How far is a bank liable if you lose your credit card and pin?

“I lost my wallet with my credit card in it and a piece of paper on which I wrote down my new card pin number. Because I was hoping I may still find my wallet, I didn’t immediately stop my bank card. A few hours later somebody used my card to pay for food on the other side of town. I then immediately phoned the bank to stop the card and informed the bank that somebody else had my card and pin. The bank told me in that case the bank would not be liable for my losses. Is this true?”

Generally, when unauthorised transactions have taken place on a bank card, the bank will investigate to ascertain how the transaction had occurred and who was liable for losses incurred. In general most card agreements entered into between a bank and cardholder includes provisions that the cardholder has a contractual obligation to keep the card safe and not disclose the card pin to anyone. The bank also has a contractual obligation to mitigate losses in a case where the cardholder informs them of a fraudulent transaction.

Our courts have found that a cardholder can be liable for losses if the cardholder acts negligently by for example, disclosing the pin. This was determined after taking into account the provisions of the Code of Banking Practice in South Africa read together with the contract concluded between the bank and the cardholder. Exceptions may be where card thieves have obtained the pin by recording the cardholder when using the pin etc. and the Ombudsman for Banking Services indicated in a Card Cloning Bulletin that it cannot reasonably be expected that a cardholder must search for things like hidden cameras. 

Where a card pin was obtained for example by the cardholder storing the pin in a wallet with his card and the card and pin were used to conclude transactions, it will probably stand to good reason that the cardholder was negligent in this respect and the bank would not be liable for the unauthorised transactions, taking into account the contractual terms between the bank and the cardholder. 

Banks do however generally have an obligation to mitigate losses, subject to the circumstances of each case, and if a cardholder for instance informed the bank that the card and pin has been compromised or stolen and the bank fails to stop the card, then the bank could be held liable for losses ensuing.

Each case will however have to be assessed on its merits and the refusal of a bank to accept liability for losses can be challenged by a court or possibly the Ombudsman for Banking Services. In your case the circumstances appear to point towards negligence on your side which will preclude the bank from being liable for the unauthorised transaction on your card.

June 11, 2020
Heritage Day: Reflections from a New Breed law firm

Heritage Day: Reflections from a New Breed law firm

On 24 September, we pause to take time off to commemorate Heritage Day, a day enshrined in both our public calendar and the Constitution. A constitutional affirmation of who we are, where we come from, and where we are headed as a nation. As a new breed law firm, we reflect on how the practice of law is intertwined with the heritage of the very people it serves.

Treasury halts controversial tax proposal on preference shares

Treasury halts controversial tax proposal on preference shares

Due to the potential adverse investment impact and stakeholder concerns on the proposed amendment to the definition of “hybrid equity instrument” in the 2025 draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (“Bill”), the proposed amendment has been retracted. On 03 September, the National Treasury issued a media statement retracting the proposal to redefine hybrid equity instruments, which has been a relief to all stakeholders.

Your surname? Your choice: Constitutional Court’s judgment on spousal surnames

Your surname? Your choice: Constitutional Court’s judgment on spousal surnames

In a unanimous judgment delivered on 11 September 2025, the Constitutional Court held that the current surname-change framework as contained in the Births and Deaths Registration Act 51 of 1992 are unconstitutional. The matter of Jordaan and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (CCT 296/24) [2025] ZACC 19 (11 September 2025), as discussed in this article, was brought by two married couples who challenged a 1992 statute that barred husbands from assuming their wives’ surnames. The Department of Home Affairs had informed the applicants that the law, as it stands, does not allow a husband to assume a spouse’s surname after marriage.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest