Sinenhlanhla Masilela|Published
A woman who lost R15,100 to fraudsters who accessed her First National Bank (FNB) account after her cellphone was stolen has lost her bid to compel the bank to refund the money.
The National Consumer Tribunal dismissed S Madise’s application after finding that she had notified FNB of the theft and fraudulent transactions only after the final unauthorised transaction had taken place, IOL reported.
In a recent judgment, the tribunal found that it could not establish that FNB had contravened any provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Madise approached the tribunal seeking an order compelling the bank to reimburse her for the full amount withdrawn fraudulently from her account.
According to the judgment, her handbag, which contained her cellphone and other belongings, was stolen from her vehicle on May 17, 2024.
Following the theft, several fraudulent withdrawals totalling R15,100 were made from her FNB account through her mobile banking application.
An assessment report by the National Financial Ombud Scheme found that the transactions took place between approximately May 17 and May 18, 2024.
During the tribunal hearing, she confirmed that she notified FNB about the stolen cellphone and fraudulent transactions only after the last transaction had occurred.
FNB offered R10,000, but she wanted full refund
FNB initially offered her R6,000, which was later increased to R10,000 after she referred the complaint to the ombud scheme.
However, Madise rejected both offers and insisted that the bank should reimburse her for the full R15,100.
She argued that she had been an FNB customer for more than 18 years and that this was the first time she had experienced such a loss.
The tribunal considered whether the complaint amounted to poor service by the bank under the Consumer Protection Act.
The judgment noted that Madise appeared to expect FNB to have detected the fraudulent transactions and declined to process the transfers and withdrawals.
However, the tribunal pointed out that she had informed the bank of the cellphone theft only after the fraudulent transactions had taken place.
It also noted that Madise could not explain how the fraudster had obtained her personalised code to access her bank account through her cellphone.
“In these circumstances, the tribunal cannot find any contravention of any provisions of the CPA,” the judgment stated.
The tribunal consequently dismissed the application and made no order as to costs.