RH
Richard H
Active since Jan 2015
17
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
17 reviews3 weeks ago
Standard Bank - ***** state of Affairs (Do nothing, say nothing)
Standard Bank customers have complained about money disappearing from their accounts and the bank offering them 'goodwill' gestures which are far below what they have lost. Image: Sora AI R1.1 million gone in hours. R435,000 wiped out through three transactions in minutes. R340,000 drained from four accounts almost instantly. R180,000 disappearing while the victim was on the phone reporting the crime to the bank itself. These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a pattern, one that stretches across South Africa and Namibia, implicating one of the country's most powerful financial institutions, and leaving ordinary people, pensioners, parents, and small business owners stripped of savings they spent lifetimes building. An IOL investigation, drawing on hundreds of pages of correspondence, settlement letters, banking records and screenshots, has uncovered a troubling portrait of how Standard Bank handles ***** complaints: clients blamed for crimes they insist they did not authorise, investigations shrouded in opacity, and settlement offers that come with a price, silence. The combined losses documented in cases reviewed by IOL exceed R3 million. Several victims believe the true figure is far larger. The settlement offer arrived after months of waiting. Ann Katts had been a Standard Bank customer for nearly four decades. Then, in what she describes as a matter of seconds, more than R340,000 was drained from her accounts, her current account, savings account, 32-day notice account and credit card, all emptied or maxed out in rapid succession. The bank's response was to offer her 50 cents on every rand she lost, on one condition. "Standard Bank refused negligence on their part and offered me a goodwill gesture of 50%, provided that I accept their offer within a certain period of time and sign an NDA," she told IOL. "I have been a loyal client since 1987 and after they brutally ****** me of my life savings, my dignity and my mental health, I closed my account." Katts is not alone. Settlement letters reviewed by IOL contain near-identical language across multiple unrelated cases: "The offer and settlement are strictly confidential, and you may not communicate any detail about it without the bank's consent. In the event that you fail to keep this confidential, the bank may ask you to repay the amount." Victims describe the arrangements as coercive, accept a partial payout and stay quiet, or walk away with nothing. Richard Hart of Iconica Studios watched his mother, Dorothy, become a ***** victim. The bank's response? An offer of R5,000 and a non-disclosure agreement. "Why do goodwill gestures come with strings attached to a Non-Disclosure?" Hart asked. "Even prohibiting me from co-operating with SAPS." Hart says he independently traced information linked to the perpetrators, a device code, IP address and physical location, within days of the ***** occurring. "You are complicit if you sit by and do nothing but facilitate the *****," he wrote to the bank's ***** division. Standard Bank defended the confidentiality clauses, saying they are standard practice intended to protect privacy and avoid disrupting ongoing investigations, and that they do not prevent clients from engaging with law enforcement, regulators or the ombudsman. But the National Financial Ombud Scheme South Africa (NFO) drew a harder line: "No agreement may contain provisions that are contrary to law. A clause preventing cooperation with the SAPS would be ********." Across case after case, a disturbing detail surfaces: the *****sters seemed to know things they should not have known. Retired businessman John Rupert contacted IOL after his wife lost R180,000 from three Standard Bank accounts. He is unequivocal about what he believes happened. "I have no doubt a ******** syndicate has infiltrated SBSA," he said. "They also know exactly who has funds." Rupert says his 82-year-old, wheelchair-bound brother-in-law lost pension money from a Standard Bank account the same day it was deposited and was allegedly denied reimbur*****t. Hannes Botha from Boksburg sold his Rooiberg home and deposited the proceeds into his Standard Bank account. Within hours, he received a call from a woman claiming to be a bank employee, warning him of a *****ulent attempt on his account and urging him to move his money to a "safe" account. It was a trap and the timing was no coincidence. "Confidentiality does not exist at Standard Bank," Botha later wrote to the Ombudsman for Banking Services. "As soon as the funds were deposited, I received calls and SMSes stating someone tried a *****ulent transaction." The NFO acknowledged this pattern is becoming increasingly common, noting that *****sters "have sophisticated means and networks for information 'mining' on bank customers and will often build up a portfolio of information about a specific bank customer over several months or even years." Standard Bank maintained that such ****s typically involve social engineering rather than direct breaches of banking systems, and that "no evidence of systemic internal compromise has been found in these cases." The bank confirmed it had opened ******** cases involving a former employee, but declined to elaborate. That disclosure, buried in the bank's formal response, will raise eyebrows among ***** victims who have long suspected inside involvement. Paul Horsfall, Group CEO of Tennant Consolidated, says a ***** line employee made a remarkable admission during a call. "When I called to tell the ***** line at the bank that I thought someone within the bank was de*****ing me, the person who answered said: 'I can see you have been dealing with someone within the bank, let me put you through to a supervisor.'" Despite that alleged exchange, Horsfall said the bank later denied wrongdoing and offered him a 50% settlement. Few cases expose the questions surrounding the investigation process more starkly than that of Karen Segers, who lost R435,350 through three transactions in August 2025. According to her son Justin, the transactions were processed through Standard Bank's DigiMe platform via what the bank classified as a "trusted device", meaning no one-time password was required. The family disputes this account entirely and says Karen never received the SMS alerts she had received routinely for years. The NFO ruled in the bank's favour. But then Justin Segers noticed something that stopped him cold. The ombud's assessment referenced a device running "Android OS 36." "As you are likely aware, Android 16 is the current standard in 2026. OS 36 is chronologically impossible," he told IOL. The family has launched a Promotion of Access to Information Act application seeking access to the underlying technical evidence used to reach the ruling. The NFO defended its process, saying all evidence is scrutinised for "credibility, consistency, and relevance." It also acknowledged that some technical information used in adjudication may remain confidential. The question of whether ***** victims, already powerless, can meaningfully challenge technical findings they are not permitted to fully see is one the industry has yet to answer. The statistics published by the NFO tell part of the story. In 2025, 85% of banking *****-related complaints were resolved in favour of banks. Customers claimed more than R271 million in *****-related losses. Approximately R30.7 million was returned to complainants. Behind those numbers are people. Firosa Jajbhay, a pensioner, lost R290,000 after her card and PIN were allegedly ****** at an ATM. Seven transactions were processed while she was on the phone reporting the ***** to the bank. "Is that not a red flag?" she asked. Douglas Christians lost R327,500 in a single transaction. "After months of waiting, all Standard Bank could tell me is that there is no fault on their part," he said. "I was left with zero cents." Ellen Mphuti lost R5,800 set aside for her child's school fees. The bank offered her R1,600. "Where must I get the rest of the money from?" she asked. In March 2026, Standard Bank publicly acknowledged a data breach involving customer names, ID numbers, contact details and account information. The bank maintained there was "no evidence to suggest a link between this incident and the ***** cases referenced." But many victims point out that their experiences predate the disclosure by months or years. "The scale of this problem coincides with the data breaches reported at Standard Bank," said Riaan Lourens, who lost more than R51,000. Natalie Aneck-Hahn, whose sister lost R250,000, has watched the number of complainants grow steadily. "I wish these victims could bring a class action suit against the bank," she said. Sarah Johnson, who lost more than R60,000 and accepted a partial settlement, put it plainly: "The sad thing is that taking the bank to court would cost more than the money lost." That, ultimately, may be the most damning indictment of all, not just that ***** is happening, but that the system built to address it leaves victims with nowhere to go. Confidentiality agreements seal their mouths. Partial settlements drain their resolve. Technical findings that they cannot access or challenge close the door on appeal. Standard Bank says its systems are secure, its investigations rigorous and its settlements discretionary, not admissions of liability. The NFO says it is a dispute resolution body, not a forensic one, and that decisions are made on a balance of probabilities. But for the pensioners, parents and ordinary South Africans who lost everything, school fees, life savings, retirement funds, the question is no longer only how the ***** happened.
0 replies
2 months ago
Not Good Enough - "below Standard" Bank
The ***** continues at "below Standard" Bank Nice article, exposing the “below standard” bank. 'This is not good enough': Harrismith woman rejects R16,000 offer from Standard Bank after R60,000 ***** Referring to your article on msn today, '[email protected]'
0 replies
7 months ago
SnoMaster fail
Disappointing to buy a +R20,000 SnoMaster Beverage Cooler which only lasted 3&half years. Service agent appears friendly & competent,... Let's see how the repair goes ?
3 replies
10 months ago
Motor Industry Ombudsman SA -
Simply do not reply to emails unless you are ruthlessly persistent ! The people making decisions about your case cannot/refuse to explain why the merits of your case have no foundation. It appears that they have better things to do than to engage with members of the public who need their assistance. It seems like the decision in my case was per-determined. MIOSA cited an old case file that has no common issues with my case. MIOSA 's view is, as long as the vehicle drives from A to B there is no case. It does not matter that FORD have advertised features that do not work !!
0 replies
11 months ago
Standard Bank Good Will or Cheap cover up ?
Standard Bank Why keep any ***** secrete ? After opening an email attachment, I was quickly de*****ed of R23400 Standard Bank blame me for opening the link but can't explain how exactly the *****ster was already inside their Bank account ? While the ***** was happening, Standard Bank was being informed. According to the other bank involved, there was enough time to freeze all accounts involved, but somehow Standard Bank were not capable when it matters most. Eventually I received the following letter. (which they want to keep ! I wonder why ?) ***** Risk Management ***** Investigations 2025-06-19 GEORGE & ANNIE STARK HOMES BELLVILLE 7530 Dear Mrs. DOROTHY DC HART “Without Prejudice” SUBJECT: GOODWILL SETTLEMENT OFFER We want to thank you for your patience and affording us an opportunity to investigate your incident. The bank truly empathizes with your current situation whereby an incident of ***** occurred and was reported on 30.04.2025 against your digital banking profile (), with reference 63212. We have taken the time to consider our records and consult with the relevant stakeholders in order to understand the circumstances surrounding the incident. We understand how upsetting incidents such as these can be, and we apologize for any distress and inconvenience which may have been caused by this incident. We value you as a customer and deeply regret any ***** related losses you may have suffered. Your patience and understanding during this time of hardship and uncer*****y is truly appreciated. Based on the information you provided to the bank as well as the facts and documents available, it is our understanding that the below transactions are in dispute and are alleged to have been *****ulent *****ulent. Transaction date Transaction time Transaction amount Transaction type 2025-04-30 00:00:00 10.12.03 R 23400 To: STACK H *****ulent account at STD Bank Note: Our statements reflect business dates only, which means any transaction on a Public Holiday or a Sunday or after 7pm on any business day will reflect on your statement the next business day. Payments to agent banks may take two to 72 hours to reflect. Outcome of the investigation We have concluded the investigation and confirm that the bank attended to the matter in accordance with the prescribed policies and processes, and we could find no fault on the bank’s part. The above transaction/s took place before the *****ulent activity was confirmed and the digital username subsequently blocked by the bank. Our investigation has revealed that another device accessed your digital banking profile () on (Internet Banking IBR) on (30.04.2025) using your digital banking credentials (username and password) and the associated system-generated OTPs (One-Time PINs) were successfully validated to allow the device to access your digital banking profile and conduct the transaction/s listed above. This occurs if your digital banking credentials and the associated system-generated OTPs were compromised through phishing, smishing or vishing or other methods as Standard Bank does not store or keep any of your digital banking passwords or app codes nor are any of the system-generated OTPs stored by the Banks’ systems. We value our relationship with you and, as a gesture of goodwill we offer you (Mrs. DOROTHY DC HART) an amount of R 5,850.00 in settlement of this matter. This offer is made without prejudice, without admitting any liability on the part of the bank and will be in full and final settlement of all claims against the bank in respect of this complaint. The offer and settlement are strictly confidential, and we humbly request that you do not communicate any detail about it without receiving prior consent from the bank. In the event that you fail to keep this confidential, the bank may ask you to repay the amount of R 5,850.00 together with interest and any other legal costs incurred herein. Kindly notify us of your acceptance of the goodwill offer based on the terms and conditions set out in this letter by (2025-07-03) by responding to this email. Should you require any further information or details regarding this matter, please contact us by sending an email to *****[email protected] or chat with us through the help centre on the SBG Mobile APP We have attached for your convenience and assistance a ***** Customer Awareness Brochure which provides awareness information to safeguard yourself and your loved ones in the future against *****. Please fami****ize yourself with the pack and contact the trusted Standard Bank ***** division on the details below if you suspect any *****ulent activities. Yours Sincerely, ***** Risk Management Standard Bank Digital ***** Department Standard Bank Centre 7 th Floor 3 Simmonds Street Johannesburg 2 001 / PO Box 61690 Marshal l town 2107 South Africa Tel . 0800 222 050 / standardbank. co.za The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (Reg. No. 1962/000738 /0 6) Authorised financial services and registered credi t provider (NCRCP15) Di rectors: NMC Nyembezi (Chai rman) SK Tshabalala * (Chief Executive Of f icer ) LL Bam PLH Cook A Daehnke * OA David-Borha1 GJ Fraser -Moleketi GMB Kennealy BJ Kruger Li Li 2 JH Maree NNA Matyumza ML Oduor -Ot ieno3 RN Ogega 3 Fengl in Tian2 Company Secretary: K Froneman – 2025/04/08 * Execut ive Di rector 1 Niger ian 2 Chinese 3 Kenyan
1 reply
13 months ago
ford Andoid Auto Wireless does not work
RE: SA CRC CASE Ford: 600100870, Wireless Connection Concern Failure As I read this correspondence, and WAIT…. I am amazed how ford jumps from an inherent fault with their vehicle to their legal experts for advice on a response to fixing their problem. I’m thinking “cougar mentality” and obvious legal experience, The somewhat reluctant purchase of ACTUALLY, in my experience, a great vehicle is quickly turning into a dismal disappointing experience, which I also ACTUALLY expected !! From: Loots, Nadine Sent: Friday, 02 May 2025 9:42 AM To: Richard Hart Subject: SA CRC CASE Ford: 600100870, Wireless Connection Concern Sensitivity: Confidential Good day Mr. Hart, I trust that you are well. Kindly be advised that we have sent the written correspondence to our legal team for vetting. Once we receive the final draft, we will forward it to you. Kindly note that we will follow up again next Tuesday. Thank you. Kind Regards, Nadine Loots Customer Experience Specialist Tel: 0860 011 022 Ext: 5801 Customer Resolution Centre Simon Vermooten Road. Pretoria, South Africa
0 replies
14 months ago
Sani Sixt Disappointing
Sani Sixt pricing not exactly as advertised............ Extra charges appear when you collect the vehicle. Not even Super - Super Cover from Sani Sixt covers tyres and windscreen damage ? Car only had 8000km but already signs that the cars are not well looked after. Wipers not great for the rain we encountered. And YES, there is a charge for them to fill the fuel on top of the actual fuel ! It's a car rental company, hello ! If you fill the car there is a charge to check you filled to car and suddenly the gauge you need to trust when they say the car is full, Sixt does not trust the same gauge ? Cost is much higher what I was expecting. Looks like I was legally ****med. I'm sure they will tell me ALL car rental companies **** customers this way. It does not mean it's right !
0 replies
21 months ago
The Courier Guy - ******ion
I bought some goods from a supplier overseas and after arriving in South Africa, the freight forwarder used The Courier Guy for the local deliveries. I called The Courier Guy on Monday 09/09/2024 who told me that my parcels were out for delivery. As delivery did not materialize on Monday as stated, I called again on Tuesday 10/09/2024, only to be told that delivery would be done on Wednesday 11/09/2024. As the items are needed urgently to complete customer orders, I informed the courier guy that I would collect the parcels myself. The storey quickly changed, suddenly there was an issue with this particular consignment. I asked waht the issue was ? But was told by the consultant that she was not at liberty to tell me ! When I informed the "customer services manager" that I would come to The Courier Guy premises with SAPS if required, she told me "not a problem". The parcel belonged to me and not their customer and they were lying to me and messing me around because they have an overdue account issue with their customer. They can refuse to deliver, which would be understandable, in bad taste, but understandable. They may not hold my goods, which have nothing to do with their client. I found the Cape Town "lower management" to be smug & severely lacking in their understanding of the issue.
0 replies
44 months ago
ZERO Customer Service
Because of my complaint on Hello Peter my issue was escalated by the Call Centre Supervisor, Olivia Radebe to LG Electronics Service manager, Amos Mamabolo. Neither of them in a position to answer my questions or make any progress with my complaint. Amos Mamabolo simply does not reply to emails and refuses to take calls. Olivia Radebe takes calls and lets you know she has passed the buck, after that she will put the phone down while you are on the line and if you phone back she is unavailable. This is the Call Centre SUPRVISOR !! Hysterically for this complaint Hello Peter will get an automated reply from the same person who just fobbed me off. Olivia Radebe.
0 replies
45 months ago
Don't be fooled by LG Electronics !
Don't be fooled by LG, even if is what is printed on the LG products ! LG 10-year Warranty as I discovered, not actually a warranty. First you pay a non-refundable "service fee" to assess if your faulty product is covered by LG 10-Year Warranty. Then you pay a labour charge to allow LG to "honour" their 10-Year Warranty ! LG should stop the false advertising. Remote Diagnostics also printed on the product, as I was told by LG is not functional ? Why ? First, I was told by LG that Remote Diagnostic "does not work". Then I was told LG needs to do a physical assessment on the product. So, if it does happen to be the 10-Year Warranty part that is faulty you only pay over R500 for the faulty part that should be under warranty, to be replaced. LG Electronics Warranty.......say no more.
4 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
2 (11.764705882352942%)
1 Star
15 (88.23529411764706%)