LexisNexis South Africa
Claimed Business
|1.1|8 Reviews (last 12 months)|This business does not respond to reviews
LexisNexis South Africa
Claimed Business
|1.1
8 Reviews (last 12 months)
Does not respond to reviews
Performance(last 12 months):
NPS Score
-100Unlikely
NPS Score
-100
Recommended: Unlikely
Review Distribution
1.1|8 Reviews
Sep '25 - Aug '26
Recent reviews (8)
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Share Your ExperienceTC
Theunis C
1 reviews | Active since Jun 2021
18 May 2026, 14:48
Nexis Windeed Wallet Trap and Unreachable Support
Loaded R200 into my wallet because it was the highest available top-up option for the automated property evaluation. Only afterwards did I discover the report costs R204, meaning I was forced to add more money just to use the service. Tried topping up again with R25/R50, but the payment keeps failing halfway through. Now I’m stuck with R200 sitting in a wallet I can’t use, and the platform does not allow refunds. To make matters worse, support is practically unreachable. They provide a call centre number, but nobody answers the phone. Very frustrating experience overall.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (2)TC
Theunis C
1 reviews | Active since Jun 2021
18 May 2026, 14:48
Nexis Windeed Wallet Trap and Unreachable Support
Loaded R200 into my wallet because it was the highest available top-up option for the automated property evaluation. Only afterwards did I discover the report costs R204, meaning I was forced to add more money just to use the service. Tried topping up again with R25/R50, but the payment keeps failing halfway through. Now I’m stuck with R200 sitting in a wallet I can’t use, and the platform does not allow refunds. To make matters worse, support is practically unreachable. They provide a call centre number, but nobody answers the phone. Very frustrating experience overall.
0
Replies (2)AS
Avon S
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2012
12 May 2026, 10:56
Urgent order, repeated promises, late delivery
LexisNexis South Africa failed to deliver a time-sensitive legal text despite repeated assurances, causing professional prejudice and forcing alternative arrangements. I placed Order #*** with LexisNexis on 20 April 2026 for a legal text urgently required for Labour Court leave-to-appeal research. At the time of ordering, I was advised the book was on back order. I specifically informed LexisNexis that I required delivery no later than 8 May 2026, as the text was needed for urgent legal research linked to strict court deadlines. I was initially assisted by Anelisa Shosha, who advised that she would escalate the matter to editorial and revert with a delivery timeline. Despite numerous follow-up calls, I was repeatedly told she was “busy on another line,” and no return calls were ever made. On multiple occasions, when I requested to speak to a manager to escalate the matter, I was never transferred to one and no manager ever contacted me. I was first advised that delivery would occur by 25 April 2026. When that date passed, I was then informed that only the book cover had apparently been received. I again followed up and on 5 May 2026 was assured that delivery would take place by 7 May 2026, yet no delivery occurred and the service ticket was closed despite the order remaining outstanding. A new ticket was subsequently opened by Keziah Elisha Didlof, who apologised and advised that the order was being couriered urgently. Tracking reflected that the parcel was received by KNP Logistics on 5 May 2026. It was then reflected as out for delivery but was returned to depot on 7 May 2026 at 17:15, with the reason stated as “not enough time.” This was particularly unacceptable given that LexisNexis had already missed multiple promised delivery dates and had been expressly informed that the order was urgent and required for a strict legal deadline. Tracking further reflected that the parcel again went out for delivery on 11 May 2026 at 07:42, yet no delivery took place that day. It was only ultimately reflected as delivered on 12 May 2026 at 09:27, well after the critical period for which it was required. Because of LexisNexis’ repeated broken assurances, poor communication, failure to provide managerial escalation, and failure to properly prioritise the matter despite explicit notice of urgency, I was forced to make alternative arrangements at my own inconvenience and expense in order to meet my professional obligations. This caused avoidable professional prejudice and reputational harm. Professionals purchase legal resources from LexisNexis because reliability and timing are critical. This experience was neither professional nor acceptable. I therefore request: A full refund for Order #***; and A formal explanation as to why multiple delivery commitments were made and repeatedly missed despite repeated assurances that the matter had been escalated and marked urgent. Based on this experience, I have serious concerns regarding LexisNexis South Africa’s order fulfilment, escalation handling, and customer service processes.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (1)AS
Avon S
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2012
12 May 2026, 10:56
Urgent order, repeated promises, late delivery
LexisNexis South Africa failed to deliver a time-sensitive legal text despite repeated assurances, causing professional prejudice and forcing alternative arrangements. I placed Order #*** with LexisNexis on 20 April 2026 for a legal text urgently required for Labour Court leave-to-appeal research. At the time of ordering, I was advised the book was on back order. I specifically informed LexisNexis that I required delivery no later than 8 May 2026, as the text was needed for urgent legal research linked to strict court deadlines. I was initially assisted by Anelisa Shosha, who advised that she would escalate the matter to editorial and revert with a delivery timeline. Despite numerous follow-up calls, I was repeatedly told she was “busy on another line,” and no return calls were ever made. On multiple occasions, when I requested to speak to a manager to escalate the matter, I was never transferred to one and no manager ever contacted me. I was first advised that delivery would occur by 25 April 2026. When that date passed, I was then informed that only the book cover had apparently been received. I again followed up and on 5 May 2026 was assured that delivery would take place by 7 May 2026, yet no delivery occurred and the service ticket was closed despite the order remaining outstanding. A new ticket was subsequently opened by Keziah Elisha Didlof, who apologised and advised that the order was being couriered urgently. Tracking reflected that the parcel was received by KNP Logistics on 5 May 2026. It was then reflected as out for delivery but was returned to depot on 7 May 2026 at 17:15, with the reason stated as “not enough time.” This was particularly unacceptable given that LexisNexis had already missed multiple promised delivery dates and had been expressly informed that the order was urgent and required for a strict legal deadline. Tracking further reflected that the parcel again went out for delivery on 11 May 2026 at 07:42, yet no delivery took place that day. It was only ultimately reflected as delivered on 12 May 2026 at 09:27, well after the critical period for which it was required. Because of LexisNexis’ repeated broken assurances, poor communication, failure to provide managerial escalation, and failure to properly prioritise the matter despite explicit notice of urgency, I was forced to make alternative arrangements at my own inconvenience and expense in order to meet my professional obligations. This caused avoidable professional prejudice and reputational harm. Professionals purchase legal resources from LexisNexis because reliability and timing are critical. This experience was neither professional nor acceptable. I therefore request: A full refund for Order #***; and A formal explanation as to why multiple delivery commitments were made and repeatedly missed despite repeated assurances that the matter had been escalated and marked urgent. Based on this experience, I have serious concerns regarding LexisNexis South Africa’s order fulfilment, escalation handling, and customer service processes.
0
Replies (1)ZM
Zinhle M
1 reviews | Active since Jul 2016
18 Feb 2026, 23:07
stressful experience
Dear LexisNexis, Firstly, the website for online orders is not functioning properly. I had to place my order manually, which was inconvenient. Secondly, the call centre menu is not very clear or specific with its call options, which makes navigation difficult. Thirdly, your customer service team appears to be overwhelmed. Please consider adding more staff or implementing alternative solutions to improve the response time. I submitted my request 7–10 days ago, and it was only attended to this week. When I followed up with the administrator, I was told there is a high volume of orders. With respect, this should not be the customer’s problem. I struggled to make the order for the e-book. There are no instructions provided regarding the whole online process and the fact that you have to get through the third party to have access to the e-book. When I spoke to an agent today she said 'well that's how our process is and it is not only applicable to you but all student' I actually found this statement very condescending and inconsiderate.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (1)ZM
Zinhle M
1 reviews | Active since Jul 2016
18 Feb 2026, 23:07
stressful experience
Dear LexisNexis, Firstly, the website for online orders is not functioning properly. I had to place my order manually, which was inconvenient. Secondly, the call centre menu is not very clear or specific with its call options, which makes navigation difficult. Thirdly, your customer service team appears to be overwhelmed. Please consider adding more staff or implementing alternative solutions to improve the response time. I submitted my request 7–10 days ago, and it was only attended to this week. When I followed up with the administrator, I was told there is a high volume of orders. With respect, this should not be the customer’s problem. I struggled to make the order for the e-book. There are no instructions provided regarding the whole online process and the fact that you have to get through the third party to have access to the e-book. When I spoke to an agent today she said 'well that's how our process is and it is not only applicable to you but all student' I actually found this statement very condescending and inconsiderate.
0
Replies (1)AP
Anthony P
1 reviews | Active since Mar 2023
11 Feb 2026, 19:39
LexisNexis South Africa: When “Premium Legal Services” Comes with Premium Surprises
In South Africa, we are unfortunately no strangers to businesses that rely on glossy marketing and selective transparency to entice unsuspecting customers. What is more disturbing, however, is when this conduct appears to come from companies that position themselves as pillars of credibility and custodians of trusted information. Enter LexisNexis South Africa — a brand that presents itself as a leader in legal and property information services. One would reasonably expect clarity, integrity, and full disclosure from such an organisation. Instead, what customers encounter is a masterclass in how to say just enough… but not quite everything. The advertised offering sounds straightforward and reassuring: Full deeds searches Access to Deeds Office records The ability to obtain Surveyor General (SG) plans All very impressive. All very convincing. You register. You are prompted to purchase credits to use the services. Fair enough — services cost money. You purchase the credits. Only then — at the point where you are about to conduct your first search — does the small but very significant detail appear: you will be charged for the search even if it returns no results. Yes, you read that correctly. Whether you find what you’re looking for or not, the meter runs. This critical piece of information is conveniently absent during the marketing phase and notably absent when you are encouraged to purchase credits. It materialises only after your money is safely secured. At that stage, what is a customer to do? The credits have been bought. There is no turning back. So you proceed — as most reasonable people would — trusting that a “Deeds Office search” will, at the very least, locate a legitimate property. Except… it doesn’t. You try again, perhaps thinking it was a minor input error. Another charge. Another null result. More credits deducted. Still no property found — on what is supposedly a Deeds Office search platform. The following day, you raise the issue. You explain that it is unreasonable to be charged repeatedly for null results. The response? A polite but firm refusal to refund. The explanation: “The Deeds Office charges for every search.” That may very well be the case. But here’s a novel concept: disclose that clearly and upfront. Place it boldly in the marketing material. State it before customers are required to purchase credits. Transparency is not a radical business model — especially for a company trading on the strength of its credibility. Instead, customers are left feeling as though the business model depends less on successful searches and more on the inevitability of repeated, billable attempts. For a company operating in the legal information space, where trust and ethics should be non-negotiable, this approach is deeply disappointing. When profit eclipses transparency, credibility becomes collateral damage. LexisNexis South Africa, perhaps it’s time to reflect: integrity is not a premium add-on. It should not require credits.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (2)AP
Anthony P
1 reviews | Active since Mar 2023
11 Feb 2026, 19:39
LexisNexis South Africa: When “Premium Legal Services” Comes with Premium Surprises
In South Africa, we are unfortunately no strangers to businesses that rely on glossy marketing and selective transparency to entice unsuspecting customers. What is more disturbing, however, is when this conduct appears to come from companies that position themselves as pillars of credibility and custodians of trusted information. Enter LexisNexis South Africa — a brand that presents itself as a leader in legal and property information services. One would reasonably expect clarity, integrity, and full disclosure from such an organisation. Instead, what customers encounter is a masterclass in how to say just enough… but not quite everything. The advertised offering sounds straightforward and reassuring: Full deeds searches Access to Deeds Office records The ability to obtain Surveyor General (SG) plans All very impressive. All very convincing. You register. You are prompted to purchase credits to use the services. Fair enough — services cost money. You purchase the credits. Only then — at the point where you are about to conduct your first search — does the small but very significant detail appear: you will be charged for the search even if it returns no results. Yes, you read that correctly. Whether you find what you’re looking for or not, the meter runs. This critical piece of information is conveniently absent during the marketing phase and notably absent when you are encouraged to purchase credits. It materialises only after your money is safely secured. At that stage, what is a customer to do? The credits have been bought. There is no turning back. So you proceed — as most reasonable people would — trusting that a “Deeds Office search” will, at the very least, locate a legitimate property. Except… it doesn’t. You try again, perhaps thinking it was a minor input error. Another charge. Another null result. More credits deducted. Still no property found — on what is supposedly a Deeds Office search platform. The following day, you raise the issue. You explain that it is unreasonable to be charged repeatedly for null results. The response? A polite but firm refusal to refund. The explanation: “The Deeds Office charges for every search.” That may very well be the case. But here’s a novel concept: disclose that clearly and upfront. Place it boldly in the marketing material. State it before customers are required to purchase credits. Transparency is not a radical business model — especially for a company trading on the strength of its credibility. Instead, customers are left feeling as though the business model depends less on successful searches and more on the inevitability of repeated, billable attempts. For a company operating in the legal information space, where trust and ethics should be non-negotiable, this approach is deeply disappointing. When profit eclipses transparency, credibility becomes collateral damage. LexisNexis South Africa, perhaps it’s time to reflect: integrity is not a premium add-on. It should not require credits.
0
Replies (2)Jd
Justin d'Almaine
1 reviews | Active since Feb 2014
11 Dec 2025, 14:08
Questionable hiring practices
So I've app**** for jobs at LexisNexis. They must hire based on demographics or AI. As some backround info, I am an admitted lawyer with a masters degree, 4 years practical experience, 3 years writing and publishing experience in a job with another company, and have academic publications. While I accept they can hire whoever they want, I had one screening call, on a job that Linkedin recommended me as a top applicant. The other applications didn't get further than rejecting my CV outright, even jobs their own website recommended for me. Not even a screening call or interview. I asked for feedback and got an email saying 'your CV is impressive, but we're moving forward with other candidates', which didn't tell anything. The facts that they won't even consider, with my qualifications and experience, and that their own website recommended the jobs, there can only be one inference drawn, and that is that I don't fit the demographics to meet their requirements. And it's been quite a few jobs that I app**** for.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (4)Jd
Justin d'Almaine
1 reviews | Active since Feb 2014
11 Dec 2025, 14:08
Questionable hiring practices
So I've app**** for jobs at LexisNexis. They must hire based on demographics or AI. As some backround info, I am an admitted lawyer with a masters degree, 4 years practical experience, 3 years writing and publishing experience in a job with another company, and have academic publications. While I accept they can hire whoever they want, I had one screening call, on a job that Linkedin recommended me as a top applicant. The other applications didn't get further than rejecting my CV outright, even jobs their own website recommended for me. Not even a screening call or interview. I asked for feedback and got an email saying 'your CV is impressive, but we're moving forward with other candidates', which didn't tell anything. The facts that they won't even consider, with my qualifications and experience, and that their own website recommended the jobs, there can only be one inference drawn, and that is that I don't fit the demographics to meet their requirements. And it's been quite a few jobs that I app**** for.
0
Replies (4)MS
Magnus S
1 reviews | Active since Nov 2023
3 Nov 2025, 15:32
WHY YOU SHOULD AVOID LEXISNEXIS AT ALL COST
I have tried in vain, on more than one occasion and by both telephone and by e-mail, to get confirmation from LexisNexis regarding their bank account details so that I may settle their account. How can it be in this day and age that a Company is unable to confirm their bank account details ? Do they not want to get paid ????? You are a pathetic.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (1)MS
Magnus S
1 reviews | Active since Nov 2023
3 Nov 2025, 15:32
WHY YOU SHOULD AVOID LEXISNEXIS AT ALL COST
I have tried in vain, on more than one occasion and by both telephone and by e-mail, to get confirmation from LexisNexis regarding their bank account details so that I may settle their account. How can it be in this day and age that a Company is unable to confirm their bank account details ? Do they not want to get paid ????? You are a pathetic.
0
Replies (1)DS
David S
1 reviews | Active since Apr 2018
24 Oct 2025, 16:52
Bad service. Failure to process a refund.
LexisNexis made an unauthorised deduction from my bank account. I raised it my account manager on 6 October 2025, who rep**** to me and raised it with a sales administrator. Nobody came back to me. I queried when a refund would be processed on 13 October 2025. The next day, Catherine Pillay, indicated that she'd marked this issue for an urgent refund. The company has tried to keep my money as long as possible to earn interest off it. As of today, there is no indication when my refund will be processed. Thank goodness I have electronic access to Juta Online for my resourses. I've cancelled everything with LexisNexis because they don't value their customers.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (1)DS
David S
1 reviews | Active since Apr 2018
24 Oct 2025, 16:52
Bad service. Failure to process a refund.
LexisNexis made an unauthorised deduction from my bank account. I raised it my account manager on 6 October 2025, who rep**** to me and raised it with a sales administrator. Nobody came back to me. I queried when a refund would be processed on 13 October 2025. The next day, Catherine Pillay, indicated that she'd marked this issue for an urgent refund. The company has tried to keep my money as long as possible to earn interest off it. As of today, there is no indication when my refund will be processed. Thank goodness I have electronic access to Juta Online for my resourses. I've cancelled everything with LexisNexis because they don't value their customers.
0
Replies (1)NR
Nicolene R
1 reviews | Active since Mar 2009
22 Sept 2025, 10:20
Why I’m Switching from LexisNexis to Jut
The recent changes to the LexisNexis website are extremely disappointing. The previous MyLexisNexis platform was excellent, but the new site is confusing and far from user-friendly. I currently have a one-week trial with Juta, and after experiencing how much better and easier to use their platform is, I will not be renewing my LexisNexis subscription.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (1)NR
Nicolene R
1 reviews | Active since Mar 2009
22 Sept 2025, 10:20
Why I’m Switching from LexisNexis to Jut
The recent changes to the LexisNexis website are extremely disappointing. The previous MyLexisNexis platform was excellent, but the new site is confusing and far from user-friendly. I currently have a one-week trial with Juta, and after experiencing how much better and easier to use their platform is, I will not be renewing my LexisNexis subscription.
0
Replies (1)