Latest news with #Lukhaimane
IOL News
5 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
07-08-2025
- Business
- 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.
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.
IOL News
14-06-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Adjudicator criticises pension fund for ignoring complaints
The South African Local Authorities Pension Fund faces scrutiny after the Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator reported it to the FSCA for failing to respond to multiple complaints, raising concerns over its compliance and fiduciary duties. 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
The Citizen
13-06-2025
- Business
- The Citizen
Adjudicator reports Local Authorities Pension Fund for misconduct
The Pension Funds Adjudicator is holding the pension fund for local authorities accountable for not paying over pension contributions. The Pension Funds Adjudicator has severely criticised the South African Local Authorities Pension Fund for failing to respond to repeated requests for information and has reported the fund's misconduct to the Financial Services Conduct Authority (FSCA). Muvhango Lukhaimane, the Pension Funds Adjudicator, says her office has received several complaints against the fund, and she believes the fund's lack of response reflects a disregard for the Pension Funds Act, its rules, and the best interests of its members. She has reported the fund to FSCA to act against its officials. ALSO READ: What happens to your pension fund when you pass away? Complaint to Pension Fund Adjudicator about withdrawal benefit One of the complaints she received was from someone employed by the South African Police Service, who was unhappy with the amount received as his withdrawal benefit when he stopped working. He requested that the Office of the Adjudicator investigate whether the employer had failed to make all required contributions to the fund on his behalf, as this would affect the amount he could withdraw. When the office of the Adjudicator contacted the fund for a response to the complaint, the fund failed to file a response, forcing the Adjudicator to proceed with determining the matter. Lukhaimane said in her determination that the fund's non-compliance is 'intolerable' as it points to several contraventions of the Pension Funds Act and also reflects poor conduct of duty. 'The fund's unreasonable delay in responding to the complaint could not be entertained as it prejudiced the complainant. My office deals with high volumes of complaints, which need to be disposed of expeditiously to properly fulfil its mandate. 'Therefore, it is mandatory for pension funds and administrators to ensure that they respond properly and adequately to enquiries from my office, especially since boards of funds and principal officers are required to be fit and proper.' ALSO READ: Councils take pension billions Failure to respond is failure to uphold fiduciary responsibilities Lukhaimane says the fund's failure to respond to enquiries and respond timeously to complaints is a failure to uphold the officials' fiduciary responsibilities. 'It inhibits my office's ability to deliver on its mandate and, if it is allowed to continue, will render the Adjudicator's office ineffective. 'It also constitutes a barrier to complainants' being able to have their complaints properly resolved,' said Lukhaimane. She said that 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. 'The administrator in this instance is Fairsure Administration (Pty) Ltd, and 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.' ALSO READ: Two-pot retirement system: Nothing for thousands of pension fund members Pension Funds Adjudicator's acts on non-compliance Lukhaimane ordered the fund in her determination to reconcile the contributions received and advise the employer of any outstanding contributions. In addition, the fund was ordered to provide the complainant with a breakdown of his contributions and a breakdown of his withdrawal benefit. She also ordered his employer to pay any arrears to the fund. The fund was ordered to pay the complainant any outstanding fund credit due to the arrears for contributions. The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator (OPFA) is a statutory body established to resolve disputes in a procedurally fair, economical and expeditious manner. The adjudicator's office investigates and determines complaints of abuse of power, maladministration, disputes of fact or law and employer dereliction of duty regarding pension funds. If you have a question or a complaint, visit the Adjudicators website at call it on 012 346 1738 or email Enquiries@ NOW READ: Pension Fund complaints surge amid trust and accountability concerns
