“The Customer Did Not Respond”: How Incorrect Shipping Data Blocked Card Delivery
In digital investigations, a customer-service explanation is only as reliable as the records beneath it. This report examines the claim that the customer did not respond to the courier and compares it with Aramex’s later written admission about the contact data attached to the shipment.
1. The “Customer Did Not Respond” Explanation
When the first shipment from the bank was delayed, I made a routine call to customer service to inquire. The employee’s response was ready and canned: “The customer does not respond to the courier’s calls (Aramex), and therefore the shipment was returned to the bank!”
Despite my confirmation that my phone never received any call or message from the courier, the employee quickly blamed the administration, and with a suspiciously rapid move, told me he had already prepared a replacement waybill and asked me to note its number and contact the courier myself.
Alarm bells rang: How could a customer service employee have a pre-prepared replacement waybill the moment I called? And how could the courier record that I “do not respond” when my phone never rang?
2. Aramex’s Written Admission
To reach the truth, it was necessary to bypass the bank entirely and contact the third party (Aramex). After initial evasion, I used strict legal language in my email correspondence with the company's technical support, demanding proof of delivery status for the first shipment.
On June 9, 2025, Aramex sent a written response that materially changed the record:
“Dear Valued customer… Please note that the mobile number attached to the shipment 49715021705 is incorrect, and we can not change the mobile number without the confirmation from the shipper.”
Translation: “Dear customer… please note that the mobile number attached to shipment 49715021705 is incorrect, and we cannot change the mobile number without confirmation from the sender (the bank).”
3. Who Supplied the Incorrect Number?
Aramex’s response proves that the number attached to the waybill was incorrect and that changing it required confirmation from the shipper. It does not, by itself, prove who first entered the number or whether the error was intentional. Those questions require the original waybill-creation record and its audit history.
- Source: Which system supplied the contact number used to create the waybill?
- Verification: Did the bank compare the number with its current customer record before relying on a “no response” explanation?
- Audit trail: Who created, reviewed, or attempted to amend the shipment data?
The question for the Saudi Central Bank (SAMA): Was the underlying waybill-creation record examined, or was the “customer did not respond” explanation accepted without verifying the phone number actually used by the courier?
HD.39 / Digital Forensics Record