Latest news with #609.51
IOL News
6 days ago
- Business
- 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
05-07-2025
- IOL News
Point of view: PFA orders pension fund to reassess death benefit allocation due to inadequate investigation
The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator has ordered a pension fund to reassess its death benefit allocation after finding it failed to properly investigate the financial dependency of the claimant and her children on the deceased. Image: File The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator (PFA) has set aside the allocation of a death benefit by a pension fund after finding it failed to adequately investigate the financial dependency of a claimant and her children on the deceased. The Adjudicator, Muvhango Lukhaimane, ordered the Private Security Sector Provident Fund to reassess the matter and make a fair allocation based on dependency. The dispute arose after the complainant, who claimed to be the life partner of the deceased, challenged the distribution of a R254,609.51 death benefit following his passing. The deceased was a member of the provident fund through his employer, Night Guard CC. The fund had distributed the benefit as follows: 10% to the life partner (unemployed) 23% to the deceased's employed adult son 25% to his minor daughter (a scholar) 14% each to three stepchildren, including two toddlers and one scholar The complainant objected to this distribution, asserting that the deceased had named her as the 100% beneficiary of his fund benefit and claimed to have documentary evidence. She also questioned the payment to the deceased's 24-year-old employed son, who, she argued, was not financially dependent on his father at the time of death. She further explained that she currently receives only R2,800 per month from the beneficiary fund, a sum that merely covers school fees, and that the deceased had supported her and her four children, intensifying her financial distress after his death. In response, the fund acknowledged that the deceased had been living with the complainant and her children and had indeed supported them as his own. The fund said it had based its allocation on legal and/or factual dependency at the time of death. However, in her ruling, Lukhaimane stressed that: '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 says. She confirmed that the deceased had been cohabiting with the complainant and her four children and had provided for them, giving them a legitimate right to be considered for the benefit. 'The deceased and the complainant were living together as husband and wife, and the deceased looked after her four children. There was no dispute that she was the deceased's life partner at the time of his death. Thus, the complainant qualified as a factual dependant," she says. Despite this, Lukhaimane pointed out that financial dependency still needed to be proven. She noted that the couple had previously divorced and had not remarried, and that the complainant was married to someone else at the time of the deceased's death. Though separated from her legal husband, with whom she had three children, she had moved back in with the deceased. Lukhaimane underlined the board's obligation to conduct a thorough investigation before distributing death benefits: According to Lukhaimane, in the present matter, the marital circumstances of the complainant are not clear. It is not clear how long the deceased had been living with the complainant prior to his death. Since the complainant was still married to someone else, he would ordinarily be responsible for her maintenance and the maintenance of their children together. 'Without proof of the extent of her and her children's dependency on the deceased, the fund must err on the side of caution and assume that those with the legal responsibility to maintain the complainant and her children are taking care of that and not necessarily the deceased.
