraud assessment check is the full responsibility of Sassa. The contracts do show that the banks assist with accounts verification checks on grant recipients’ bank accounts to verify that the account belongs to the recipient. The income verification and fraud assessments conducted by Sassa with various private actors has been argued by government departments like the National Treasury as being measures to protect social grants from fraud. But to what extent is grant recipients financial data protected against illicit marketing like that of CPS/Net1 in these digitised processes? In their response to Open Secrets on whether grant recipients’ data is used for any other purposes aside from the means-test and cash transfers, Standard Bank replied: “The Bank conducts means-testing using data already held in respect of its clients and does not use such data for marketing or acquisition purposes. All data usage is governed by applicable law and the Bank’s privacy policy.” ### Safeguards Nedbank also replied that grant recipients’ data “is used only for the purpose of conducting means-testing and enabling grant payments, and safeguards are in place to protect confidentiality”. TymeBank stated: “The bank is not generally required to share applicants’ or Beneficiaries’ data with third parties as part of the means tests, except where permitted or required by the MOA or applicable law. The bank may use applicant and beneficiary data received from Sassa only for the limited purposes of performing the agreed Means Test under the MOA (memorandum of understanding). The MOA does not authorise the bank to use the data to market or sell financial products to applicants or beneficiaries.” Absa, African Bank and FNB did not disclose an answer to this question. Sassa asked Open Secrets to submit a Paia request for additional information. The 2025-2027 contracts with the banks state that all applicable data protection laws, anti-corruption laws and regulations enforced by Sassa and the National Treasury can be applied to the activities conducted in the contracts. Along with some of the banks confirming that grant recipients’ data is not used for purposes aside from those covered in the contracts with Sassa, these laws and regulations should protect grant recipients’ data from being exposed to uses outside of what is required for the grant application and verification processes. It has yet to be seen how South African data protection laws can effectively be applied to ensure grant recipients are protected from the deductions business model pioneered by CPS/Net1. Commercial banks may in future want to tailor their services to adapt the CPS/Net1 business model. A notable example is the GrantAdvance account you can open with GoTyme Bank where you can receive your social grant amount in advance, with a caveat that it is repaid once the grant is paid into your account by Sassa. This service can be accessed by beneficiaries of the Care Dependency Grant, Child Support Grant, Foster Care Grant, Old Person’s Grant and War Veterans Grant. SRD grant recipients are not eligible for the service. The minimum Grant Advance offer is R150. The maximum offer for the Child Support Grant and Care Giver Grant is R150 per beneficiary, while the maximum offer for the remaining qualifying grants is R1,000. Currently this service has no additional charges and is interest free. TymeBank informed Open Secrets that: “The bank has no current plans to introduce a service fee and no plans to introduce interest charges.” It also confirmed that: “The Grant Advance offering does not make use of grant beneficiary data accessed through the banks’ means-test services contract with Sassa.” In an on-the-record interview with TymeBank CEO Cheslyn Jacobs, he emphasised the Grant Advance was a product solely aimed at helping grant recipients manage their cash flow. The product may allow grant recipients to receive portions of their money earlier than the grant payment dates, but it still required a repayment that was automatically deducted once Sassa paid the grant in the account. ### Where does accountability lie? The means-test involves the services from the banks and third parties’ electronic infrastructure which necessitates the electronic transfer of grant beneficiaries’ confidential information. While various parties interact with grant recipients’ data, Sassa is solely responsible for any inaccuracies and losses that arise from the data that is received by the banks for the means-test. As noted by FNB in their response to questions put forward by Open Secrets: “Sassa retains full responsibility for the grant administration, eligibility determinations, fraud assessments, and all beneficiary-related queries.” The banks are only responsible if there has been gross negligence on their part. In the interview with Jacobs, he offered a consideration for Open Secrets on what can be considered gross negligence. “Remember you also got accounts verification checks. Then you’ve also got the question of saying, perfect, Standard Bank, TymeBank, FNB, Capitec: Are you comfortable that of everything we’ve given to you, that the applicant gets the money in this bank account? If the bank says yes, and it appears to be the wrong answer, what more can the state do? Now I’m saying, if you’re at that stage and the bank has said, do this, and Open Secrets runs an exposé and say, but this bank has failed one million people, wrong people. And Sassa comes back and says, but here’s the million answers this bank has given me. It’s a green tick everywhere. Who’s liable? The banks have to be.” In response to additional questions on who should be liable in the event of gross misconduct during the means test, TymeBank stated: *“*The entity whose serious misconduct caused the loss would be liable.” ### A provocation Jacobs’ example of banks needing to take responsibility for the potential mass failure in social grant assessments remains only a provocation. As it stands the contractual agreements indemnify the banks from failures in the income assessment process that are not considered gross negligence. The reliance on private companies to digitalise social grants services is increasingly complicating the risks the Department of Social Development and Sassa need to address to protect grant recipients and deliver social grants. The use of grant recipients’ data in illicit marketing of financial products continues to be an evolving issue in grants administration. This remains an important point to keep vigilant that CPS/Net1 mistakes are not repeated. Commercial banks facilitate both means-tests and the payments of grants to recipients, and they are receiving payment from Sassa for both services. The banks charge different fees to Sassa and grant recipients depending on what their contracts state. In the following and final instalment of this series, we will unpack the how fraud plays a role in the income verification system, and the risks that may arise from that. **DM** *Note:**An AI transcription tool was used to transcribe the interviews conducted by Open Secrets in this investigation and the contents were verified by investigators. No AI was used in writing the article series.* *Research contributions by Ra’eesa Pather and Cheriese Dilrajh for Open Secrets.* ### **Absa full Right of Reply response:** *“Absa does not comment on its relationships or engagements with individual clients. This is due to our strict confidentiality obligations, as well as the commercially sensitive nature of such matters.”* *-*Daniel Munslow, Managing Executive: Group Communications at Absa Group. ### **African Bank full Right of Reply response:** *“We note your questions regarding documents obtained by Open Secrets, which indicate that Sassa requested the assistance of the Banking Association South Africa (Basa) to facilitate contract negotiations with contracted banks for the 2025–2027 period in relation to means test and cash transfer services.* *“From African Bank’s side, the process was managed through the office of the then Personal Banking Chief Executive Officer. In line with the contractual arrangements governing the process, African Bank is required to refer queries relating to the public tender process and the associated contract to Sassa.* *“We therefore request that any further questions regarding the contract and related processes be directed to Sassa.”* – Eloise Boezak, Head: Strategic Communications & PR ### FNB full Right of Reply response: *“FNB confirms that its role in relation to Sassa is governed by a formal agreement between both organisations.* *“In terms of this agreement, which is subject to confidentiality, FNB acts solely as a service provider to Sassa in compliance with the applicable legislation, performing two primary functions:* 1. *Means testing support – FNB conducts means tests strictly on instructions from Sassa, based on data provided by Sassa, and returns the results to Sassa in an agreed format. FNB does not determine eligibility for any grant, as this remains solely within Sassa’s mandate.* 2. *Payment execution services – FNB processes SRD grant payments only upon receipt of valid instructions from Sassa and facilitates the transfer of funds to beneficiaries in accordance with those instructions and defined operational requirements.* *“Sassa retains full responsibility for the grant administration, eligibility determinations, fraud assessments, and all beneficiary-related queries. FNB does not perform any public function or exercise any decision-making authority in relation to the grant system.* *“FNB’s role is therefore limited to providing defined technical and banking services in support of Sassa’s statutory functions, and does not extend to policy, decision-making, or oversight of the grant system.* *“Due to confidentiality provisions in the agreement, FNB is not in a position to disclose further details.”* – Dineo Molaba-Skhosana, FNB PR Communications Manager. ### **Nedbank full Right of Reply response:** *“Nedbank’s participation in this process follows a request from the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) to the Banking Association of South Africa (Basa) to support the facilitation of contract negotiations with banks for means testing and cash transfer services for the 2025-2027 period.* *“Following a public tender and negotiated process approved by National Treasury, Nedbank entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with Sassa. Under this agreement, Nedbank provides means testing for applicants and beneficiaries, and the processing of cash transfers to beneficiaries in accordance with applicable laws. The fees charged by Nedbank to Sassa are nominal, as the objective of this service is not for profit generation.* *“Regarding data management, Sassa files are received and processed within a secure, controlled environment within the relevant business areas only*. *Data is used only for the purpose of conducting means-testing and enabling grant payments, and safeguards are in place to protect confidentiality. Results are shared by Nedbank with Sassa via the original, secure channel*from which it was received*. Sassa remains solely responsible for inter alia handling all grant-related queries and complaints, including those relating to privacy, approvals, rejections, and non-payment.* *“Nedbank is unable to disclose the identities of individuals or stakeholders involved in the process, in line with applicable data protection laws.”* – Nedbank Spokesperson ### **Standard Bank full Right of Reply response:** *“Standard Bank is committed to safeguarding customer information and managing data responsibly. No information managed under the Sassa agreement is utilised for anything other than its intended purpose.* *“This is the first time we participated in means tests across all social grants. Since 2020, our involvement has been limited to means testing and cash transfers for SRD grants. The payment services started from 20 February 2025, subject to the fulfilment of the suspensive conditions.* *“The Bank conducts means testing using data already held in respect of its clients and does not use such data for marketing or acquisition purposes. All data usage is governed by applicable law and the Bank’s privacy policy.* *“Sassa issues payment instructions to the Bank, which the Bank executes in accordance with those instructions. In accordance with the Instant Money terms and conditions, funds may be accessed at participating ATMs and retailers. There are no additional costs involved in the process.* *“As previously indicated, all communications regarding the grant are between Sassa and the grant applicant/beneficiary. It follows the current Instant Money process where the sender pays the applicable fees and not the receiver.* *“Fraud assessment in relation to grant eligibility is conducted by Sassa or its service providers. The Bank does not perform fraud assessments in this context.”* *– Standard Bank Group Spokesperson, Ross Linstrom* ### ***TymeBank (now GoTyme Bank) full Right of Reply response:*** *“GoTyme Bank (formerly TymeBank) takes seriously the importance of transparency, accountability, and the rights of social grant applicants and beneficiaries. GoTyme Bank confirms that it provides means-test support services to Sassa. However, in line with the new memorandum of agreement (MOA) concluded in 2025, the bank does not provide mobile cash transfer payment services.* *“Means Testing for SRD: the bank began providing SRD means-testing services under the initial contract concluded in 2022 and continues to do so in terms of updated agreement concluded in 2025.* *“Means Testing for Care Dependency Grant, Child Support Grant, Combination Grant, Disability Grant, Foster Care Grant, Old Person’s Grant and the War Veterans Grant: the bank began providing means-testing services for these grant types under the new MOA concluded in 2025.* *“GoTyme Bank’s role is to provide Sassa with a response based on the applicant’s bank transactional data and the applicable SRD Grant Threshold. Sassa then considers this response alongside other information it has collected and its own fraud-risk assessment processes, to determine whether an applicant qualifies for the SRD Grant or whether an existing beneficiary remains eligible.* *“GoTyme Bank does not make the final eligibility decision. Sassa is responsible for setting the applicable criteria, thresholds and rules, and for making the final decision. GoTyme Bank’s role is limited to conducting the means test on Sassa’s instruction and providing the response back to Sassa. Sassa remains responsible for deciding whether an applicant qualifies for the grant or whether the beneficiary remains eligible.* *“Sassa is also responsible for managing all applicant and beneficiary queries and complaints relating to Grant applications, approval criteria, approval or decline decisions, reasons for decline, further/future Grant payments, and appeals. Accordingly, any query regarding the outcome of a means-test, or the approval or decline of a Grant application, should be directed to Sassa.* *“Grant applicants’ and beneficiaries’ data is protected in the means-test process through a combination of data-protection, confidentiality, access-control, security, retention and breach-response obligations imposed on both Sassa and GoTyme Bank. Operationally, Sassa submits means-test files to GoTyme Bank through PayInc via secure encryption protocols, and Sassa remains responsible for the integrity and accuracy of the file format and content.* *“Human oversight occurs at several points in the broader process: Operationally before the means-test is run, Sassa controls the initiation of the process. Sassa decides when a means-test is required, provides GoTyme Bank with prior notice, identifies the relevant grant, the assessment month, the applicable threshold, and the transactional period against which the test must be conducted. Sassa is also responsible for the integrity and accuracy of the file format and content submitted for the means-test. The bank’s role is operational and data-based: it receives the means test file from Sassa, conducts the agreed bank-data analysis, and returns a response file to Sassa.* *“The Grant Advance offering is available to beneficiaries of the Care Dependency Grant, Child Support Grant, Disability Grant, Foster Care Grant, Old Person’s Grant and the War Veterans Grant. SRD grant recipients are not eligible for the service. The Grant Advance offering does not make use of grant beneficiary data accessed through the bank’s means-test services contract with Sassa.* *“The minimum Grant Advance offer is R150. The maximum Grant Advance offer for the Child Support Grant and Care Giver is R150 per beneficiary. The maximum Grant Advance offer for Disability Grant, Foster Care Grant, Old Person’s Grant and the War Veterans Grant is R1,000. Grant Advance offering is provided at zero fees. The bank has no current plans to introduce a service fee.* *“Grant Advance offering is interest free. The bank has no current plans to introduce interest charges for this service. The offering is available to beneficiaries of the Care Dependency Grant, Child Support Grant, Disability Grant, Foster Care Grant, Old Person’s Grant and the War Veterans Grant who have received their grant into their GoTyme Bank account at least once. SRD grant beneficiaries are not eligible for this service.* *“The bank may use applicant and beneficiary data received from Sassa only for the limited purposes of performing the agreed means test under the MoA. The MoA does not authorise the bank to use that data to market or sell financial products to applicants or beneficiaries. Any use outside the agreed purpose would require a separate lawful basis and compliance with applicable data-protection laws and the MoA’s consent, confidentiality and purpose-limitation requirements.”* *– Pontsho Ramantsha, Head of Corporate Communications, GoTyme Bank (Formerly TymeBank).* ![Image](https://cdn.dailymaverick.co.za/i/yHdGBJut-YXPLOj7UrVQ58dwUiA=/200x100/smart/filters:strip_exif\(\)/file/attachments/orphans/OpenSecretslogo_965844.jpg)