Right of reply: Tortellino D’Oro gives its side of the story
· Citizen
Tortellino D’Oro has been part of Johannesburg’s dining landscape for nearly 40 years. We have built our reputation on authentic Italian food, genuine hospitality and a deep commitment to our guests and our staff. It is in that spirit that I address the events of the past few weeks.
Visit turconews.click for more information.
On the evening of 8 June 2026, a technical malfunction on our card machine resulted in a duplicate payment being processed from a patron’s account. On the night itself, I personally apologised to the patron, explained what had occurred and offered complimentary drinks as a gesture of goodwill instead of a bottle of champagne requested by the patron for the inconvenience.
The following day, at the patron’s request, I provided a formal written letter to her bank to assist her.
The patron has taken to social media to ventilate her grievance but has omitted pertinent information, giving the public a distorted and one-sided version of events.
What followed was a week of sustained attempts on our part to locate and reconcile the transaction. This process was made more difficult by the fact that three separate banks were involved, as the patron had used two different cards from two banks and our own bank had to reconcile the transaction against its batch reports.
What the public has not been told is that the patron provided incorrect card details when asked to verify
the transaction, a fact that caused significant and unavoidable delays. During this period, our staff were subjected to repeated and distressing calls that went beyond reasonable follow-ups. After more than 10 days of attempting to reconcile a banking anomaly that was entirely outside our control, I became frustrated during a telephone call with the patron because she failed to provide the correct card details
and my tone was inappropriate and rude. Subsequently, I apologised for it and I apologise again now.
Before any social media post was made, a third party contacted me threatening to expose the matter publicly unless I issued an apology and paid the disputed amount immediately. I had explained on multiple occasions that we could not process a refund until the transaction had been independently verified. Notwithstanding this, the patron proceeded to publish a recording of our telephone conversation and to solicit public engagement with foreseeable consequences for our staff, our family and both restaurants.
The public response that followed was based on a partial and incomplete account of events. Our staff received death threats. Our Google ratings were targeted by people who had never visited our restaurants. Our staff members were named and exposed to personal harassment and threats.
The matter has since been resolved. Nedbank confirmed that a duplicate payment had occurred and processed a chargeback, returning the funds to the patron. Our merchant account was debited accordingly. This process confirmed that the duplicate charge arose from a technical processing anomaly and that our client had not deliberately retained any funds belonging to the patron. Nedbank processed a
chargeback on 23 June 2026 for Duplicate Processing/Paid by Other Means and we were debited accordingly. The banking process vindicated our position, namely that we never held funds that were not ours.
We are relieved that the patron has received her refund. We are deeply disappointed that the public was invited to judge us on the basis of one side of a multifaceted story and that so many people did so without the full facts. We trust that the correct facts, now on record, speak for themselves.