Man left R19,800 out of pocket after phone stolen in Uber as ombud rejects claim

Timeline of the theft and the transactions

The complainant’s Uber trip ended at about 1:53pm on 25 January 2026. He realised immediately that his phone had been left in the vehicle and attempted to contact the driver, but the driver had already departed and did not respond.

The first unauthorised banking transaction was processed at 5:41pm that same day, almost four hours after the phone went missing. A total of six transactions were processed between 5:41pm and 6:13pm, producing the R23,800 shortfall.

The disputed transactions, as set out in the documents considered by the ombud, included:

• Two R2,500 send‑money transactions
• Two R2,500 prepaid voucher purchases
• A R9,800 payment to an account held at Access Bank
• A R4,000 payment to another Nedbank account

Bank response and partial recovery

The complainant reported the incident to Nedbank at approximately 8:47am on 26 January 2026, at which point the bank suspended his banking profile. Nedbank said it contacted the beneficiary banks, including Flash and Access Bank, in attempts to recover funds and succeeded in obtaining R4,000 back from the Nedbank account that received a payment.

Nedbank also told the ombud that its records showed the Money App profile had been enrolled on a Samsung device on 22 April 2025. The bank indicated there was no record of a password reset or SIM swap prior to the disputed transactions.

As a separate gesture, Nedbank offered a once‑off goodwill payment of R9,700, which the complainant rejected because it required signing a full and final settlement without an admission of liability. The ombud’s assessment notes that this offer later expired.

What the ombud found

The NFO reviewed submissions from both the complainant and Nedbank and accepted, on a balance of probabilities, that fraudsters had accessed the Money App via the stolen cellphone. However, the ombud said it found no evidence that Nedbank’s systems had been hacked or that any bank employee was involved.

The NFO reported it could not determine precisely how, when or under what circumstances the complainant’s banking credentials were compromised. It noted that credentials can be compromised days or even weeks before unauthorised transactions occur and emphasised that the disputed transactions happened before the complainant notified the bank.

Because the available evidence did not establish negligence or maladministration by Nedbank, the ombud concluded there was no basis to require the bank to refund the complainant’s total loss.

Where the stolen money went, according to records

Records obtained from Access Bank showed the account that received the R9,800 payment was credited at 6:40pm on 25 January 2026. That amount was then used for withdrawals between 6:41pm and 7:55pm that evening. The two send‑money transactions processed at 5:41pm and 5:48pm were redeemed at 5:53pm and 5:54pm, respectively. The ombud noted these funds were used before Nedbank was notified of the incident.

Legal options and practical next steps outlined by the ombud

The NFO advised that the complainant could pursue legal action against the beneficiary account holder to recover the remaining loss. Because banking confidentiality prevents banks from simply disclosing account‑holder identities, the ombud explained the complainant would need a subpoena under section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act to compel the bank to release the relevant information.

The scheme also made clear that investigating or prosecuting the beneficiary account holder falls outside its remit; the ombud resolves disputes between banks and customers rather than pursuing criminal prosecutions. The assessment closed the matter but said the NFO would consider any new, relevant and substantial information that could change its finding.

What this means for customers

This case highlights the practical and legal limits a financial‑dispute ombud can apply when a customer’s credentials are used from a stolen device. When a bank’s systems and processes are found not to be negligent, the route for recovering funds often moves to civil or criminal proceedings against beneficiaries, which can require subpoenas and court action.

More generally, when devices are lost or stolen, prompt reporting to the bank is essential because banks can suspend profiles and try to recover funds. Where funds are already moved into other accounts or withdrawn, recovery becomes more difficult and may require legal steps to trace and reclaim money.

Status

At the time of the ombud’s assessment, the complainant had an outstanding loss of R19,800 and the ombud had declined to recommend a refund by Nedbank. The NFO left open the possibility of revisiting the case if the complainant provided new, relevant evidence.