Deeply Disappointed in XDS/Splendi’s Handling of My Prescribed Account

I am extremely dissatisfied with Splendi’s handling of my dispute concerning a Nedbank Personal Loan.

On **14 November 2025**, Splendi confirmed to me in writing:

> “This is to confirm that your accounts for Nedbank Personal Loans & Overdraft have been updated as prescribed.”

Despite this clear confirmation, the Personal Loan was subsequently reinstated on my credit profile without any explanation, notification or supporting evidence.

When I disputed the account again, Splendi rejected my dispute with the following response:

> “Judgement granted, summons served and judgement granted.”

However, Splendi has not provided me with any summons, sheriff’s return of service or court judgment pertaining specifically to the Personal Loan.

When I questioned the evidence supporting its decision, Splendi stated that it was “unable to assist,” referred me to external complaint bodies and closed the request as “Done.”

This is unacceptable. Splendi cannot claim that summons was served and judgment granted, reject my dispute on that basis, and then refuse to provide the evidence supposedly supporting its conclusion.

The following material questions remain unanswered:

* When and why was the previous prescription decision reversed? * What new evidence was received? * Who authorised the reinstatement? * Which court allegedly granted the judgment? * What is the complete court case number? * When was judgment allegedly granted and for what amount? * When and how was the summons allegedly served? * Why was I not informed before the account was reinstated?

In **Pentz v Government of the Republic of South Africa 1983 (3) SA 584 (A)**, the court established that the party relying on an interruption of prescription must prove it. In **C Z Mbanjwa Incorporated v Albany Auto Trimmers CC [2009] ZAECGHC 51**, the High Court confirmed that the burden of proving an interruption of prescription rests on the creditor.

Section 70(2)(c) of the **National Credit Act 34 of 2005** requires a credit bureau to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of consumer credit information reported to it. Section 72 gives consumers the right to challenge information and requires disputed information to be supported by credible evidence.

Sections 16 and 24 of **POPIA** further require personal information to be complete, accurate, not misleading and updated where necessary, and provide for inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information to be corrected or deleted.

Referring me to external complaint bodies does not relieve Splendi of these statutory responsibilities.

If Splendi re**** on an alleged judgment to reject my dispute, it should have been able to obtain and provide the actual court-issued judgment, together with the summons and sheriff’s return proving lawful service. A statement from Nedbank that judgment was granted is not the same as the judgment itself.

The Personal Loan was previously confirmed as prescribed, yet it was reinstated without any credible evidence being provided to justify the reversal. Splendi then closed the dispute without properly addressing these issues.

This experience demonstrates a serious lack of transparency, accountability and proper verification in the handling of disputed consumer information. The continued reporting of an account previously confirmed as prescribed, without producing the evidence supporting its reinstatement, has undermined my confidence in Splendi’s dispute-resolution process.

South African consumers deserve proper investigations, credible evidence and accurate credit reporting—not unexplained reversals, unsupported conclusions and closed disputes.