"Phantom withdrawals" from automatic teller machines (ATMs) are a continuing source of frustration for consumers, Neville Melville, the Banking Adjudicator, says.
"Phantom ATM withdrawals" occur when money is removed from your account even though you are still in possession of your bank cards.
In spite of numerous complaints from people who swear they were in possession of their cards, never disclosed their personal identification numbers (PINs) to anyone else, and never transacted at the ATMs indicated on the bank statements, the banks insist that it is impossible for a transaction to take place without both a card and a PIN.
Melville says he is planning a special investigation into phantom ATM withdrawals.
A number of banks are implementing measures to address the high incidence of ATM-related complaints. Of all the complaints finalised by the adjudicator's office last year, 18 percent concerned ATMs. Of these, 54 percent were resolved in favour of the consumers who sent in the complaints.
Standard Bank has upgraded its ATMs to make it more difficult for thieves to tamper with them. It has also created a dedicated department to deal with ATM-related complaints.
First National Bank is using posters, local radio stations and neighbourhood watch meetings to educate consumers on how to avoid ATM fraud. It has also carried out trials on jam-resistant ATM card-reader slots.
Nedcor has upgraded its ATMs to prevent crime and has improved its procedures to log ATM faults and crime.
Melville says he hopes other institutions will follow the lead of these banks.
Breakdown of complaints handled by the Banking Adjudicator in 2001
Case study
One consumer was the victim of a scam in which an ATM's card reader was rigged to retain cards. She left the ATM without her card because she thought it had been lawfully retained by the ATM.
The thief, who had seen her entering her PIN, then retrieved her card and withdrew money from her account.
The woman telephoned the bank, and took steps to prevent anyone else from using the ATM.
The adjudicator found it was highly probable that she had entered her PIN before being prompted by the ATM to do so. The consumer was therefore negligent to a certain degree.
However, the woman had attempted to prevent her loss.
The adjudicator recommended that the bank reimburse her for half of her loss.
See also: