The Ombudsman for Banking Services received 500 more cases from disgruntled bank customers last year than it did in 2014‚ but complaints regarding ATMs still comprised the biggest category of enquiries. While complaints regarding ATMs comprised 1‚530 cases that the ombudsman dealt with‚ complaints regarding internet banking were a distant second with 752‚ followed by 409 complaints regarding mortgage finance‚ 361 for personal loans‚ 310 for credit cards and 281 for current accounts.In its annual report released on Wednesday‚ the Ombudsman for Banking Services said although it received 21‚088 enquiries in 2015 compared to 22‚239 in 2014‚ it opened 5‚021 cases in 2015‚ compared to 4‚479 in 2014.Ombudsman for Banking Services Clive Pillay said of the 1‚530 ATM cases opened in 2015‚ only 312 were found in favour of the consumer.Pillay said this outcome showed that many consumers still did not appreciate the importance of safeguarding their personal identification numbers (PIN) and passwords and of not accepting assistance from strangers.“Clearly more initiatives are needed‚” Pillay said.Chairman of the Ombudsman for Banking Services John Myburgh SC said changes in technology would see a homegrown development that sought to elevate banking to safer and more secure heights.Myburgh said the so called “fraudless card” would allow users to create a credit card number on their cellphone and use it online‚ thus generating a virtual credit card for every purchase and thwarting any attempt at fraud.“This is positive news for a country with such a high prevalence of credit card fraud – the OBS dealt with more than 300 cases in the review year‚ an increase of more than 20% over 2014‚” Myburgh said.In one of the examples given in the annual report‚ the complainant noticed that her bank card and driver’s licence were missing.On reporting the matter to the bank‚ she discovered fraudulent withdrawals on her account that had occurred in places she had never visited. Furthermore‚ she claimed never to have disclosed her PIN to anyone‚ but revealed to the ombudsman that it was the first five digits of her identity number.The bank refuted her claim for a refund on the basis that she was negligent in choosing that PIN.The code of banking practice states that a customer should not use a PIN that was easily guessed. As a result‚ the ombudsman could not find in her favour...