- The adjudicator closed the complaint after the applicant failed to submit a payslip showing deductions.
- The Tribunal found no new facts to challenge the closure of the complaint.
- The application was dismissed under Section 234(4) of the FSR Act.
The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed Ledwaba Ramadimetja Selina’s application after she failed to provide a payslip requested by the Pension Fund Adjudicator, leaving the complaint without the evidence required to proceed.
Selina lodged a complaint with the Pension Fund Adjudicator against the Private Security Sector Provident Fund and her employer, Mabotwane Security Services. The complaint was submitted in terms of Section 30M of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956.
Before the complaint could be assessed, the Adjudicator requested that Selina provide a payslip showing that pension contributions had been deducted from her salary. This document was necessary to determine whether there was a factual basis for the complaint.
Selina did not provide the payslip. Instead, she submitted a letter stating that her attorneys intended to respond. The Tribunal found that this did not address the request and did not include the required proof, stating, “This letter is not a reply to the simple request made and fails to attach evidence of deductions.” The Adjudicator then closed the complaint.
The reconsideration application
Selina approached the Financial Services Tribunal in terms of Section 230 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017, seeking reconsideration of the decision to close her complaint.
The Tribunal considered whether she had placed any new facts before it to show that the Adjudicator’s decision was incorrect. It found that she had not.
It stated, “The Applicant has added nothing further in this Application to evidence that the Adjudicator should not have closed the file due to her lack of responsiveness.”
Evidence before the Tribunal
The Tribunal noted that SALT Employee Benefits, acting on behalf of the Private Security Sector Provident Fund, had informed the Adjudicator that payment in respect of deductions made and contributions received had been made in 2021.
Selina did not provide any evidence to challenge this information. The absence of a payslip or any supporting material remained unchanged throughout the process.
The Tribunal confirmed this position, stating, “The Applicant has adduced no new facts in this application.”
Tribunal’s reasoning and order
The Tribunal assessed the application under Section 234(4) of the Financial Sector Regulation Act, which allows for the summary dismissal of applications that lack merit.
It concluded that the application fell within this category and stated that it “falls to be summarily dismissed.”
The application for reconsideration was dismissed in terms of section 234(4) of the Financial Sector Regulation Act.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
