NF
National financial ombud scheme South Africa (NFO)
Verified Business
NF
National financial ombud scheme South Africa (NFO)
Verified Business
69 Reviews (last 12 months)
Scores reflect the Overall AI Score for each category
National financial ombud scheme South Africa (NFO)
Scores reflect the Overall AI Score for each category
Based on recent customer reviews, National Financial Ombud Scheme South Africa (NFO) faces sustained criticism around case handling delays, communication breakdowns, and perceived bias toward financial institutions. A small group of reviewers describe outcomes where NFO recovered funds or resolved disputes professionally, but the dominant pattern reflects frustration with prolonged investigations, unresponsive adjudicators, and decisions consumers feel disregard their evidence.
TrustIndex
2.8
Ranking
#18
in Business Services
NPS Score
-72
Recommended: Unlikely
Jul '25 - Jun '26
Based on recent customer reviews, National Financial Ombud Scheme South Africa (NFO) faces sustained criticism around case handling delays, communication breakdowns, and perceived bias toward financial institutions. A small group of reviewers describe outcomes where NFO recovered funds or resolved disputes professionally, but the dominant pattern reflects frustration with prolonged investigations, unresponsive adjudicators, and decisions consumers feel disregard their evidence.
The most common complaint about National financial ombud scheme South Africa (NFO), based on Hellopeter's AI analysis of recent customer reviews, is Communication & Responsiveness. Reviewers consistently report ignored emails, unanswered phones, and months passing with no updates. Case administrators reportedly change repeatedly, and consumers must chase progress through dozens of calls and emails before receiving any response, often only generic acknowledgements.
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Share Your Experience1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
After 8 Months of the matter referred made a ruling without contacting the informant and failed to tell Old Mutual to contact the informant for clarification and evidence at their disposure. It was completely biased and unfair.
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
After 8 Months of the matter referred made a ruling without contacting the informant and failed to tell Old Mutual to contact the informant for clarification and evidence at their disposure. It was completely biased and unfair.
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
Long story short: My FNB credit card was issued to me with insurance in case of retrenchment more than 10 years ago. When I tried to claim in 2025, I was told that the policy was amended to EXCLUDE retrenchment. I went back and forth with FNB to no prevail as they failed to provide proof that I consented to this amendment, so I escalated the matter to NFO. The matter was "investigated" by NFO and FNB submitted unsigned documents as "proof" that I consented to the amended policy. NFO didn't question the unsigned documents despite me pointing it out to them. In response to this, FNB responded by submitting a digitally signed document with simply a 2022 date on it that referred to a call center call they attached as proof that I consented... but here's the kicker. It's not MY voice in the call and the FNB agent NEVER did a security check to ensure they were speaking to the correct person. When I queried the attached call via the NFO, FNB stated that the call was in fact placed BEFORE 2022 (allegedly 2011 or somewhere around that date). I pointed out that this was clearly FNB doctoring the documents to suit their own agenda. How can a call supposedly made in 2011 be binding on an electronically signed document signed in 2022? NFO failed to investigate this or even query this with FNB - stating that the onus befell ME to prove my case beyond a doubt, stating "he who alleges, needs to prove." You don't need to hold a degree to grasp that if the call was placed in 2011, the document would've been signed in 2011. Instead, FNB f*orged the document by falsely stating that the call the referenced to in the 2022 document was made in 2022 instead of 2011. NFO simply emailed me that the case is now closed and they won't assist in this matter further. So, FNB can simply f*orge documents and get away with it without any legal repercussions? Nice going NFO.
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
Long story short: My FNB credit card was issued to me with insurance in case of retrenchment more than 10 years ago. When I tried to claim in 2025, I was told that the policy was amended to EXCLUDE retrenchment. I went back and forth with FNB to no prevail as they failed to provide proof that I consented to this amendment, so I escalated the matter to NFO. The matter was "investigated" by NFO and FNB submitted unsigned documents as "proof" that I consented to the amended policy. NFO didn't question the unsigned documents despite me pointing it out to them. In response to this, FNB responded by submitting a digitally signed document with simply a 2022 date on it that referred to a call center call they attached as proof that I consented... but here's the kicker. It's not MY voice in the call and the FNB agent NEVER did a security check to ensure they were speaking to the correct person. When I queried the attached call via the NFO, FNB stated that the call was in fact placed BEFORE 2022 (allegedly 2011 or somewhere around that date). I pointed out that this was clearly FNB doctoring the documents to suit their own agenda. How can a call supposedly made in 2011 be binding on an electronically signed document signed in 2022? NFO failed to investigate this or even query this with FNB - stating that the onus befell ME to prove my case beyond a doubt, stating "he who alleges, needs to prove." You don't need to hold a degree to grasp that if the call was placed in 2011, the document would've been signed in 2011. Instead, FNB f*orged the document by falsely stating that the call the referenced to in the 2022 document was made in 2022 instead of 2011. NFO simply emailed me that the case is now closed and they won't assist in this matter further. So, FNB can simply f*orge documents and get away with it without any legal repercussions? Nice going NFO.
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
My matter has been referred to the ombudsman However they not willing to assist me. I feel this is honestly so unfair. They are choosing matters. I was reffered didnt come by myself
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
My matter has been referred to the ombudsman However they not willing to assist me. I feel this is honestly so unfair. They are choosing matters. I was reffered didnt come by myself
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
So after waiting for many months for an outcome, a case that I have opened were ruled in Discovery Insure’s favor and I’m still stuck, now even more so, because of a report from the insurer’s service provider stating that their findings were that my faulty parking sensors had nothing to do with the accident it had been in. RIGHT IN THE SPOT OF THE IMPACT. My voice and the right to receive fair service has now completely shattered because you, the ombudsman, did exactly what Discovery did when they looked at the “report” that states about my parking sensors. You simply believe that it’s the truth and made your finding on my case such that I am automaticaly wrong. MY CAR HAS DAMAGE FROM AN ACCIDENT THAT FOR SOME REASON, EVERYONE SEEMS TO THINK IS IMPOSSIBLE. My car was hit on the back left, right on the two parking sensors in the spot. They started giving problems after I received my car back for the first time and I complained about them immediately. Any one reading this, this is a prime example of how a sustem cam fail someone because big companies have the power to use “reports” as the only truth and leave the consumer with damage. This is sickening and everyone involved in my case should be ashamed for not properly investigating the matter by including me
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
So after waiting for many months for an outcome, a case that I have opened were ruled in Discovery Insure’s favor and I’m still stuck, now even more so, because of a report from the insurer’s service provider stating that their findings were that my faulty parking sensors had nothing to do with the accident it had been in. RIGHT IN THE SPOT OF THE IMPACT. My voice and the right to receive fair service has now completely shattered because you, the ombudsman, did exactly what Discovery did when they looked at the “report” that states about my parking sensors. You simply believe that it’s the truth and made your finding on my case such that I am automaticaly wrong. MY CAR HAS DAMAGE FROM AN ACCIDENT THAT FOR SOME REASON, EVERYONE SEEMS TO THINK IS IMPOSSIBLE. My car was hit on the back left, right on the two parking sensors in the spot. They started giving problems after I received my car back for the first time and I complained about them immediately. Any one reading this, this is a prime example of how a sustem cam fail someone because big companies have the power to use “reports” as the only truth and leave the consumer with damage. This is sickening and everyone involved in my case should be ashamed for not properly investigating the matter by including me
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
I submitted a well-documented complaint against FNB after my business account was frozen for 7 months on a quickly resolved ***** alert. I provided strong evidence including: Prompt response within days (client confirmation + court-stamped documents) Pre-existing KYC from 2024 FNB’s own graphs showing the turnover cliff Specific lost invoices and quantified losses of over R235,000 Despite this, the case has been dragging on for months in "Investigation" with very slow progress. What frustrated me most is realising that the National Financial Ombud (NFO) is funded and run by the banks themselves. This creates an obvious structural bias. From research and my experience, customer success rates in formal banking cases are very low (around 16-22%), even when complainants have strong evidence. Decisions almost always seem to favour the banks, especially on business loss claims. The process feels more like a box-ticking exercise for the banks than genuine independent dispute resolution. Long delays, vague updates, and conservative outcomes make it extremely difficult for ordinary customers and small businesses to get fair redress. I would not recommend relying on the NFO if you have a serious complaint against a bank. It feels designed to protect the banks more than to help customers.
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
I submitted a well-documented complaint against FNB after my business account was frozen for 7 months on a quickly resolved ***** alert. I provided strong evidence including: Prompt response within days (client confirmation + court-stamped documents) Pre-existing KYC from 2024 FNB’s own graphs showing the turnover cliff Specific lost invoices and quantified losses of over R235,000 Despite this, the case has been dragging on for months in "Investigation" with very slow progress. What frustrated me most is realising that the National Financial Ombud (NFO) is funded and run by the banks themselves. This creates an obvious structural bias. From research and my experience, customer success rates in formal banking cases are very low (around 16-22%), even when complainants have strong evidence. Decisions almost always seem to favour the banks, especially on business loss claims. The process feels more like a box-ticking exercise for the banks than genuine independent dispute resolution. Long delays, vague updates, and conservative outcomes make it extremely difficult for ordinary customers and small businesses to get fair redress. I would not recommend relying on the NFO if you have a serious complaint against a bank. It feels designed to protect the banks more than to help customers.
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
no feedback for a case lodge 10 December 2025. this is the second time writing here my case only got to be sent to the invesrigator after writing here. now i get emails from 2 difrent people asking for the same thing. Nosiphiwo and Sithandwa. now they dont even bother to reply to my emails. what is it with RMA that it took them 3 months to finally acknowledge the client that we have been paying for for years whike they did not allocate the policy number. since tou have failed to help me who is above you
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
no feedback for a case lodge 10 December 2025. this is the second time writing here my case only got to be sent to the invesrigator after writing here. now i get emails from 2 difrent people asking for the same thing. Nosiphiwo and Sithandwa. now they dont even bother to reply to my emails. what is it with RMA that it took them 3 months to finally acknowledge the client that we have been paying for for years whike they did not allocate the policy number. since tou have failed to help me who is above you
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
HI I approached the NFO banking for assistance with regards to bank ***** against FNB. This is the summary of events. I opened a case of ***** against my building contractor. Saps subpoenaed FNB to provide documents on the account where the funds were deposited into. It turned out that the said account was opened with a *****ulent id a week prior to funds being deposited. I then approached FNB querying how was this account opened and why was no due diligence and know your client followed as well as not abiding to the banking code of conduct. The response given was that the funds cannot be recovered . I then approached NFO banking for assistance since on the media platform emphasis are always made that NFO is not biased and looks after the interest of the consumer with regards to any mal administration or negligence that occurs and that can be proven against the banks then the consumer is liable for compensation by the banks. The NFO took almost a year to investigate only to come back and find no mal administration on FNB side and that I cannot take this up further, but I can report FNB to FIC. I was not happy with the adjudicator response and questioned what mal administration meant to her . In this case is it not mal administration ,if the id subpoenaed by SAPS shows Id issued 2024 but ***** occurred 2022. This could only happen if no documents were submitted to the bank but the account was opened with collusion with banking officials. I then requested a response from her senior manager with regards to this, is this not mal administration in regards to this case, and I still await his response. I was given a breakdown of what the funds was used for from the *****ulent account by NFO . The funds was transferred to different bank accounts.
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
HI I approached the NFO banking for assistance with regards to bank ***** against FNB. This is the summary of events. I opened a case of ***** against my building contractor. Saps subpoenaed FNB to provide documents on the account where the funds were deposited into. It turned out that the said account was opened with a *****ulent id a week prior to funds being deposited. I then approached FNB querying how was this account opened and why was no due diligence and know your client followed as well as not abiding to the banking code of conduct. The response given was that the funds cannot be recovered . I then approached NFO banking for assistance since on the media platform emphasis are always made that NFO is not biased and looks after the interest of the consumer with regards to any mal administration or negligence that occurs and that can be proven against the banks then the consumer is liable for compensation by the banks. The NFO took almost a year to investigate only to come back and find no mal administration on FNB side and that I cannot take this up further, but I can report FNB to FIC. I was not happy with the adjudicator response and questioned what mal administration meant to her . In this case is it not mal administration ,if the id subpoenaed by SAPS shows Id issued 2024 but ***** occurred 2022. This could only happen if no documents were submitted to the bank but the account was opened with collusion with banking officials. I then requested a response from her senior manager with regards to this, is this not mal administration in regards to this case, and I still await his response. I was given a breakdown of what the funds was used for from the *****ulent account by NFO . The funds was transferred to different bank accounts.
National financial ombud scheme South Africa (NFO) scores 1.1 out of 5 on Hellopeter's AI analysis of service quality in Business Services, compared to the Business Services industry average of 2.8. Their strongest theme is Staff Expertise (1.2); their weakest is Trust & Ethics (1). The top AI-rated Business Services business on Hellopeter is Road Protect (Pty) Ltd (4.5). How is the AI Score calculated? →
National financial ombud scheme South Africa (NFO) has a TrustIndex of 2.8 out of 10 on Hellopeter, based on 69 reviews in the last 12 months. Hellopeter has tracked National financial ombud scheme South Africa (NFO) across 103 total reviews. How is the TrustIndex calculated? →