A Gauteng man who was a robbery victim is at odds with his bank after R40,000 was allegedly withdrawn from his account.
He claims the alleged withdrawals occurred after he requested the bank to block his card.
Obed Radede, a traffic officer in Johannesburg, took the matter to the Banking Services Ombudsman, where his claim was not successful.
Radebe’s woes with Nedbank started on March 31 last year, when he and his friend were sitting inside his vehicle in Turffontein, Joburg south, when three armed men approached them from behind just before 8pm. They were ordered to sit in the back with two of their assailants while the third one drove the vehicle to Katlehong Cemetery. They also took his wallet.
Once they arrived at the cemetery they were held hostage for about five hours. “The two guys held us at gunpoint and ordered me to give them both my bank card pin codes and should I make the mistake of providing them with wrong pin codes they are going to kill me. One of the robbers drove off in my car with my cellphone in hand. They released us around 01:45am and I managed to call my bank to have my card blocked at around 3.15am the same morning,” said Radebe.
His bank account statement shows that he had R61,549 before they were robbed. Between 10.21pm and 02:04am R21,500 was withdrawn in eight transactions from an ATM, including one that was done at a popular pub and grill in Vosloorus, Ekurhuleni. Six of the transactions were for R3,000.
“What I don’t understand is that my daily limit is R3,000 and they managed to do six of them and my bank did not find this odd? I only saw the transactions the following day because I did not have any phone where I’d get notifications,” said Radebe.
He claims that after blocking his card and account, a further R40,049 was withdrawn by the thugs. Sowetan Consumer has his bank statement, which suggests further transactions that occurred over three days after the robbery. However, the bank said these transactions could have been made before the robbery and only registered by the bank in the day following the attack.
“After I called the bank, I thought everything was under control but I was shocked to learn that my bank account was actually emptied. I went to complain to Nedbank and they said all the transactions were done before I called them to block the account. They offered me a goodwill settlement offer of R7,525, which I rejected.
“Nedbank is liable for my further losses of R40,049.70 after I blocked my card, and it is evident that the failure to prevent further losses amounts to maladministration and negligence on the part of Nedbank. This has caused me further prejudice, pain and suffering over and above the trauma that I experienced during the robbery itself,” said Radebe.
At the time, Nedbank wrote to Radebe, saying it could not be held liable for the loss. “We advise that in any instance where the pin in compromised, either voluntarily or otherwise the bank cannot be held liable or be expected to compensate the complainant for any loss,” read the letter.
Nedbank reiterated this when contacted by Sowetan Consumer last week.
“It is important to note that our client was released on April 1, and he [Radebe] promptly blocked his cards afterwards. Unfortunately, the fraudulent transactions had already been carried out before Mr Radebe managed to block his cards at 03:17 on April 1 2022. Unfortunately, as he reported the incident to us after the transactions had taken place, there was little we could do to prevent them.
“It is crucial to mention that our commitment to security is reflected in our adherence to ‘two-factor authentication’. In this case, physical cards were presented (without cloning or skimming), and our client’s secret pin was used. This pin is known only to the client and not the bank.
“Despite the circumstances, Nedbank approved a goodwill payment of R7,525. While we are not required to reimburse any amount in this particular situation, we understand the distress caused by such an incident and aim to assist our customers in every possible way,” said Danielle Square from Nedbank.
She added that even though there was no suspected foul play on the part of Radebe, the transaction could have been done legitimately before the robbery.
“The actual transaction date will differ from the date the transaction was banked. The actual transactions dates were between March 31 2022 and April 1 2022. Those transactions were all banked at different dates, being between April 1 and April 4. The client’s bank statement will reflect the date the transaction was banked and not the date it was done,” said Square.
Radebe took this matter to the Banking Services Ombudsman, where he was told that the bank could not be held liable for transaction that occurred before the account was blocked.
“Our assessment and finding is based on the information submitted by both you and the bank and we have considered it carefully. As we are unable to make a finding in your favour and since there is no reasonable prospect of us being able to take the matter further, we have closed the case,” wrote Dhirishka Maharajh-Ramnarayan, an adjudicator at the ombudsman’s office.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.