Extremely disappointing dispute resolution and customer service

I am extremely disappointed with the way Capitec handled my disputed transaction. I contacted Capitec regarding a R308.98 APPLE.COM/BILL transaction that I disputed because I did not authorise it and could not identify what the amount related to.

The consultant initially asked whether I had contacted the merchant directly. I explained that I had not, because I was contacting my bank to have the disputed transaction investigated. I was then told that Capitec had noticed that this was not the only transaction from the merchant and that the charge could possibly be related to existing subscriptions.

I explained that I had checked my existing Apple subscriptions and that they did not add up to R308.98. I also pointed out that there was a separate R59.99 deduction, which made even less sense if the R308.98 was supposedly a combined charge for my subscriptions.

The consultant then actually confirmed this, stating that Capitec had also noticed that the amounts were different for my existing subscriptions as well as the transactions I was disputing. At this point, I expected the bank to investigate further, particularly because they had identified inconsistencies themselves.

Instead, I was simply told to contact the merchant directly to find out what the charge was for.

I explained that this was extremely unhelpful because the previous Capitec consultant I had spoken to specifically told me that I would be contacted by the dispute team and asked to provide any documentation relating to the dispute. I was therefore under the impression that Capitec would investigate the transaction as part of the dispute process.

Rather than escalating the matter, investigating it, or providing me with a clear dispute process, I was told that because the transaction dated back to 03/08/2025, I needed to contact the merchant myself to resolve the matter.

Then, with no meaningful assistance provided, the consultant simply stated: “Unfortunately, we cannot proceed with the dispute at this stage” and closed the conversation.

This is not what I expect from my bank when I report a transaction that I genuinely do not recognise or authorise. I understand that Capitec may have policies regarding the age of transactions, but that does not excuse the lack of assistance, especially when the consultant themselves acknowledged that the transaction amounts did not correspond with my existing subscriptions.

I was not asking Capitec to blindly refund me. I was asking for the transaction to be properly investigated and for someone to explain what the R308.98 charge actually related to and why it differed from my known subscriptions.

Instead, I was passed back and forth, given contradictory expectations regarding who would investigate the dispute, and ultimately had the chat closed without the matter being resolved.

This was an extremely frustrating and disappointing customer experience. A bank should not make a customer feel like they are being dismissed when raising a potentially unauthorised transaction. If Capitec cannot assist with investigating a disputed transaction, then customers deserve a clear explanation of the dispute process and the appropriate escalation channel — not a “contact the merchant” response followed by the immediate closure of the conversation.

I would strongly urge Capitec to review this interaction and explain why my dispute was not properly investigated or escalated, particularly given that the bank itself identified discrepancies in the transaction amounts.