Lebogang Mogashoa, Pension Funds Adjudicator

Pension Funds Adjudicator Lebogang Mogashoa has found two retirement funds to have been negligent in making benefit payments to wrong recipients.

In his rulings following complaints from fund members, he said the Pension Funds Act places a duty on funds to act in the best interests of its members, and to employ adequate controls to ensure that claims are validated and paid properly.

“This includes exercising an oversight function over its administrator and ensuring that processes, especially the payment of benefits, are carried out properly,” said Mogashoa. He ordered the funds to pay the members who complained, the benefits due to them.

Case A – No proof of withdrawal claim form

The complainant was employed with PricewaterhouseCoopers South Africa from 1 May 2003 to 31 December 2007 and was a member of Pricewaterhousecoopers Staff Provident Fund (the previous fund) until he elected to transfer his withdrawal benefit to the Alexander Forbes Preservation Fund (preservation fund) upon the termination of his employment. The complainant joined the preservation fund on 27 March 2008 when his withdrawal benefit in the amount of R46 261.54 was transferred.

In November 2024, he requested payment of his fund benefit from the preservation fund. However, the preservation fund advised him that his fund benefit was paid on 13 December 2011 by cheque in the amount of R48 630.39.

The complainant said he never elected to claim his fund benefit prior to November 2025 and that he never received a cheque as a withdrawal benefit.

The preservation fund stated that its investigation revealed that due to the incorrect member number stated on the complainant’s claim form by the employer, the complainant’s member record and the third-party member records were erroneously swapped on its administration system, resulting in the complainant being paid the third-party member’s benefit amounting to R48 630.39 in December 2011.

On 23 November 2025, the preservation fund provided proof that the amount of R48 630.39 left its bank account on 13 December 2011 in an attempt to prove that payment had indeed been made to the complainant. However, the bank statement does not indicate which account the money was sent to. Further, the complainant countered this by submitting a copy of his bank statement from December 2011 which did not reflect the alleged payment transaction from the preservation fund.

In his determination, Mogashoa said the preservation fund could not provide documentary proof that the complainant ever claimed his withdrawal benefit, despite being requested to do so. Based on the evidence before him, Mogashoa found that there was no evidence that the complainant ever submitted a claim form for his withdrawal benefit, and the preservation fund could not have paid the benefit to him without a claim being submitted.

“Thus, it can be inferred that the complainant never submitted a withdrawal claim form to receive his fund benefit. It stands to reason that if the complainant did not submit a withdrawal claim, electing to receive his fund benefit in the preservation fund, then the fund could not have processed his withdrawal benefit payment without the necessary information from him.

“Based on the submissions, the Adjudicator finds that the preservation fund did not provide sufficient evidence that the complainant elected to claim his withdrawal benefit and cashed in the cheque allegedly made to him. Thus, the complainant is still entitled to his fund benefit in the preservation fund.”

Mogashoa ordered the preservation fund to calculate the complainant’s fund benefit from the date he became a member in the preservation fund to date (including any investment returns that would have accumulated on the benefit had it notionally remained invested) and pay his retirement benefit accordingly.

Case B – Withdrawal benefit was paid to a minor

In another matter, the complainant who worked for Kempston Motor Group Trust, trading as Peugeot/Citroen, from 11 April 2007 until 22 October 2007, and was a member of the Motor Industry Provident Fund, submitted that the fund informed him that his withdrawal benefit in the amount of R17 321.40 was paid on 12 March 2022.

However, when he requested documents, he discovered that the benefit was paid out to someone else, a two-year-old child. He attempted to resolve the issue with the fund to no avail.

The complainant submitted that the child whose details were used is his niece. He did not sign any of the documents that were used for the claim. He said the signatures on the form do not resemble his signature.

In its response, the fund submitted that on 20 February 2012, it received an application to withdraw the complainant’s benefit, and payment was made on 12 March 2012. The complainant’s claim forms requested that payment be made to an account belonging to a minor, namely, ZK Le Roux Lane (account holder), and the account holder’s birth certificate, the bank statement, and a copy of the complainant’s identity document were furnished in support of the claim.

The fund stated that, considering the above, the complainant’s claim forms were completed and signed, and all the relevant certified documents were furnished in support of the claim. The account holder’s surname is the same as the complainant’s, and all the relevant information in support of payment to be made to the account holder’s account was furnished with a copy of his certified identity document.

The fund submitted that the complainant was advised to enquire with his employer as regards the claim forms that were furnished to the fund and request an investigation as regards any fraudulent activity that might have occurred as regards the signing of the certificate of service.

In his determination, Mogashoa said the complainant submitted that the child whose details were used is his niece, however, he did not sign any of the documents that were used for the claim.

He noted that the claim form indicates that “If the bank account holder is not a member, then the following must be completed by the member and the account holder”. This section was signed by one person, instead of the account holder and the member (complainant). An arrow is indicated next to the signatures, which is an indication that it may have been incorrectly completed. The fund was requested to explain this discrepancy and provide an explanation of the steps taken to verify the legitimacy of the claim. However, no response was received.

“Section 7C(1) of the Act places a positive duty on the fund to act in the best interests of its members. This includes exercising an oversight function over its administrator and ensuring that processes, especially the payment of benefits, are carried out properly and with due care and diligence without adversely affecting members.

“In terms of section 7D(1) of the Act, the board of the fund is responsible for ensuring, inter alia, that proper control systems are employed by it”.

Mogashoa found that by failing to employ adequate systems and processes to properly validate claims, the fund made a payment which on a balance of probabilities, appears to have been made to the incorrect person.

The fund was ordered to pay the complainant his withdrawal benefit, plus fund return, calculated from March 2012 to the date of payment.

Mogashoa also noted that the Fund attempted to make payment of the complainant’s benefit conditional on a criminal investigation finding that fraud was involved in the benefit allegedly paid in March 2012. Citing the differences in the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings as opposed to proceedings before the Adjudicator, Mogashoa found that the fraud investigation referred to had no bearing on the complainant’s entitlement to be paid his benefits in the proceedings before the Adjudicator.

ENDS