- A pensioner did not receive his monthly pension from August 2024 to February 2025, despite being entitled to payment, leaving him financially prejudiced for seven months.
- The Pension Funds Adjudicator found that the fund’s failure to resolve the matter was “reprehensible” and that the complainant “was being prejudiced” by the delay.
- The fund has been ordered to pay R72 394.55 in arrears plus interest, and R5 000 in compensation for the inconvenience caused.
A pensioner who was left without his monthly income for seven months has succeeded in a complaint before the Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator (PFA), which found that the Motor Industry Provident Fund failed to resolve his matter within a reasonable time.
The complainant had been a member of the Motor Industry Provident Fund from July 1997 until his retirement. He became a pensioner in March 2017 and began receiving a monthly pension from the fund. That payment stopped in August 2024.
Background to the dispute
The pensioner submitted that he “did not receive his monthly pension from the fund for August 2024 to February 2025.” He provided proof of his bank account and stated that “the information was previously provided to the fund.” For a retiree dependent on a fixed monthly income, the interruption was not administrative; it was personal.
The fund’s explanation was that “in August 2024, the monthly payment was rejected due to a technical error with the member’s bank account,” which it said “resulted in missed payments for August 2024 to February 2025.” It further stated that it “attempted to backpay the missed payments of R72 394.55,” but that “the payment was rejected by his bank.” According to the fund, it “required a confirmation letter from the bank in order for the back payment to be processed.”
On 21 October 2025, the fund was provided with proof of the member’s bank details. On 12 November 2025, it stated that it “would follow up on the payment,” yet no further response was received.
Findings by the adjudicator
In the determination, the PFA made it clear that “the complainant is a pensioner and was being prejudiced by the fund’s failure to resolve the matter.” That finding placed the human impact of the delay at the centre of the ruling.
The PFA went further, describing the fund’s behaviour as “reprehensible.” In pension law, that is a serious rebuke. It signals conduct that falls below the standard expected of a fund entrusted with administering retirement benefits.
The order was unequivocal. In addition to paying the outstanding R72 394.55 together with interest, the fund was directed to pay “compensation in the amount of R5 000 for failing to attend to the complaint timeously and the resultant inconvenience.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
