JS
JD S
1 reviews | Active since Jul 2024
30 Apr 2026, 15:12
No support, failing payments, lost revenue
Serious concerns with Payfast support and reliability
We are experiencing failures on tokenised billing (not standard subscriptions) across multiple long-standing customers whose payments previously processed without issue.
Errors include “format error” and “invalid card number”, which does not align with a tokenised setup where no card details are re-entered. This points to a potential systemic issue.
We have escalated this with detailed technical context and have received no response at all, now going into a long weekend, while this continues to impact live revenue and recurring income.
At this point, it feels like merchants relying on recurring billing are left without support when it matters most. Emails are being ignored, and there is no weekend support available.
If a rating below 1 star were possible, that would better reflect the current experience.
Helpful (0)
Replies (4)0
Replies (4)
PayFast's replyOfficial
01 May 2026, 12:17Hi Jacobus,
Thank you for reaching out.
As discussed on our call, the examples you shared appear to be valid bank declines. Although a few transactions on your account are failing, we can confirm that the majority of transactions are still processing successfully.
That said, we have raised this with our acquiring bank for further investigation.
We have also responded to your ticket with additional detail.
Just to confirm, our support team is available on Saturdays, and we’ll continue to keep you updated as we receive progress on the investigation.
The Payfast Team
Thank you for reaching out.
As discussed on our call, the examples you shared appear to be valid bank declines. Although a few transactions on your account are failing, we can confirm that the majority of transactions are still processing successfully.
That said, we have raised this with our acquiring bank for further investigation.
We have also responded to your ticket with additional detail.
Just to confirm, our support team is available on Saturdays, and we’ll continue to keep you updated as we receive progress on the investigation.
The Payfast Team
PayFast's reply01 May 2026, 12:17
Official
Hi Jacobus,
Thank you for reaching out.
As discussed on our call, the examples you shared appear to be valid bank declines. Although a few transactions on your account are failing, we can confirm that the majority of transactions are still processing successfully.
That said, we have raised this with our acquiring bank for further investigation.
We have also responded to your ticket with additional detail.
Just to confirm, our support team is available on Saturdays, and we’ll continue to keep you updated as we receive progress on the investigation.
The Payfast Team
Thank you for reaching out.
As discussed on our call, the examples you shared appear to be valid bank declines. Although a few transactions on your account are failing, we can confirm that the majority of transactions are still processing successfully.
That said, we have raised this with our acquiring bank for further investigation.
We have also responded to your ticket with additional detail.
Just to confirm, our support team is available on Saturdays, and we’ll continue to keep you updated as we receive progress on the investigation.
The Payfast Team
JS
JD S's updateReviewer Update
01 May 2026, 12:40Thank you for the public response, however it does not align with the position taken in the email thread or the actual support timeline.
The public reply states these "appear to be valid bank declines" and that support is available on Saturdays. The email correspondence, however, confirms the matter has been escalated to your technical team and that calls are being arranged with affected buyers to investigate further. If these were straightforward valid bank declines, no such investigation would be required.
Current impact: multiple tokenised billing customers with previously successful payment history are now failing. The pattern across unrelated cards and decline reasons (format error, invalid card number) is not consistent with isolated bank-side declines.
The full timeline:
- Monday 27 April: I phoned support three times throughout the day. The first attempt I held for 15 minutes with no answer. No call was returned.
- Tuesday 28 April: I phoned support again. The email thread was opened only after this call. The initial response provided generic decline code definitions pointing to bank-side issues.
- Tuesday 28 April: I clarified that this is tokenised billing, not Payfast-managed subscriptions, and that the affected tokens had processed successfully in prior cycles - making customer-side input errors (invalid card number, format error) unlikely as a root cause.
- Tuesday 28 April: Follow-up response explained Payfast subscription states (ACTIVE, PAUSED, STALLED) and 3-attempt retry logic, which do not apply to tokenised billing.
- Wednesday 29 April: Further escalation request from my side. No response.
- Thursday 30 April: Another follow-up from my side flagging the long weekend impact. No response during the day.
- Thursday 30 April 15:12: Hello Peter review posted.
- Thursday 30 April 16:34: Payfast called me and confirmed escalation to the technical team.
- Friday 1 May: Buyer calls arranged.
If this were simply a matter of valid bank declines, none of the above would be necessary. The public framing should reflect what is actually being investigated internally.
I acknowledge the matter is now in progress and will reserve further comment until the technical investigation concludes.
The public reply states these "appear to be valid bank declines" and that support is available on Saturdays. The email correspondence, however, confirms the matter has been escalated to your technical team and that calls are being arranged with affected buyers to investigate further. If these were straightforward valid bank declines, no such investigation would be required.
Current impact: multiple tokenised billing customers with previously successful payment history are now failing. The pattern across unrelated cards and decline reasons (format error, invalid card number) is not consistent with isolated bank-side declines.
The full timeline:
- Monday 27 April: I phoned support three times throughout the day. The first attempt I held for 15 minutes with no answer. No call was returned.
- Tuesday 28 April: I phoned support again. The email thread was opened only after this call. The initial response provided generic decline code definitions pointing to bank-side issues.
- Tuesday 28 April: I clarified that this is tokenised billing, not Payfast-managed subscriptions, and that the affected tokens had processed successfully in prior cycles - making customer-side input errors (invalid card number, format error) unlikely as a root cause.
- Tuesday 28 April: Follow-up response explained Payfast subscription states (ACTIVE, PAUSED, STALLED) and 3-attempt retry logic, which do not apply to tokenised billing.
- Wednesday 29 April: Further escalation request from my side. No response.
- Thursday 30 April: Another follow-up from my side flagging the long weekend impact. No response during the day.
- Thursday 30 April 15:12: Hello Peter review posted.
- Thursday 30 April 16:34: Payfast called me and confirmed escalation to the technical team.
- Friday 1 May: Buyer calls arranged.
If this were simply a matter of valid bank declines, none of the above would be necessary. The public framing should reflect what is actually being investigated internally.
I acknowledge the matter is now in progress and will reserve further comment until the technical investigation concludes.
JS
JD S's update01 May 2026, 12:40
Reviewer Update
Thank you for the public response, however it does not align with the position taken in the email thread or the actual support timeline.
The public reply states these "appear to be valid bank declines" and that support is available on Saturdays. The email correspondence, however, confirms the matter has been escalated to your technical team and that calls are being arranged with affected buyers to investigate further. If these were straightforward valid bank declines, no such investigation would be required.
Current impact: multiple tokenised billing customers with previously successful payment history are now failing. The pattern across unrelated cards and decline reasons (format error, invalid card number) is not consistent with isolated bank-side declines.
The full timeline:
- Monday 27 April: I phoned support three times throughout the day. The first attempt I held for 15 minutes with no answer. No call was returned.
- Tuesday 28 April: I phoned support again. The email thread was opened only after this call. The initial response provided generic decline code definitions pointing to bank-side issues.
- Tuesday 28 April: I clarified that this is tokenised billing, not Payfast-managed subscriptions, and that the affected tokens had processed successfully in prior cycles - making customer-side input errors (invalid card number, format error) unlikely as a root cause.
- Tuesday 28 April: Follow-up response explained Payfast subscription states (ACTIVE, PAUSED, STALLED) and 3-attempt retry logic, which do not apply to tokenised billing.
- Wednesday 29 April: Further escalation request from my side. No response.
- Thursday 30 April: Another follow-up from my side flagging the long weekend impact. No response during the day.
- Thursday 30 April 15:12: Hello Peter review posted.
- Thursday 30 April 16:34: Payfast called me and confirmed escalation to the technical team.
- Friday 1 May: Buyer calls arranged.
If this were simply a matter of valid bank declines, none of the above would be necessary. The public framing should reflect what is actually being investigated internally.
I acknowledge the matter is now in progress and will reserve further comment until the technical investigation concludes.
The public reply states these "appear to be valid bank declines" and that support is available on Saturdays. The email correspondence, however, confirms the matter has been escalated to your technical team and that calls are being arranged with affected buyers to investigate further. If these were straightforward valid bank declines, no such investigation would be required.
Current impact: multiple tokenised billing customers with previously successful payment history are now failing. The pattern across unrelated cards and decline reasons (format error, invalid card number) is not consistent with isolated bank-side declines.
The full timeline:
- Monday 27 April: I phoned support three times throughout the day. The first attempt I held for 15 minutes with no answer. No call was returned.
- Tuesday 28 April: I phoned support again. The email thread was opened only after this call. The initial response provided generic decline code definitions pointing to bank-side issues.
- Tuesday 28 April: I clarified that this is tokenised billing, not Payfast-managed subscriptions, and that the affected tokens had processed successfully in prior cycles - making customer-side input errors (invalid card number, format error) unlikely as a root cause.
- Tuesday 28 April: Follow-up response explained Payfast subscription states (ACTIVE, PAUSED, STALLED) and 3-attempt retry logic, which do not apply to tokenised billing.
- Wednesday 29 April: Further escalation request from my side. No response.
- Thursday 30 April: Another follow-up from my side flagging the long weekend impact. No response during the day.
- Thursday 30 April 15:12: Hello Peter review posted.
- Thursday 30 April 16:34: Payfast called me and confirmed escalation to the technical team.
- Friday 1 May: Buyer calls arranged.
If this were simply a matter of valid bank declines, none of the above would be necessary. The public framing should reflect what is actually being investigated internally.
I acknowledge the matter is now in progress and will reserve further comment until the technical investigation concludes.
JS
JD S's updateReviewer Update
03 Jun 2026, 13:34 Update, 3 June 2026: still no root cause, still no reply
On 1 May I said I would reserve further comment until the technical investigation concluded. It has, so here is the outcome.
Payfast's public reply stated these failures "appear to be valid bank declines." Having reconciled my own transaction logs across the whole period, the data does not support that. The failures appeared suddenly across a large number of unrelated customers on cards that had been billing successfully for months, then stopped just as suddenly once Payfast implemented corrections on their side. A simultaneous wave like that, with a clear start and end date, is not what valid bank declines look like.
The fallout: dozens of failed renewals affecting more than 30 customers, and 18 recurring subscriptions either lost outright or only saved because the customer noticed and re-subscribed themselves.
On the handling: the ticket was opened on 27 April and marked resolved on 18 May with a two-sentence message and no explanation of what went wrong. On 21 May I sent a full reconciliation and asked for three things: a service credit for the lost revenue, a written root-cause explanation, and a corrected account of the affected customers, with a deadline of 29 May. The acquiring-bank investigation Payfast referenced publicly on 1 May was never reported back to me.
As of 3 June there has been no response, not even an acknowledgment.
On 1 May I said I would reserve further comment until the technical investigation concluded. It has, so here is the outcome.
Payfast's public reply stated these failures "appear to be valid bank declines." Having reconciled my own transaction logs across the whole period, the data does not support that. The failures appeared suddenly across a large number of unrelated customers on cards that had been billing successfully for months, then stopped just as suddenly once Payfast implemented corrections on their side. A simultaneous wave like that, with a clear start and end date, is not what valid bank declines look like.
The fallout: dozens of failed renewals affecting more than 30 customers, and 18 recurring subscriptions either lost outright or only saved because the customer noticed and re-subscribed themselves.
On the handling: the ticket was opened on 27 April and marked resolved on 18 May with a two-sentence message and no explanation of what went wrong. On 21 May I sent a full reconciliation and asked for three things: a service credit for the lost revenue, a written root-cause explanation, and a corrected account of the affected customers, with a deadline of 29 May. The acquiring-bank investigation Payfast referenced publicly on 1 May was never reported back to me.
As of 3 June there has been no response, not even an acknowledgment.
JS
JD S's update03 Jun 2026, 13:34
Reviewer Update
Update, 3 June 2026: still no root cause, still no reply
On 1 May I said I would reserve further comment until the technical investigation concluded. It has, so here is the outcome.
Payfast's public reply stated these failures "appear to be valid bank declines." Having reconciled my own transaction logs across the whole period, the data does not support that. The failures appeared suddenly across a large number of unrelated customers on cards that had been billing successfully for months, then stopped just as suddenly once Payfast implemented corrections on their side. A simultaneous wave like that, with a clear start and end date, is not what valid bank declines look like.
The fallout: dozens of failed renewals affecting more than 30 customers, and 18 recurring subscriptions either lost outright or only saved because the customer noticed and re-subscribed themselves.
On the handling: the ticket was opened on 27 April and marked resolved on 18 May with a two-sentence message and no explanation of what went wrong. On 21 May I sent a full reconciliation and asked for three things: a service credit for the lost revenue, a written root-cause explanation, and a corrected account of the affected customers, with a deadline of 29 May. The acquiring-bank investigation Payfast referenced publicly on 1 May was never reported back to me.
As of 3 June there has been no response, not even an acknowledgment.
On 1 May I said I would reserve further comment until the technical investigation concluded. It has, so here is the outcome.
Payfast's public reply stated these failures "appear to be valid bank declines." Having reconciled my own transaction logs across the whole period, the data does not support that. The failures appeared suddenly across a large number of unrelated customers on cards that had been billing successfully for months, then stopped just as suddenly once Payfast implemented corrections on their side. A simultaneous wave like that, with a clear start and end date, is not what valid bank declines look like.
The fallout: dozens of failed renewals affecting more than 30 customers, and 18 recurring subscriptions either lost outright or only saved because the customer noticed and re-subscribed themselves.
On the handling: the ticket was opened on 27 April and marked resolved on 18 May with a two-sentence message and no explanation of what went wrong. On 21 May I sent a full reconciliation and asked for three things: a service credit for the lost revenue, a written root-cause explanation, and a corrected account of the affected customers, with a deadline of 29 May. The acquiring-bank investigation Payfast referenced publicly on 1 May was never reported back to me.
As of 3 June there has been no response, not even an acknowledgment.
JS
JD S's updateReviewer Update
16 Jul 2026, 09:38Payfast lodged a formal dispute with HelloPeter claiming this review contains inaccurate information. Under HelloPeter's process, the review would have been removed within 48 hours had I not responded with proof.
I did respond, and the supporting documentation consisted almost entirely of Payfast's own written correspondence: their support emails confirming the billing failures, their own reconciliation of the affected transactions, and their own partial explanation attributing the failures to a bank response anomaly.
The review stands.
I did respond, and the supporting documentation consisted almost entirely of Payfast's own written correspondence: their support emails confirming the billing failures, their own reconciliation of the affected transactions, and their own partial explanation attributing the failures to a bank response anomaly.
The review stands.
JS
JD S's update16 Jul 2026, 09:38
Reviewer Update
Payfast lodged a formal dispute with HelloPeter claiming this review contains inaccurate information. Under HelloPeter's process, the review would have been removed within 48 hours had I not responded with proof.
I did respond, and the supporting documentation consisted almost entirely of Payfast's own written correspondence: their support emails confirming the billing failures, their own reconciliation of the affected transactions, and their own partial explanation attributing the failures to a bank response anomaly.
The review stands.
I did respond, and the supporting documentation consisted almost entirely of Payfast's own written correspondence: their support emails confirming the billing failures, their own reconciliation of the affected transactions, and their own partial explanation attributing the failures to a bank response anomaly.
The review stands.