---

THE FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL

 

Case No. PFA38/2023

 

In the matter between:

 

 

DANNY LEHLOHONOLO MOLOKO                        APPLICANT

 

and

 

WOOLWORTHS GROUP RETIREMENT FUND       FIRST RESPONDENT

ALEXANDER FORBES FINANCIAL

SERVICES (PTY) LTD WOOLWORTHS

 

THE PENSION FUNDS ADJUDICATOR                 SECOND RESPONDENT

 

Summary: Reconsideration of a decision of the Pension Funds Adjudicator (30M) in terms of Section 230 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017 ("the FSRA").

 

 

DECISION

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

1.          The Applicant is Danny Lehlohonolo Moloko. The Applicant was a Woolworths Group Retirement Fund member by virtue of his employment with Woolworths.

 

2.          The First Respondent is the Woolworths Group Retirement Fund ("the Fund"). The Fund is registered and approved and is subject to the provisions of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 ("the PFA"). It is unclear in what capacity the Alexander Forbes Financial Services (Pty) Ltd and Woolworths are cited but presumably as the Administrator of the Fund and the Applicant's erstwhile employer, respectively.

 

3.          The Second Respondent is the Pension Funds Adjudicator ("the Adjudicator"), the statutory ombud as defined in section 1(1) of the FSRA and is established in terms of the PFA.

 

4.          This is an application in terms of Section 230 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017 against the decision taken by the Adjudicator in terms of Section 30M of the PFA.

 

5.          The parties have waived their right to a formal hearing, and this is the decision of the Tribunal.

 

6.          Section 230 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017 ("the FSR Act") provides the basis for an appropriate Applicant to lodge an application for reconsideration and seek appropriate relief.

 

THE FACTS

 

7.          This is an application to reconsider the Adjudicator's decision relating to the Fund's alleged non-payment of the Applicant's full withdrawal benefit of his pension monies.

 

8.          The Applicant was admitted to membership of the Fund on 1 February 2020 until he exited the Fund on 30 March 2022.

 

9.          Since admission to membership of the Fund, all the employee and employer contributions were received each month and allocated to the Applicant's fund credit.

 

10.     The Applicant was dismissed on 30 March 2022.

 

11.     On 24 May 2022, the Fund received the Applicant's withdrawal claim form from Woolworths.

 

12.     Pursuant to his withdrawal claim, the Applicant was paid an amount of R18,208.76.

 

13.     The Applicant challenged the quantum of the withdrawal benefit on the basis that his benefit statement for the period July 2020 to June 2021 reflected, in his view, reflected a fund value in the amount of R48,650.00.

 

14.     The Fund explained in its reply to the Adjudicator that the Applicant was incorrect and that the amount of R48,650.00 represented his pensionable salary at the time of the statement and not the fund value.

 

The Fund quoted from Rule 1.5 of its rules where the term pensionable emoluments is defined as:

 

"the sum of a member's annual salary or wage and such other amounts which are regarded as pensionable by the trustees at the request of the employer".

 

15.     The Fund, as indicated above, paid the Applicant an amount of R18,208.76, which represented the full benefit that he was entitled to.

 

16.     The Adjudicator accepted the response from the Fund and confirmed in the determination in terms of Section 30M of the PFA dated 14 July 2023 that the Applicant was paid his full withdrawal benefit in terms of the rules of the Fund and that no further benefit was due.

 

DISCUSSION

 

17.     It is clear that the Applicant has failed to appreciate that he has been paid all that he is entitled to based on a misinterpretation of his benefit statement. Put differently, the Applicant misinterpreted the value of this pensionable salary as the fund value.

 

18.     The Fund has paid the Applicant the fund value as of the date of his withdrawal claim.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

19.     The Applicant has failed to make out a case for interfering with the Adjudicator's determination.

 

ORDER

 

(a)      The application is dismissed.

 

 

Signed on behalf of the Tribunal on 25 September 2023.

 

PJ Veldhuizen

---