The National Financial Ombud Scheme South Africa (NFO) recorded a 46% increase in fraud-related complaints involving non-bank credit, highlighting the growing risk of consumers being left with debts linked to transactions they never made or authorised.
Complaints in the NFO’s non-bank Credit Division increased from 124 in 2025 to 181 in 2026, an increase of 57 cases in one year, it said.
The complaints involved everyday credit facilities, including retail and furniture accounts, cellphone contracts, and non-bank personal loans.
The NFO describes itself as an independent industry scheme which provides free, impartial, and confidential dispute resolution services to consumers who have complaints against financial service providers within its jurisdiction, including banks, credit providers, life insurers, and non-life insurers.
For consumers, the impact of credit fraud extended beyond the original transaction. A fraudulent purchase or credit application could result in an unpaid balance, interest and other charges, collection activity and potentially adverse credit information or an SAFPS listing.
“Fraudsters are no longer necessarily stealing the physical card. They are increasingly targeting the information, credentials and trust that sit behind the transaction,” said Nerosha Maseti, lead ombud for Banking and Credit at the NFO.
The NFO’s case experience showed that fraud affecting non-bank credit took several forms, including card-not-present transactions, phishing, vishing, identity theft, fraudulent personal-loan applications, stolen card details and the misuse of one-time passwords (OTPs).
Disputes involving fraud listings with credit bureaux and the Southern African Fraud Prevention Service (SAFPS) also reached the Ombud.
The cases showed that fraud was no longer confined to traditional banking products, with criminals targeting the information and security credentials used to access everyday credit facilities.
Fraud became a debt problem
For consumers, identifying an unauthorised transaction was only the beginning of the problem.
If a disputed transaction remained unpaid or unresolved, the account balance could increase through interest and other charges. Collection activity could also follow while the consumer continued to dispute whether the transaction or credit agreement had been authorised.
The dispute could also have consequences for the consumer’s credit profile, including potential fraud listings.
Maseti said: “We are seeing the nature of credit complaints change. Consumers are increasingly approaching us not just about balances or collection practices, but about debts arising from transactions they never authorised. That is a serious consumer-protection issue.
“The fraudster may make the transaction, but the consequences can follow the consumer in the form of debt, collection activity and potentially adverse credit information.”
R18 488.80 retail account dispute
One case before the NFO illustrated why fraud disputes could be difficult for consumers.
A consumer disputed liability for an R18 488.80 online card-not-present transaction processed on a retail store credit account on March 25, 2025.
The consumer reported receiving a call from someone posing as a retailer representative. The caller warned of “fraudulent activity” and offered to help prevent further fraud.
Shortly afterwards, the disputed transaction was processed.
The credit provider confirmed that the purchase had been authenticated using a one-time password sent to the consumer’s registered cellphone.
No SIM swap or system compromise was detected. The investigation concluded that the consumer had likely been deceived into disclosing the OTP during a vishing scam.
The NFO accepted that the consumer had been a genuine fraud victim who believed they were dealing with a legitimate representative.
However, it found no evidence of negligence or system failure by the credit provider. The transaction had been validated using the consumer’s own security credentials.
The Ombud found no legal or equitable basis to reverse or write off the debt.
The case demonstrated that being a victim of fraud did not automatically make a credit provider liable for the resulting loss.
Consumers were urged not to ignore disputed accounts
The NFO urged consumers to act immediately when they identified a transaction they believed was fraudulent.
“One of the worst things a consumer can do is ignore the problem. If an unauthorised transaction appears on your account, report it immediately and keep a record of everything you do to resolve it.
“Do not assume that because you did not make the purchase, the problem will automatically disappear. Engage the credit provider, challenge the transaction formally and obtain a written record of the dispute.”
Consumers were advised to report suspected fraud using the credit provider’s official telephone number or website.
They were also advised to reset compromised passwords, secure affected accounts and devices and retain evidence of the suspected fraud.
This evidence could include statements, SMSs, emails, screenshots, WhatsApp messages and correspondence with the credit provider.
Consumers were also advised to obtain a complaint or reference number and keep a record of their communications and actions.
Credit providers also had a role
The NFO said credit providers also had responsibilities when consumers reported suspected fraud.
Providers were expected to offer accessible reporting channels and conduct prompt investigations into disputed transactions.
They were also expected to preserve relevant evidence, including mitigation measures taken after becoming aware of the fraud.
The NFO said providers should communicate clearly with consumers throughout an investigation, deal fairly with collection activity while disputes were under review and consider the circumstances of each case.
Maseti said: “A consumer who has just discovered that someone has used their credit facility fraudulently should not have to become a forensic investigator to be heard.”
The NFO said processes needed to be simple, understandable and responsive. Consumers, meanwhile, were expected to act promptly and provide all information available to them.
Five steps consumers were advised to take
STOP: Consumers were advised to cut off contact with suspected fraudsters and not share personal, banking or security information.
REPORT: They were advised to alert the credit provider immediately through an official telephone number or website.
SECURE: Consumers were advised to reset compromised passwords and secure affected accounts and devices.
DISPUTE: They were advised to formally challenge the unauthorised transaction or credit agreement, obtain a complaint or reference number and retain statements, SMSs, emails, screenshots, WhatsApp messages and other evidence.
ESCALATE: If the complaint remained unresolved, consumers could take the matter to the NFO, provided it fell within its jurisdiction.
The NFO’s services were free to consumers.
Consumers were required to first lodge their complaints directly with their credit providers and give the providers an opportunity to resolve the matters.
The NFO’s complaint figures showed that credit fraud had become more than a problem of money being stolen. For affected consumers, it could also result in a debt dispute that took time and effort to resolve.
THE NATIONAL