Adjudicator criticises pension fund for ignoring complaints
Image: Pexels
The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator (OPFA) has come down hard on the South African Local Authorities Pension Fund for ignoring repeated requests for information, in what it describes as serious non-compliance with regulatory obligations.
Adjudicator Muvhango Lukhaimane reported the fund to the Financial Services Conduct Authority (FSCA) after it failed to respond to multiple enquiries from her office in the course of investigating a complaint.
'There were several complaints against the fund,' Lukhaimane says. 'And the lack of response from the fund reflects a disregard for the Pension Funds Act, its rules, and the best interests of members.'
The complaint in question was brought by a former South African Police Service employee who believed his withdrawal benefit had been improperly calculated. He asked the OPFA to determine whether his employer had consistently paid overall contributions to the fund, a factor that would directly affect the value of his benefit.
Despite being called upon to respond, the fund failed to file any response to the OPFA's request. As a result, the adjudicator proceeded to determine the matter without their input.
Lukhaimane described the fund's behaviour as 'intolerable,' saying it suggested multiple contraventions of the law and showed poor standards of fiduciary duty. 'The fund's unreasonable delay in responding to the complaint could not be entertained as it prejudiced the complainant,' she added.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Noting the volume of cases her office handles, Lukhaimane stressed the importance of timely cooperation. 'It is, therefore, incumbent upon pension funds and administrators to ensure that enquiries from the Adjudicator are properly and adequately responded to. This is especially so since boards of funds and Principal Officers are required to be fit and proper.'
She says: 'The failure to respond to enquiries and to timeously response to complaints by such persons is a failure to uphold their fiduciary responsibilities. It impedes the Adjudicator's ability to deliver on its mandate, and if allowed to continue, will render the Adjudicator ineffective. It also constitutes a barrier to the complainant being able to have their complaint properly resolved.'
Lukhaimane also raised concerns about systemic issues within the fund's administration. 'When the administrative wheels of a fund come off, it starts with the fund's failure to respond to complaints that require data from its administration system relating to payment of contributions.'
She named the fund's administrator, Fairsure Administration (Pty) Ltd, saying: 'All indications are that there is an issue with the receipt and allocation of contributions. It is, therefore, imperative that the FSCA acts with haste to avoid further prejudice to members.'
In her ruling, Lukhaimane ordered the fund to reconcile all contributions and advise the employer of any shortfalls. The fund must also furnish the complainant with a full breakdown of both his contributions and withdrawal benefits.
In addition, the employer has been ordered to pay any outstanding contributions to the fund, which in turn must credit the complainant for any shortfall.
PERSONAL FINANCE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
6 days ago
- IOL News
Controversial death benefit allocation overturned by Pension Funds Adjudicator
The Pension Fund Adjudicator ordered a pension fund to go back to the drawing board as a woman, who claimed to be a dependant of the deceased, said she was short-changed. Image: File The decision to allocate a large portion of a death benefit to the financially independent son of the deceased, while his unemployed life partner and her children only received a fraction of the benefit, was set aside by the Pension Funds Adjudicator. The adjudicator, Muvhango Lukhaimane, recently ordered the pension fund to consider the financial dependency of the complainant (the life partner) and her children. The complainant claimed she was the life partner of the deceased, who was a member of the Private Security Sector Provident Fund. Following the deceased's passing, a death benefit of R254,609.51 became payable to his beneficiaries. The fund allocated 10% to his unemployed partner, 23% to the deceased's son, who is employed, 25% to his daughter, who is a scholar, 14% to a stepson who is a scholar, 14% to a toddler stepdaughter, and 14% to a toddler stepson. The complainant objected to the fund's allocation of the death benefit. She claimed the deceased had made her 100% beneficiary of his pension fund benefit and submitted that she had documents to prove this. She said she receives R2,800 monthly from the beneficiary fund as per the allocation by the board. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading According to her, the deceased contributed to raising and supporting her four children, whose support is now unavailable. This, she stated, puts her under severe financial pressure. The amount of R2,800 per month only covers school fees. The fund stated that at the time of death, the deceased was staying with the complainant and all her children. He was providing for them as if the children were his own. In her determination, Lukhaimane said the fact that a person qualifies as a legal or factual dependant does not automatically give them the right to receive a portion of a death benefit. The deciding factor is financial dependency. She said the submissions showed that at the time of death, the deceased was staying with the complainant and her children. There was no dispute that he was providing for them as his own, and consequently, they qualified for the allocation of the death benefit. Lukhaimane said there was no dispute that the complainant was the deceased's life partner at the time of his death. Thus, she qualified as a factual dependant. However, she stated that financial dependency must still be established. This is because the complainant was no longer married to the deceased at the time of his death, as they divorced and never remarried. The complainant was married to somebody else at the time of the deceased's passing, and they had three children together. They then separated. The complainant moved back with all her children to stay with the deceased. Lukhaimane said it is the board's responsibility when dealing with the payment of death benefits to conduct a thorough investigation to determine the beneficiaries, and thereafter, decide on an equitable distribution. 'In the present matter, the marital circumstances of the complainant were not clear,' she said. The allocation of the death benefit was set aside, and the fund was ordered to consider the financial circumstances and extent of dependency of the complainant and the children on the deceased.
IOL News
10-08-2025
- IOL News
Constitutional Court rules on pension fund death benefits distribution
The Constitutional Court took a closer look at who is a dependent of a pension fund when the holder of the fund dies. Image: File In a groundbreaking judgment regarding the distribution of death benefits, the Constitutional Court on Friday held that dependency must be assessed based on facts at the date of a member to a pension fund's death, not at the time distribution decisions are made. Every year, South African retirement funds distribute billions of rands upon the death of their in-service members to persons who were 'dependents' of a deceased member. These benefits are distributed in terms of section 37C of the Pension Funds Act. This application related to the equitable allocation and distribution of death benefits held within a pension fund. The Constitutional Court noted that it is particularly important in the context of South Africa's high incidence of employment precariousness and dependency on a single breadwinner. Pension fund benefits provide much-needed assistance to those left vulnerable in the event of the death of their primary supporter. In this case, Tshifhiwa Mutsila's husband died in 2012 of work-related injuries. She was left to care for herself and their five children. She filed a claim with her pension fund, the Municipal Gratuity Fund, claiming the death benefit of R1.6 million. However, she discovered there was a competing claim from another woman, Dipuo Masete, who said she was the customary wife of the deceased and that they had two children. The fund recognised both the applicant and Masete and their respective children as dependents of the deceased. The fund allocated 47.5% of the benefits to Mutsila and 52.5% to Masete and her children. A complaint was lodged with the Pension Funds Adjudicator who found that the fund had not conducted a proper investigation as required by the Act to identify the beneficiaries of the deceased and set aside its decision regarding the allocation of the death benefit. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The fund meanwhile launched an application in the high court, which found that the fund had failed to conduct a diligent investigation and dismissed the application. The fund's subsequent appeal to the full court was dismissed on similar grounds. The fund appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which set aside the adjudicator's decision and upheld the decision taken by the fund. It held that both the high court and the full court failed to recognise whether Masete and her two children were factually dependent on the deceased. In a unanimous judgment penned by Judge Leonora Theron, the ConCourt held that a proper investigation to determine the dependency of Masete and her children was not carried out by the fund. The extent of factual dependency is crucial when a fund makes an equitable allocation and distribution, it said. The apex court held that the date of death is to be used to determine dependency. It, however, said that this did not mean that changed circumstances cannot be taken into account when the equitable allocation is made. If, at the distribution stage, there are changed circumstances that alter the needs of the dependent, the fund may have regard to these circumstances when determining an equitable distribution. The court held that it was necessary to remit the matter to the fund and directed it to conduct its investigation afresh and to consider who the dependents of the deceased were at the time of his death. This investigation must be concluded within three months.
IOL News
07-08-2025
- IOL News
Daughter fights for father's outstanding R400,000 pension fund after two beneficiaries were untraced for almost 30 years
Daughter fights for father's outstanding pension fund. Image: Pexels A woman who inherited over R1.2 million from her late father's pension fund sought relief at the Pension Fund Adjudicator (PFA) to access the balance after two beneficiaries have not been traced for almost 30 years. The father died in May 1995 and was a member of the Metal Industries Provident Fund. Following his death, over R1.6 million became available for distribution to his beneficiaries. His daughter received more than R1.2 million, with the first payment made in May 2023 and the outstanding balance paid in August 2023. Two more beneficiaries were listed on the nomination documents, his nephew and his brother. In November 2023, the daughter returned to the fund to get the balance. She clarified that it was her grandmother, not her father, who had completed the nomination documents. She claimed she did not know the nephew's location, as he was homeless and lived on the streets. Information regarding the deceased's brother was unavailable. At the hearing, the fund explained that it received the father's documents from his employer in August 1996 and three people were listed as his children. The fund maintained that it conducted an investigation to identify potential dependants to distribute the death benefit fairly. It stated that this had been achieved as the daughter received her portion and no further benefits were due to her. Looking at the matter, the adjudicator Muvhango Lukhaimane, noted that the investigation remained incomplete and the fund failed to explain the cause of the delay in finalising it. Lukhaimane said the board had not made any effort to trace the other two beneficiaries except to rely on the information provided by the deceased's daughter. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading "For the board to wait for over 27 years since it was notified of the deceased death until it was approached by the complainant is inexcusable and unconscionable. It is clear that the board failed to conduct a proper investigation within a reasonable time to the extent that there is an allegation that one of the beneficiaries is homeless and living on the streets whilst there is a benefit due to them. The fund must make effort to obtain further information on the two beneficiaries," she said. Lukhaimane added that a reasonable board would have considered various options to gather the remaining information about the other dependents, including conducting interviews with other individuals. "It does not appear that the board has any plans to progress the matter except to wait for the dependants to pitch. For the board to do nothing but wait when the benefit is needed for maintenance is a dereliction of fiduciary duties," she said. The board was given a year to trace the remaining beneficiaries and if they were unable to find them, they were directed to allocate the death benefit to the daughter. IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
