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.

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.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za

Source link