PayFast Withholds earned funds

PayFast is withholding our earned funds while giving contradictory explanations and no confirmed payout date.

We registered The MoZe Group with PayFast in June 2026 to process payments for The Performer’s Method™️ Voice Meets Story™️ masterclasses.

We cooperated fully with PayFast’s verification process and supp**** extensive information about our business, event dates, venue, ticket prices, projected turnover, customer policies and operating model.

On 10 July 2026, PayFast confirmed in writing that our account had been successfully verified and approved by its Credit Risk Department.

At the same time, PayFast imposed a retainer because our masterclasses involved “deferred delivery” - customers were paying before the service took place.

For a small, self-funded pilot project, the retainer represented a substantial portion of our working capital. We therefore asked PayFast either to reduce it or review it immediately after successful delivery of the masterclasses.

On 14 July, PayFast responded in writing that it would be pleased to conduct a review “promptly following the successful completion” of the masterclasses on 24 and 25 July and specifically asked us to notify them once the sessions had concluded.

We re**** on that assurance.

The masterclasses were successfully delivered at AFDA Cape Town on 24 and 25 July 2026.

On 27 July, exactly as requested, we supp**** PayFast with photographic proof of delivery and redacted attendance records.

There were zero cancellations and zero refund requests, and we are not aware of any disputes or chargebacks.

We requested release of the retained funds.

We followed up again on 29 July.

After further escalation, PayFast told us on 6 August that the retainer had been “updated” and that “a small amount remains retained.”

They did not tell us what that amount was.

We therefore asked PayFast in writing for specific information, including:

•⁠ ⁠the exact amount currently retained; •⁠ ⁠the amount already released; •⁠ ⁠the applicable transaction-exposure or chargeback period; •⁠ ⁠the date on which that period expires; •⁠ ⁠the date of the next review; •⁠ ⁠whether release would be automatic; and •⁠ ⁠the specific Terms and Conditions provision governing the retainer and review period.

Most of those questions were not answered.

Instead, we repeatedly received broad statements that the matter had been escalated and was being reviewed.

Then, on 14 August, almost three weeks after we supp**** proof of successful delivery, PayFast introduced a material condition that had never previously been explained to us.

We were told in writing that:

“The account will be reviewed 30 days after the date of the last transaction processed through the account.”

PayFast further stated that, if there were no disputes, chargebacks, refunds or other transaction-related concerns at that stage, the retained funds “may be considered for release.”

They also confirmed that release is not automatic and that another final review is required.

We immediately asked PayFast to provide the information necessary to understand this new condition, including the “last transaction” date being used, the exact calendar date on which the 30-day period expires, the date of the final Credit Risk review and the specific contractual provision establishing this 30-day rule.

We required a substantive written response by 16:00 SAST on 14 August.

PayFast did not respond by that deadline.

In fact, we received no response until 21:49 on 19 August, five days later.

And PayFast’s latest response has created more confusion, not less.

On 19 August, PayFast told us that the retained funds would now remain on the account and could be “reassessed once 30 days have elapsed from the event date”, which PayFast identified as 10 September.

This directly conflicts with what we were told only five days earlier.

On 14 August, PayFast said the 30-day period runs from:

“the date of the last transaction processed through the account.”

On 19 August, PayFast said the 30-day period runs from:

“the event date.”

Those are not the same thing.

Even more confusingly, our masterclasses took place on 24 and 25 July, yet PayFast has now provided a reassessment date of 10 September.

Ten September is not 30 days after either of those event dates.

PayFast has therefore provided a reassessment date without explaining how that date was calculated.

There is another significant contradiction.

On 6 August, PayFast told us that the retainer had been “updated” and that only “a small amount remains retained.”

On 19 August, PayFast advised that the full original retainer remains on the account.

We have received no explanation for this contradiction either.

And despite repeatedly asking PayFast to identify the specific contractual provision governing this arrangement, the only answer we have now received is:

“Kindly refer to ts&cs on collateral.”

That does not answer our question.

We asked PayFast to identify the specific clause, published policy or Terms and Conditions provision establishing the retainer period and the conditions governing release.

They still have not done so.

Most importantly, 10 September is not a confirmed payout date.

PayFast has only said that the funds “can be reassessed” on that date.

So after:

•⁠ ⁠successfully delivering the service; •⁠ ⁠supplying proof of delivery; •⁠ ⁠having zero cancellations and zero refund requests; •⁠ ⁠repeatedly answering PayFast’s compliance requests; •⁠ ⁠waiting weeks for responses; •⁠ ⁠being told initially that the retainer would be reviewed promptly after delivery; •⁠ ⁠subsequently being told about a 30-day period calculated from the last transaction; •⁠ ⁠and now being told about a different 30-day period supposedly calculated from the event date;

we still do not have a commitment that our earned funds will actually be released on 10 September.

This is unacceptable.

We understand and accept that a payment processor may need to manage legitimate chargeback, refund and transaction risk.

That is not what this complaint is about.

This complaint is about transparency, consistency and the treatment of a merchant whose earned business revenue is being withheld.

The conditions governing access to our funds have been disclosed progressively and inconsistently.

We have repeatedly asked straightforward questions.

Instead of receiving clear answers, we have now received conflicting information from different PayFast representatives about:

how much is being retained;

when the applicable review period begins;

when that period ends;

what contractual provision governs it;

and

when our funds will actually be paid out.

As a small independent South African business without external investment, this has real operational consequences. These funds are business revenue earned from services that were successfully delivered weeks ago.

We are asking PayFast to provide a clear and final resolution:

1.⁠ ⁠Confirm privately and in writing the exact amount currently retained and reconcile this with the 6 August statement that only “a small amount” remained retained. 2.⁠ ⁠Explain why the 14 August rule refers to 30 days after the last transaction, while the 19 August response refers instead to 30 days after the event date. 3.⁠ ⁠Explain precisely how the 10 September reassessment date was calculated. 4.⁠ ⁠Identify the specific contractual or published policy provision governing the retainer and review period. 5.⁠ ⁠Confirm what, if anything, beyond the absence of refunds, disputes, chargebacks or other transaction concerns could prevent release. 6.⁠ ⁠Confirm whether further transactions through our PayFast account would affect the release of funds already retained. 7.⁠ ⁠Release immediately any funds that are no longer reasonably required to cover a genuine outstanding transaction risk. 8.⁠ ⁠Provide a definite payout date, not merely another date on which release “may be considered” or the account “reassessed”.

We have cooperated fully with PayFast from the outset.

We are not asking PayFast to abandon legitimate risk controls.

We are asking PayFast to provide one clear, consistent and contractually supported explanation of why our earned funds remain withheld, and to give us a definite date on which those funds will be released.

Founder | Director The MoZe Group