1 reviews | Active since May 2016
Old Mutual REGULARITIES with I&J Pension Fund conversion to insurance
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: #fdfeed; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Old Mutual = OM Financial Board Services =FSB I&J Pension Fund= (Original Fund) Old Fund I&J Retirement Fund= New Fund</span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="background-color: #fdfeed; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Pensioners of the I&J Pension Fund were given a choice. Move to an insurer with a 26% enhancement or move over to the New Retirement Fund without changes. Most pensioners chose to go over to insurance. <u>No option was given to stay on the old fund</u>. In the correspondence from the FUND there is no explanation or disclosure as to how this conversion to insurance would be done. The results of this conversion only comes to light when an ex pensioner called Mrs H passes away and the estate executor follows up on an annuity issued by Old Mutual in 2002 to her. Unfortunately for Old Mutual the executor of this estate was an Internal Controller (included duties in the work performed was auditing, and at times forensic auditing) for probably the biggest warehouse in SA at that time. (Now Semi retired) </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="background-color: #fdfeed; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: #fdfeed; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The following are facts that were uncovered with regard to the conversion of the pensioners to insurance which is an absolute disgrace to the long term insurance industry. OM proudly puts its stamp of approval on this conversion by writing the following statement ; “</span><u><span style="color: red;">Old Mutual prides itself in managing pensioner’s money professionally and with 40 years experience, financial strength and ”” sound pensioner administration experience””, most pension funds have the confident that their pensioners will be looked after”</span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">1) OM supplies 2 highly ********** copies of the same OPTIPLUS policy, one to Mrs H and a different one to the Pension Fund Adjudicator’s Office for the explicit purpose of to misrepresenting certain facts. I have the undisputed original policy.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">2) OM lies to the Adjudicator as to the circumstances under which the conversion was done. OM stated in no uncertain terms they followed the GN 18 method to convert the pensioners to an annuity. The Adjudicator says he has no jurisdiction to decide in matters relating to GN 18. I was referred to the Insurance Ombudsman (Long Term).</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">3) OM **** again to the Ombudsman but was caught out. OM changed its version of matters and produced a never before revealed purchase agreement between OM and a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FUND with COMPLETELY DIFFERENT RULES. All of the I & J pensioners up to the time of this writing still do not have any knowledge of this underhanded contract that was used that deprived them of their rights. The Ombudsman says he has no jurisdiction over FUND ADMINISTRATORS. This matter should have been dealt with by the Pension Fund Adjudicator.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">4) Through foul play, defeating the ends of justice, OM escapes investigation.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">5) This agreement is floored with many irregularities. Here are some highly irregular features of the conversion. <strong>There is very little of what is stated below, if anything that could be successfully overturned in a court of law. </strong></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">a) The wrong fund purchased the annuities. (93 % declined to join the new retirement fund, in writing.)</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">b) The original pension fund rules on which the “purchase” was done had been substituted for brand new rule that disadvantaged the pensioners. This is contrary to the Pension Fund Act on the law of “the binding force of rules” and at the same time contrary to the laws of contract. It is termed foul play.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">c) The annuities (policies) issued did not comply with the FSB directive in circular PF 100</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">d) The annuities issued did not comply with the South African Revenue Services Directive of 1996, GN 18.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">e) The original pension rules disallowed the issuing of compulsory annuities as per directives of the FSB Circular PF 100 and South African Revenue Services directive GN 18.(SARS)</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">f) The annuities issued did not comply with the type of policy to be issued as described even in the new rules on which the purchase was based.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">g) Pensioners were promised there would be “no changes to their current position.” (Obviously including rights) This was misrepresentation of facts. This did not happen.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">h) Although the old pension fund had been closed at that time, the Pension Fund Act holds the company responsible in terms of the original rules and to fulfill its agreement with the pensioners based on the original rules together with the promises made to the pensioners. There were deviations.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">i) OM says the OPTIPLUS policy was upgraded to a PLATINUM policy. <strong>However the pensioners are transferred back to the original fund as well</strong>. At the time of issuing the Platinum policy this fund was already closed 3.5 years. How can it ever be possible to bind at pensioners to a ghost fund?</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">j) OM releases the all the fund/s and the company from FULL liability in writing to the pensioners on 24<sup>th</sup> August 1999, on the very day the FSB officially allowed the transfer of business and liability from the fund/s to OM. This is correct. But OM continued to hold the pensioners accountable to the old fund which was firstly closed and also no longer had any liabilities to the ex pensioners. Secondly this was non compliant with the FSB directive in circular PF 100 issued to all funds and insurers at the time to totally server all ties with each other.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">m) OM had all the pensioners simultaneously on 2 difference Funds , 2 different sets of fund rules, 2 different policies , all at the same time for about 3.5 years.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">k) OM staff that had dealings with Mrs H and me proved to be down right compulsive *****.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> <u>The difference between the original rules and new rules is this.</u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">On the original fund rules, pensioners had constitutional rights to invest their funds the way they saw fit and when the pensioner died, what was left over would go directly to the estate with no restrictions.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">On the new rules the pensioners have absolutely no control as to how their money is invested or over terms and conditions under which their money is invested. The new rules had been amended to allow the fund to enforce a compulsory annuity on the pensioner and worsted of all, in most cases the families of deceased members would be deprived of inheriting the balance left over in the “investment.”The annuity would not pay the estate after paying the annuitant for more than 5 years.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">6) OM says the OPTIPLUS policy was upgraded to a Platinum policy and at the same time the pensioners are transferred back to the old Pension Fund from the New Fund. The problem we have is this as explained in the new Retirement Fund Rules. The old Pension Fund only operated between the years 1946 to 1997 and was deregistered 1<sup>st</sup> August 1998. The new Retirement Fund officially came to life on the FSB register on 1<sup>st</sup> August 1998 in September 1997. Thus the old Fund may not be in existence after 1<sup>st</sup> August 1998. The PLATINUM policy is dated 18 February 2002. Both funds cannot operate together in the same time zone. If they could you can be sure somebody **** about the fund changing names to the FSB and pensioners.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">9) OM had the pensioner group (nearly 700 members), <strong>simultaneously</strong> on both FUNDS, on both policies, on both sets of FUND rules and both FUNDS had the same Administrator, OM. None of the pensioners to this day have any idea of what has happened to them and how their loved ones lost out on their inheritances.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">I ask every one reading this complaint to send to all your friends and news groups, then everyone sends an email to the HAWKS at <a href="mailto:***"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color: #4f81bd; background-color: white; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">***</span></a> and request a through investigation into this transaction between the Irvin & Johnson Retirement Fund and Old Mutual. You can just imagine how many other funds have been converted this way by Old Mutual. There was more the R200 000 000.00 involved in this transaction.</p>
