Momentum turned my husband’s death claim into another trauma

If I could give Momentum zero stars, I would.

I lost my husband. I was already dealing with grief, children, paperwork and everything that comes with somebody suddenly no longer being here. I did not expect dealing with his death benefit to become another trauma of its own.

From the beginning I had to chase Momentum for basic information. I repeatedly tried to get hold of Jocelyn regarding the nomination information and eventually Jenny came back with the correct nomination form — but only after my constant follow-ups. This became the pattern throughout this process: if I did not push, follow up, question or escalate, I had very little confidence that anything would happen.

Then came the investigation.

The investigator handling my matter, Lethabo Makaleng, raised her voice at me on several occasions. I still cannot understand how somebody dealing with bereaved families thinks that is acceptable.

She even questioned why my own husband had nominated me.

Let that sink in.

My husband made a nomination, yet somehow I found myself having to explain why he would nominate his own wife. Instead of simply considering the nomination as part of the evidence, I felt as though even evidence in my favour became something I had to defend.

She also asked me why my husband’s family would say that we were separated if we were not.

Again, let that sink in.

Families say things after someone dies. Families disagree. People have their own motives, perceptions and relationships. Surely someone experienced in investigating complex death claims would understand that an allegation from a family member is exactly that — an allegation to be tested against the facts and evidence.

The fact that I was being asked to explain why somebody else would say something that was not true seriously made me question the investigator’s experience in dealing with complex family situations. How was I supposed to answer for another person’s motives?

I expected an investigation. I did not expect to be held responsible for explaining other people’s allegations.

After my husband passed away, information came to light that I had never known while he was alive. I was grieving him while at the same time trying to understand things I had only discovered after his death. It was confusing, painful and a lot to process, and that is exactly why I needed the people handling the claim to deal with the situation professionally, objectively and with sensitivity.

Instead, I felt interrogated.

I became extremely uncomfortable with information concerning my personal life and my matter being discussed with other beneficiaries. How is an investigator supposed to remain neutral while discussing one beneficiary’s personal circumstances with other people involved in the same claim?

Another thing that deeply bothered me was the way WhatsApp messages were treated. Messages between my husband and other people were apparently relevant enough to be shared with and considered by the investigator. Yet on several occasions I said that I also had WhatsApp conversations between my husband and me that could provide context to our relationship, and I did not feel that the same interest was shown in seeing or considering them.

Again, why was evidence coming from other people seemingly worth considering, while evidence I offered was treated differently?

That inconsistency only added to my feeling that I was not being investigated with the same neutrality being afforded to everyone else.

What frustrated me even more was the difference in how information seemed to be treated. In my experience, other people could make statements and those statements appeared to be entertained with very little resistance, yet when it came to me, documents, facts and information supporting my position seemed to be questioned repeatedly.

I constantly felt like I had to prove, explain and defend everything, while other versions did not appear to face the same level of scrutiny.

At some point I genuinely started asking myself: are the people handling these claims properly trained? Do they actually understand the responsibility that comes with this work?

I had documents. I had a registered marriage. I had a nomination made by my husband. Yet I found myself repeatedly explaining and defending my relationship and circumstances, while information from other people seemed to be entertained with far less resistance. I was even presented in the process in a way I disputed, including being referred to as a “separated partner”.

It felt like facts supporting me were constantly being questioned while I was expected to disprove whatever else was being put forward.

Eventually I escalated my concerns through management and ultimately all the way to Momentum’s CEO’s office.

Yes, the CEO’s office acknowledged my complaint.

And then what?

Nothing meaningfully improved.

Acknowledging a complaint does not erase the experience that caused the complaint in the first place. And an escalation process means very little when the people responsible for addressing the problem appear unable or unwilling to change anything.

The experience became so frustrating that I started questioning the governance of the entire process.

We constantly hear about “the trustees”. Where are they? Who actually considered my evidence? Who app**** their mind to the decision? What independent oversight was there?

The resolution communicated to me came through the Principal Officer, yet the process gave me very little visibility of the trustees supposedly behind these decisions. I am not saying the trustees were not involved. I am saying that, as a beneficiary, I was left with very little transparency about who was actually making these decisions and how they were reached.

At times it honestly felt as though Momentum was recreating the law for itself. There were matters that had already been formally dealt with or determined through the appropriate authorities and legal processes. Instead of taking those decisions as the starting point and then doing what I understood their role to be — assessing dependency and the relevant circumstances — it felt as though Momentum wanted to revisit, reinterpret and effectively make those determinations all over again.

That made me seriously question the competence, governance and oversight behind this entire process. Are the people doing this work properly trained? Who ensures that they understand the boundaries of the role they are performing? And who holds them accountable?

And then I started reading other people’s reviews about Momentum.

Strangely, that actually gave me some relief. This experience had me questioning myself and wondering whether I was being unreasonable or whether I was the problem. Reading review after review made me realise that I am clearly not the only person who has walked away from this company feeling unheard, frustrated and completely exhausted.

I am not asking Momentum for pity. Quite frankly, I stopped expecting empathy from them a long time ago.

What I expected was competence, professionalism, confidentiality, objectivity, proper governance and accountability. They did not need to feel sorry for me. They needed to do their jobs properly.

My husband died in November 2025. It is now September 2026.

Let that timeline sink in too.

I am still angry about what Momentum put me through. Escalating my complaint does not erase it. An acknowledgement from the CEO’s office does not erase it, especially when nothing meaningfully improved afterwards. And whatever the eventual outcome of this claim may be will never erase the way I was treated while going through it.

Losing my husband was traumatic enough.