Online Reporter
Sikhumbuzo Moyo [email protected]
CROSS-BORDER funeral parlour drivers have accused Beitbridge Border Post management company, Zimborders Consortium, of making unexplained deductions from their bank accounts, with some claiming they were debited substantially more than the amounts they had authorised at the border.
The drivers said they had raised concerns over what they described as unexplained deductions after making payments at the border, prompting Zimborders Consortium to launch investigations into the complaints.
“I swiped using a card from a South African bank and amount of 800 rand but a few days later I received a message on my mobile phone indicating that I had withdrawn 3 000 rand. I contacted Zimborders Consortium for redress but they only said they will look into the issue,” said a driver with a Bulawayo-based funeral parlour company.
Another driver raised similar concerns, saying his account was debited with 4 300 rand, despite having swiped for 800 rand at the border.
“I think there could be some form of fraud, my bank said they have nothing to do with the transaction. Up to now my account has not been credited,” said the driver, who identified himself as Mqondisi Sibanda.
A number of other drivers raised similar concerns, with some saying they were now contemplating engaging lawyers to recover their funds.
However, Zimborders has denied any fraudulent or dishonest conduct, saying the disputed deductions were linked to processing delays involving its third-party bank and payment platform.
In a response to questions from Zimpapers, Zimborders Consortium general manager Mr Nqobile Ncube said the amount displayed on the payment terminal was the amount authorised and processed.
“Card payments at the border are handled through a third-party bank and payment platform. The transaction amount is displayed to the customer on the terminal for authorisation, and that is the amount processed. We wish to state unequivocally that there is no fraudulent or dishonest conduct in the processing of these payments,” said Mr Ncube.
He confirmed that the company had received several complaints and had taken them seriously.
According to Mr Ncube, investigations into the complaints revealed that processing delays had resulted in legitimate transactions from separate border crossings appearing on customers’ bank statements at or around the same time.
The development, the company said, could create the impression that customers had been charged twice or had been subjected to incorrect deductions.
“We have identified processing delays that can cause legitimate transactions from separate crossings to appear on customers’ bank statements at or around the same time, creating the impression of duplicate deductions. We understand why this causes concern. Our investigations to date, including review of supporting documentation provided by customers, have consistently identified separate, legitimate transactions affected by these processing delays, rather than duplicate or incorrect charges, and none of the customers involved was found to be due a refund,” he said.
