PUBLIC WARNING ABOUT OLD MUTUAL'S BUSINESS ETHICS
As short as possible this is the nature of the complaint. I am going to use abbreviations through out the complaint. So here they are.
Involved pensioner = Mrs H------ Irvin & Johnson Pension Fund = Old Fund ----- Old Mutual South Africa = OM
Irvin & Johnson Retirement Fund = New Fund---- Financial Services Board = FSB ---- Pension Fund Adjudicator = PFA
Long Term Insurance Ombudsman = LTIO --- South African Revenue Services = SARS
Time line of existence for funds: Irvin & Johnson Pension Fund (Old Fund) 1946 – 31st July 1997 and Irvin & Johnson Retirement Fund ( New Fund) 1st September 1997/1 st August 1998 onwards.
URGENT REQUEST TO THE PUBLIC: Anyone who knows of any members or pensioners who were on the ex Irvin & Johnson Pension Fund , regardless of whether they joined the New Retirement Fund or transferred to Old Mutual in 1998, please contact me very urgently at firstname.lastname@example.org . Even if the member has passed away regardless of how long ago, the next of kin should still contact me as this may still affect your rights in this matter NO BODY SHOULD TO SIGN ANY DOCUMENTS AT ALL THAT ANY ORGANISATION MIGHT TRY TO PRESENT TO YOU IN THIS REGARD until YOU HAVE SPOKEN TO ME. YOU DON’T WANT TO SIGN AWAY YOUR RIGHTS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
Everyone reading this warning please ask all your pals to distribute as wide as possible.
Please note the events mentioned below were not discovered in this order. Only after receiving most of the pieces of evidence recently could I begin to piece the puzzle together. As you will see that what happens is very well planned and executed so that OLD MUTUAL has earned the right to be called *** - artist, Liars, Fraudsters and chameleons’.
The Old Fund decided to convert from a defined benefit fund to a defined contribution fund, change names and change rules. The Old Fund’s pensioners were given one of two choices. NO 1, take the 26% enhancement on offer and transfer their monies and liability from the Old Fund to an insurance company or NO 2, join the New Fund with no changes. Most (93%) of pensioners ± 700 pensioners said they would take option NO 1(to not join the New Fund but go to insuer). The name change was officially done August 1998 on the FSB register although the New Fund rules state it was done earlier, in 1997. The Old Fund continued to correspond with it pensioners up until late July 1998. On 01 August 1998 the New Fund becomes operative. A few days later the NEW FUND writes a letter/memo stating the pensioners money was transferred to OM.( ± R193 – R204 million). Mrs H had no knowledge of any of this. She did not receive the very first letter / memo whatever, the most important of 4 letters from both FUNDs advising of the then coming changes. Without the first letter it would have been difficult to fathom out what was happening.
I will now give you the facts which are now cast in concrete and the documentation I have is guaranteed to back it up everything.
1 In 2008/2009 Mrs H asked OM for a copy of her Old Pension rules. Her rules were denied and instead OM ( Narriema Latief: Senior Administrator) sent her an absolutely fraudulent copy of an expired OPTIPLUS policy. She was deceived in to believing she was still on the Old Fund. This was not known at the time as both original policies (Optiplus and Platinum policies) issued to her were only found after her death in 2011. On comparing the copy policy, it was found to be altered beyond recognition. The purpose was to willfully deceive Mrs H of the true IDENTITY of which ( Old or New) Fund purchased this compulsory annuity and worse still, deceived her into thinking she was still a member of the Old Fund which was operating out of it timeline for years. Both policies were unsigned by Mrs H. These policies (Optiplus + Platinum) were not in accordance with the FSB directive at that time. Nor was it in accordance with what the Old Fund promised the pensioners in the first memo/letter. The pensioners were going to go directly over to an insurer, not through an intermediate fund and definitely not though the New Fund with brand new altered rules. In fact the 4 memos from the OLD FUND shows no disclosure on how the conversion to insurance would be effected.
2 I filed a case with the PFA. OM supplied a 2nd fraudulent copy of the expired Optiplus policy as evidence to deceive the PFA. That false copy even differed from the first false copy. The 2nd copy was part of F Allie (OM) answering affidavit to the PFA. OM explained they followed the GN 18 process with the “OLD FUND “at the time in 1998. Why they wrote that nonsense is beyond any human logic. In my evidence to the PFA I had already presented genuine copies of the 2 original policies. The one they kept harping on was the 1st policy called “Pensions Optiplus Policy”. It is comprised of 4 pages and not 5 as in the OM copies. Page 4 is a schedule with the purchase details. The FUND identified on the schedule as purchasing that policy is none other than the NEW FUND. This unmistakably shows OM had rather some how entered a business arrangement with the NEW FUND based on the new fund’s rules instead of doing business with the OLD FUND as they should have. The pensioners’ up until this moment in time still don’t know about this transaction. Mrs H never ever joined the NEW FUND and OM admitted that in a letter to Mrs H. So why did they keep insisting the OLD FUND bought the first policy when it did not do so? The reason comes out later. NO 1to disadvantage not just Mrs H but all the other pensioners related to the OLD FUND and NO 2 to hide the NEW FUND’s involvement in this business transaction. How was everyone disadvantaged? In simple terms under the old rules and according to FSB and SARS directives the purchasing of compulsory policies for each pensioner was prohibited. But the new rules had been amended to allow for purchasing of compulsory polices. So on the old rules pensioners could choose their own type of investment and have full control over terms and conditions. But the new rules took that all away. The insurer had an added advantage. They substantially increased their chances of inheriting what was left over in the fund on the death of a member. The annuity only paid benefits to the estate with in the first five years. After that the money is kept by the insurer. People live longer these days and some retire earlier in life and are very likely to live longer than 5 years. The PFD said they had no jurisdiction in GN 18 matters. This matter was to be referred to the LTIO. But had the PFA taken the time to read the policies properly they would have seen the matter actually did fell within their jurisdiction to address the matters in full. Thus OM escapes investigation by the PFA.
3 At the LTIO, OM was still adamant they followed the GN 18 route with the Old Fund. I proved this explanation was not possible. Mrs H and the other ±700 pensioners simply did not meet the criteria for GN 18 (SARS DRECTIVE)in 1998. I now have the SARS Directive. Nor did OM use the underlying principle of GN 18 to convert the pensioners. In addition the policies issued were required to show a total severance in the relationship between the Fund and their pensioners. The types of policies issued were (1) not in accordance with the FSB or SARS directives governing the process at that time and (2) were in breach of even the New Fund rules used in the process. The actual policies issued by OM (both the Optiplus and later the Platinum policy) were the exact opposite of what they should have been. In both the Optiplus and the Platinum policies OM is appointed as the “Administrator” of BOTH FUNDS. In the Optiplus Policy, the New Fund controls the pensioners which was originally against the will of the majority of pensioners. OM’s reply to the LTIO actually past through the hands of OM’s Advocate Chris Nel and he was OK with that story. OM’s insistence was still the same. But eventually the LTIO caught them out. You did not have to be an Advocate to see their version of events was mostly lies. All that was needed was to have good reading skills. The schedule in the 1st policy( OM’s own document) tells you the New Fund bought the policy, not the Old Fund. So why did you argue with me that the Old Fund purchased the Optiplus policy when the policy clearly says the New Fund did so?
4 OM withdrew their entire story and presented another very different one. OM had entered an under the table agreement with the New Fund and substituted the old rules for the new rules which constitutionally disadvantaged not only Mrs H but all the other pensioners. How did they manage to bypassed the Pension Act Section 14 rule 13 of the” Binding Force of Rules”? Most of if not all the pensioners would not have been aware of this transaction or the substituting of rules. In Mrs H’s case OM was willing to risk supplying her with fraudulent policy copies to hide the New Fund’s involvement in the conversion. I now have the contract. The Old Rules gave the pensioners a lot more protection and freedom than the New Rules.
5 The LTIO has already advised my in writing that there is only one fund and not 2. Because the fund changed names, the Old Fund was not supposed to co-exist and function after the New Fund formally took up office. Otherwise this is not a name change but the establishing of a 2nd fund. In real terms I cannot see how she was lawfully bound to any annuity at all. By changing their argument the LTIO said he had no jurisdiction in the matter. After requesting the PFA to reinstate my claim for a 2nd time he declined to investigate.
6 OM lied to both the PFA and LTIO to escape investigation by both offices. They literally got away with fraud.
7 Both the PFA and the LTIO should have taken some action against OM but they failed. Their job is to protect the public, particularly our Senior Citizens from this type of foul practices and not to promote or support it . Could this be a reason why the public that make use of these 2 government agencies often have their claims declined? This is not the first time OM has been caught tampering with documents after it was signed. The (FAIS) Ombud found that Old Mutual had “altered documents” to “suit the evidence”. “This attempt to deceive on Lottering’s part(OM) is indicative of a lack of and integrity,” the Ombud said.” One of the comments at the bottom of the web page states “Truly OM is the *** of the earth, Go on, keep robbing the aged and the ignorant you bunch of vermin”.
SEE Moneyweb 25 September 2009 - FAIS OMBUD SLATES OLD MUTUAL-http://www.moneyweb.co.za/archive/fais- ombud-slates-old-mutual/. It is very good to see the FAIS OMBUD has honor and courage to expose such criminal actions to the public. Well done.
This case particular case it seems to have involved maybe one or 2 staff members. In my case it looks as if virtually the whole pension division at OM has played along spinning the same lies to Mrs.H over the years and probably all the other pensioners who have in the past made enquiries through OM about the Old Fund. It would not surprise me if there are not more fraudulent copies sent to other pensioners in the past that lost policies and requested copies.
8 Both the New Fund and OM were compelled by the LTIO and PFA to produce documentation showing how Mrs H allowed any of this. Absolutely nothing could be produced. The secret agreement stated clearly that the policy issued to Mrs H was based on her choice in writing. OM failed even to present that evidence. Wendy Kruger of OM describes it this way in her email of 25.09.2013 – “Old Mutual would not have any proof if the pensioners were consulted or not.”AND the LTIO still took OM’s part after being caught telling lies, producing false policy copies, OM failing to produce Mrs H’s written choice and OM’s breaching new rule’s specification on the type of policy to be issued.
9 F Allie of OM states to the PFA how proud OM is of the lies they told. “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”.
I wonder if the public will agree with you once this is on the net for view.
10 OM shows in the OPTIPLUS POLICY dated March 2000, the NEW FUND ( Not the OLD FUND ) was responsible for pension payments from 1st August 1998 to 24 th August 1999. After this date OM takes over liability from that FUND. But in the 2nd policy OM states matters differently. The Old Fund was responsible for pension payments from 1st August 1998 to 24 th August 1999 there after OM takes over liability from that FUND. What they are saying is both FUNDS are relieved of liability on 24th August 1999, so how was it possible for any compulsory policy to be forced on any ex pensioner without their consent? I far as I can see is when the pensioners received the 1st policy dated March 2000, it was already expired. Since both funds were no longer liable after 24th August 1999, how was it possible to be an “Administrator of any Fund” after 24th August 1999?
11 OM had all of the pensioners simultaneously on 2 different policies, on 2 different Funds and 2 different sets of rules for nearly 3.5 years. Mrs H certainly did not get any back pay on the overlapping policy/s.
12 OM was caught moving the pensioners at will between the 2 different funds, changing between rules and cross over the timelines with ease.
To the FSB, representation was made that the Old Pension Fund was going to change names to become the New Fund, not to establish a New Fund.That did actual happen. The Old Fund should have stopped operations 31th July 1998. The old rules were not automatically set aside. The law holds the company responsible and accountable to continue to perform in accordance with the Old Pension Fund rules until outstanding matters with the pensioners were settled. Only then would the company be relieved of liability and the Old Fund Rules fall away. But to the pensioners OM painted a very different picture. The New Fund buys under the table policies (OPTIPLUS) from OM using the new rules that result in the pensioners been disadvantaged. The original agreement was that the money should have gone to an “interest bearing account” for the time being, and not an intermediate fund with brand new rules that would disadvantage the pensioners. The types of policies issued were not in accordance with the FSB directive PF 100 and at the same time was not compliant even with the new rules used. The pensioners had no idea they had been transferred against their wishes to the New Fund with its new rules. OM fought vehemently to keep that from Mrs H’s knowlegde by falsifying 2 copies of an expired policy to deceive her into believing she was still attached to the Old Fund when it should long time ago being non operational. Did all the other ± 700 ex pensioners have a similar experience with OM pensions division? OM lied to the PFA and the LTIO and as a result escaped investigation into this matter. This whole conversion was done under the cover of darkness because they knew the pensioners would never have agreed to this. OM writes in Mrs H’s Platinum policy that they have taken over liability from the Old Fund but they are also the “Administrator “of the Old Fund. Let’s simplify that. OM tells the shareholder (I & J) you are no longer responsible for the ex pensioners in any way and to the ex pensioners they indicate in the policy the exact opposite. I am not sure how the Old Fund carried on operations after 31.07.1998 until at least 2011. On what basis did the OLD FUND function outside its timeline?
So a call has now gone out to get the other ex pensioners or executors were applicable to come on board to discuss the matter and the way forward
Reason of review: pension fund conversion iregularities.