Unauthorised Transactions and Failure to Investigate

I am writing to express my disappointment and frustration regarding the handling of an unauthorised transaction involving my father’s Nedbank account, where approximately R13,000 was taken from his account.

My father has been a Nedbank client for many years. He has never used the Nedbank banking app before and, due to his age, he is not fami**** with using banking applications or performing transactions through an app.

When the money was taken from his account, he contacted Nedbank for assistance. However, he was advised that because the debit order mandate appeared to have been authorised through the Nedbank app, the bank could not retrieve the money. This response was extremely disappointing, particularly because my father has never used the app and did not authorise these transactions.

What is even more concerning is that it appears that no proper investigation was conducted into how the app was authenticated or how these mandates were created.

If the Nedbank app was newly registered or activated on a device, surely there should be an authentication and security trail available, including information relating to the device used, the registration or activation of the app, and the relevant notifications or verification process. We expected Nedbank to investigate these records and establish how somebody was able to gain access to my father's account and authorise these transactions.

My father was advised to open a case with the police, which he did. He obtained an affidavit and provided the relevant information, but this unfortunately did not result in any meaningful assistance from Nedbank.

The companies involved included Capfin, where my father states that he never app**** for a loan, as well as Aboba loan company, which appears to have had access to his banking account. Despite raising the matter, my father was essentially advised that he would not be able to recover his money because the debit order mandate had been authorised through the app.

This raises serious concerns for us. If my father has never used the Nedbank app and did not authorise these mandates, how could these transactions have been authenticated in his name? We believe Nedbank should investigate this properly rather than simply relying on the fact that the system shows an authorised mandate.

My father trusted Nedbank with his money for many years. Losing R13,000 is a significant financial loss, and it is extremely upsetting that he feels that nobody was willing to properly investigate what happened or make reasonable attempts to determine how his account was compromised.

We therefore request that Nedbank:

Conduct a full investigation into how the Nedbank app was registered, activated or authenticated on my father's account. Investigate the device and/or phone used to access or register the app. Review the relevant authentication, security and transaction records. Investigate how the Capfin and other debit-order mandates were created and authorised. Establish whether there were any security breaches, unusual access or other suspicious activity on the account. Reconsider the decision not to refund or recover the unauthorised funds. Provide us with a detailed written explanation of the findings of the investigation.

We understand that Nedbank has security procedures in place, but in this situation those procedures need to be properly investigated because my father maintains that he never used the app and never authorised these transactions.

It is extremely disappointing to feel that a long-standing client can lose a substantial amount of money and simply be told that nothing can be done because the system reflects an authorised mandate