JD
Jay D
Active since Aug 2021
14
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
14 reviews2 months ago
Response was prompt even though I had called after business hours
Response was prompt even though I had called after business hours. The consultant Lincoln Kock was courteous and professional throughout my initial and follow up call. He explained the details clearly and ensured I got the best possible deal. He focused on the benefits of his product and did not attempt to cast doubt on competitors - unlike other instances where consultants alleged they were more reliable and therefore warranted their higher premiums. He is an excellent ambassador for his company.
53 replies
22 months ago
Great service from Outsurance
My compliments to the Outsurance team for their efficiency in handling our claim arising from storm damages to our vehicle. I received a call within a few minutes of lodging an online claim and the vehicle was towed away that same afternoon. Since then I have been kept informed of progress and updated whenever necessary.
53 replies
23 months ago
UCount clients losing out due to Standard Bank error
I recently had an issue with the bank's UCount division when they sent a notice that points were going to expire shortly since it would be 5 years since they were issued. They were insistent that their system was correct until I pointed out that my points had been fully redeemed a few months back and there was therefore no possibility of there being points older than 5 years. After investigations, I received an apology and a nominal award of R100 in points as an act of goodwill. I was told that it was a system error. When asked to provide confirmation that the error had been rectified, the consultant said that Operations would be dealing with that and he would ensure that I received the confirmation in due course - it never arrived. On 20 May 2024 I received another notice of points about to expire and sent an email to UCount detailing that it was a repeat of the previous incident where a system error was identified. A day later I received a call from Logan Johnson, a consultant who said she had checked on my account and that the points were indeed expiring. She had obviously not bothered to read my email in full and I had to explain the contents again - after which she said she would escalate my complaint and revert with an explanation as to why the system error persisted. On 23 May I received a call from the bank conducting a customer satisfaction survey - after explaining the current issue, the caller promised to refer it to his supervisor who would call me since it reflected negatively on the bank and needed attention. Again, no one has called. On 31 May, Logan sent an email to confirm no points would expire and apologised for the inconvenience, also informing me that their file on this matter was now closed. Is the bank really concerned about their clients being prejudiced by their errors? The default stance adopted is to tell the client their bank records are correct - and the fact that Logan adopted that stance is evidence that the previous admission of a system error has not been acted on to rectify the system or to inform staff of that possibility when a client complains. This is the same bank that delivered a new bank card and, when I reported a *****ulent online transaction within a few days, insisted that I had compromised my PIN and was therefore responsible for the loss. When I informed them that the card had not yet been activated and there was no PIN allocated as yet, the response changed to blaming third parties in the production and delivery of the card for the disclosure of my personal details. The real concern must be that clients who do not query these erroneous notices are surrendering their valid points and suffer a financial loss -while the bank benefits from not having to pay out value for the points. The system error is an internal issue and cannot be blamed on third parties - so why is it not being rectified???
53 replies
27 months ago
Bad service from Standard Bank
I have been a client of Standard Bank and on the UCount loyalty programme for a number of years, regularly using the points when they add up to a significant amount. At times, I have used up the points to a level where there was just a minor balance to my credit remaining. Recently, I received a reminder that I need to renew my card after 5 years which is the usual process. Shortly thereafter, I received a notice that 773 points would reach their 5 year expiry at the end of the current month (Jan 2024). On contacting the call centre I explained to Rene Mehana that it did not make sense that I had been spending the points regularly and there were still points that were 5 years old and still unspent. She kept me holding on for a long period while she checked with the Complaints division for an explanation. When she eventually reverted, she informed me that points were allocated on a recurring basis and these points had not been spent since being allocated 5 years ago. I asked her if the oldest points were used first and she agreed that that was how it should operate. I then asked her again how those 773 points could have been unused over a period of 5 years and she said she did not know but would transfer me to the Complaints department so they could explain exactly how the system worked. When she got back to the call, she said Complaints could not take my call but would log a complaint to get back to me later. Since the points expire today, I explained the urgency and asked for her name and staff number as a reference. I was rather surprised when she informed me that, although she worked for the bank, she could not supply a staff number. On a previous occasion when I had an issue with the bank, I was advised to always obtain the staff number so that the relevant individual could be identified to assist with resolving the issue. This is not the first time that I have had to deal with bank staff at a call centre who are not equipped to deal with queries - and then you have to hold on while they speak to someone who can help, but that person will not take your call directly. To the bank's credit I did receive a call later from Ashley at the UCount centre who agreed that the points usage system should be that the oldest points are used first and he could not understand the notice sent to me. He also has to refer to someone else for an explanation of this illogical notice. Besides the frustration of having to resolve a situation that should not have arisen in the first place, it begs the question of the adequacy of internal controls that the bank has in place to avoid notices being sent that even their own staff agree makes no sense. I also learnt that the bank outsourced the call centre function and that those staff were not knowledgable on all processes - which explains why clients are left holding on while the call centre contacts the bank to provide answers. Clearly, the bank is quite happy to cut their operational costs while clients incur the costs of long calls to their outsourced call centres.
58 replies
30 months ago
Internal ***** at Standard Bank
During two of my most recent international travels I received calls whilst away to advise me that an abnormal debit had appeared on my account. The caller quoted a few valid transactions - which I checked and verified on my account later - to convince me her call was genuine and said the abnormal amount would be stopped once I provided an OTP. Being aware of this ****, I did not fall for their tricks but reported both instances to Standard Bank immediately to monitor my account. I voiced my concern that the caller had details of some transactions on my account and was told the bank would investigate how information could be leaked. In Aug 2023, my credit card was stopped by the bank and replaced because security on the card had been compromised - an unknown third party had used my confidential personal details to pass a debit to my account. The bank could not explain how my details could have been disclosed and speculated that the card could have been cloned whilst being used. In Oct 2023, I received a SMS from the bank asking me to confirm a minor debit to my cheque card account - which I confirmed was *****ulent. Once again, the bank is replacing the card to prevent further ***** attempts and the possibility of cloning was raised. This possibility was immediately retracted when I pointed out that the cheque card had only been delivered to me a week ago and had not been used since except to activate it online on the bank's own system. When I queried how this could happen, I was told there are various stages in the production of the card and its delivery where security could be breached. I asked for feedback because I am genuinely - and with good reason - concerned that third parties are accessing my information via the bank's operations. I was told that I would be kept informed - but from previous experience I know that is just an SMS trail without any conclusive account of their findings. When pressed to give me the contact details of a bank official I could actually speak to, I was told the investigator on my case would be calling me as soon as the case file was opened. That was five days ago and I have heard nothing further except for a message that the courier company will be contacting me soon to deliver a new card. What is the state of security at the bank? How is it possible for a client's personal information - that is confidential and supposedly protected by many layers of security technology - being leaked to *****sters? Is there collusion from internal sources that we are not being told about? I have a relative who unfortunately fell for the *****sters tricks because they revealed transaction details that he believed were only available to Standard Bank - and the bank stands by the assertion that he is to blame for his loss because he divulged an OTP to a third party. What about their culpability in allowing *****sters access to the client's personal account? It remains to be seen what the bank's response is now that there is a clear cut case where a compromised card has only been in possession of the bank and never used by the client - yet online ***** using confidentail information has already taken place.
131 replies
34 months ago
Unbelievably pathetic client service
I have been trying for over a month to get a Benefits Statement from this company. The local office referred me to their Pensions dept in Jhb - where you hang on and on hoping that someone eventually comes on the line. After several tries, a consultant promised to send it. Today I called Jhb again with no success in getting to speak to someone. I tried logging a complaint - their complaints email address bounces back undeliverable, their website will not connect and the complaints line cuts off after a few rings. in desperation, I called their Umhlanga office again - onthe first call a lady took all the details and asked me to wait a moment while she transferred me to someone who could help. After 5 min of hanging on I cut the call and called again. This time another lady answered and said she was transferring me to someone - only to listen to recorded messages with options irrelevant to my query. How does one deal with such pathetic client service? Shocking that it comes from a financial services provider who promises to look after your hard earned savings in your best interest.
53 replies
46 months ago
HiFi Corp is deceiving online clients
On the 9 July 2022 I placed an online order with HiFi Corp for a TV that was advertised as a special offer. The payment was processed and acknowledged online, followed by a message that my order was being processed and would be delivered within 3-6 working days. An online tracking check a day later confirmed the order was being processed. On 14 July an email from Ntswaki Setlau was received to advise the item was not available and the order was being cancelled - and that I would receive a refund that could take up to 3 weeks to reflect in my account. I attempted to call her at the number provided in her email but the response I got was that it was an invalid number. I then emailed her and am still waiting for a response. I checked online and the ad is still appearing. It is unbelievable that a company operates an online facility that does not reconcile stock on hand before accepting payment for an item - and then refunds you effectively up to a month later. If HiFi Corp's system is so defective then why are they still accepting orders for goods they know they do not have? How much of funds are they holding to their credit that will only be paid back much later? What reliance can the consumer place on such a company when making a buying decision? Their email concluded with the statement "HiFi Corp is not obliged to source stock or offer a similar or upgraded item for this sale as stock will no longer be available in future" - that is the sum total of their disregard for a client. An untrustworthy company like this should not be trading online.
0 replies
49 months ago
Unethical conduct of Standard Bank
My wife was allocated shares as an employee by Standard Bank in the Tutuwa scheme. Subsequently she exercised an option in 2015 to pay the tax due and take transfer of the shares, which remained in the Tutuwa trust. In 2018 she was medically boarded and taken off the bank's system. There was no further communication received about the shares until 2 weeks ago when the Nimble Group called to advise that she had to make an urgent decision as to whether to sell or transfer her shares to a broker account. They advsied that they had been contracted to contact her since the bank had sent letters to her in 2021 and received no response. Upon investigation, it appears the letters were sent via email to her bank email address which had been closed when she was boarded in 2018. Information was provided which reflected shares forfeited and a balance that was substantially lower than the original allocation. The value of the balance of shares and tax payable were illustrated but no mention was made of the tax already paid. Nimble say they cannot explain the calculations and referred us to Share Incentives at the bank. An email was sent to the bank and all they provided on 25 Mar 2022 was a statement showing that shares had been sold to settle an unexplained debt to ICBC. Since then, attempts to call them have been in vain - the response says the number is unavailable at the moment and to call back later. Daily emails sent to the responsible person have not been responded to. Nimble continue to send threatening reminders that if no election is made by the closing date (which they have not confirmed) the entire share balance will be forfeited. Calls to their number provided are met with a response that the person dealing with the account is in Durban and the call cannot be transferred but a message will be sent to her to call us. Mysteriously, mails to my wife open by saying attempts have been made to call her but there is no record of such calls. Attempts to escalate the matter are met with the response that only Share Incentives can assist and we are given the same number that we have been trying. Now, with an indefinite closing date and no open line of communication to resolve the queries, it seems that the bank will go ahead and dispose of my wife's shares on the basis that she did not make an election - while the truth of the matter is that they are making it impossible to communicate with them. The shares were part of our retirement planning and it is absolutely disgraceful and unethical that Standard Bank can treat us in such a callous manner.
74 replies
49 months ago
Pathetic Bankmed Client Service
In May 2021 we received replacement membership cards and noted that the principal member's ID number was incorrect. This caused a problem when using the card at service providers who had to verify her identity. I emailed Bankmed to correct their error and provide new cards. No response was received and in July 2021 I called them and was asked to provide a delivery address for the new cards. There was no explanation for the delay, just an apology. In Sep 2021, the cards arrived with the same error still on it. I called and was assured it would be resolved urgently. In Dec 2021 I escalated the matter to tellus@bankmed which is the highest level of complaint members have access to. I received a mail from Esme le Grange, apologising and stating that "Bankmed is committed to ensuring that all our members receive unparalleled service, and should there be any deviations from this commitment, we will ensure that any inconvenience caused to the member receives our urgent attention." She confirmed that she had checked internally and the correct cards would be dispatched urgently. In Mar 2022 we received the cards, only to discover that while the ID had been rectified, the principal member's name had been mis-spelt. The error is also on their system and causes a problem in that any prescription made out to her does not correspond to what the pharmacy sees on the Bankmed link. I have now mailed Banked again and can only hope that somebody takes responsibility to resolve this lengthy saga rather than just issuing profuse apologies and making service level promises prepared by Bankmed but which they fail to live up to.
159 replies
51 months ago
Checkers - Amusing but irritating
I recently bought a pressure cooker that was on a special offer at Checkers Ballito Junction Mall. At the till the discount was not coming up and an assistant was sent to the shelf to check. He came back and said the unit was not on offer. I then had to go back to the shelf and come back with the sign that advertised the offer. A supervisor was called to authorise the price reduction. She then said the unit I had was not the one on special - because the sign said "6l capacity" and the unit box said "6.0l capacity." It took a while to explain to her that both meant the same thing and she eventually authorised the transaction but continued to express her doubt. It was most probably the queue building up at the till rather than an understanding of the capacity description that persuaded her to allow the transaction. It seems like an amusing incident but makes one wonder about the level of training that these individuals receive before being granted authority to make decisions. A very poor reflection on Checkers that a senior can make such a basic error.
0 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
5 (35.714285714285715%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
1 (7.142857142857143%)
1 Star
8 (57.142857142857146%)