***** AT WOOLWORHTS

I have always read about how useless the Woolworths ***** Department is, now I can attest to that. My store card was activated in my absence. Subsequently, ********** transactions followed.I need to highlight that this happened while the card was at your retailer's custody(Mall of the South, Johannesburg) to be specific. When I demanded that they investigate the matter, they simply refer me to the retailer,s policy stating that the matter should have been reported within sixty days. Fair enough. I then referred them to a sentence in the same policy, which states that a card can only be activated in the presence of the account holder, on producing a valid ID. The very policy states that a person cannot make purchases without producing a store card.No answer was provided, and that is where the depth of my enquiry is. I view this as a deliberate attempt to frustrate me from getting answers. It should be noted that the sixty days you referring to lapsed while the card is in Woolworths'custody.

I am not sure why they were selective when dealing with this policy.I don't think it has been correctly app**** in this case.I am not talking about a lost card here.It was not ****** either.The card was damaged and needed to be replaced.It was duly handed to your branch as a procedure. The fact that the card was activated in my absence warrants a separate investigation. It cannot be a "one size fits all" approach to the matter.It is the responsibility of the retailer to ensure the safekeeping of the customer's cards while they are in the retailer's custody.

Consideration should be taken into account that I find myself in this mess because of an employee's negligence at the Mall of the South. This started in December 2019, when I was supposed to collect a new card. I have included all the correspondence to your Financial Services Department for your perusal.

At Woolworths(Mall of the South) they deny that the card was activated at their branch without providing the details. If the card was not activated at their branch, your information system should be able to determine where the actual activation took place, and the user ID of the person responsible. This is actually an insult to my intelligence and I do not take kindly to that.

It cannot be that the customer is held liable while no action is taken against the culprit. Woolworths cannot afford to be seen to condone ******* activities at their retail outlets. I believe that even if the customer is held liable, an investigation should be done as well. Otherwise, culprits will remain protected by this policy. I say this because it seems the policy or ***** Department does nothing about the culprits. I wonder how many unsuspecting customers have been preyed on as a result of this incompetence. This demonstrates shoddy workmanship on their part.

The fact that matter was reported after 60 days does not absolve Woolworths from instituting an investigation and holding the person who activated my card to account. This would minimise ********** activities. I have the right to know what happened.

I demand to know-how and who activated the card in my absence. The matter should be investigated and the culprit is brought to book. It is not enough said the matter should be reported within sixty days.

********** transactions are one matter, and the activation of the card in my absence is another. Mall of the South branch employees must acknowledge negligence on their side.

I am a customer of good standing and have never experienced any problem with Woolworths since I opened an account

Disgruntled Customer.