Old Mutual

I purchased a policy 15 years ago. Since then they have diligently taken money out of my account but I have had zero contact with them despite trying every route I could find. I have called, emailed, filled out forms on websites, even DM with OM. IN 15 YEARS I HAVE HAD ZERO CONTACT FROM THE COMPANY, NOT ONE STATEMENT OR LETTER. Mind you I have not moved or changed contact information in 15 YEARS. THEY ARE A SCAM!! GOOD LUCK CANCELLING OR FILLING A CLAIM!! HOW THEY CAN LEGALLY FUNCTION IN THE USA IS BEYOND ME!! I AM A PISSED OFF VICTIM!!

My husband past away a year ago. I keep on getting forms to fill in and then investing will happen to do pay out. I am so tired to try and explain. How much proof do they need that I was his wife

why ask me by letter to contact you to set up on line information and tell shut me out , i have tried toput information that has been declined, No i am not using my cell phone to to contact you from Canada . I thought you offering on line helprun

Old Navy scolded me and settled my shipping charge issue with a refund. Too many hoops to jump through. If $50 qualifies for free shipping why won't it be generated automatically?

URGENT PUBLIC WARNING ISSUED ON OLD MUTUAL’S UNETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTISES TO THE PUBLIC AND INVESTORS PLEASE BE ADVISED OF THE FOLLOWING WHEN HAVING DEALINGS WITH OLD MUTUAL SOUTH AFRICA (PENSIONS DIVISION) A) Never ever lose an original policy of any sort issued by Old Mutual. If you do and request a replacement copy, you may find that the copy could possibly have been grossly altered to benefit the company more than in the original copy. They don’t like to tell you that. B) If you have any queries on your policy during its lifetime that may be difficult to understand, Old Mutual can easily create some fictitious situation or story and present that as truth to you to explain the query. C) Lying to and bullying clients, changing and supplying fraudulent documentation, to any one after its being signed, lying to the Pension Fund Adjudicator, lying to the Long Term Insurance Ombudsman twice and making fools of both of them, foul playing clients and plainly ignoring some of our laws and Directives when they see a chance to do so without someone seeing them is all classed under”” sound pensioner administration experience””. To all Insurance Brokers, members of the Public and the international community. I hereby ISSUE A PUBLIC WARNING ON OLD MUTUAL’S UNETHICAL AND DISPICABLE BUSINESS PRACTISES. I think your clients AND INVESTORS have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to be warned of such below mentioned filthy business practices before conducting business with OM and to change service providers if they feel they no longer see chance to carry on in a business relationship with them after reading this experience. Please DO THE RIGHT THING BY distributing this email as widely as possible to colleagues, peers, families and others in the insurance industry whether in South Africa or in any other country they may operate. IF YOU LOOK ON THE INTERNET ON GOOGLE – PISSED CONSUMER OLD MUTUAL you may still read this experience. I am going to use abbreviations through out the complaint. So here they are. Mrs H = Involved pensioner Old Fund = Irvin & Johnson Pension Fund : Fund closed 1st August 1998: Rules terminated latest 24th August 1999 OM = Old Mutual South Africa New Fund = Irvin & Johnson Retirement Fund : Rules terminated latest 24th August 1999 FSB = Financial Services Board PFA = Pension Fund Adjudicator LTIO = Long Term Insurance Ombudsman SARS = South African Revenue Services Time line of existence for funds: Irvin & Johnson Pension Fund (Old Fund) 1946 – 31st July 1998. That fund name was deregistered and closed its operations. In its place the Irvin & Johnson Retirement Fund (New Fund) began operations for the first time either from 1st September 1997 as stated in their rules or from 1st August 1998 onwards when the FSB register was officially adjusted. Information gathering period is ± 8 years Events mentioned below were not discovered in this order. Nor was the pensioner to whom this happened, ever remotely aware of any of this action while she was alive. She died November 2011. Only after her death did I receive most of the pieces of evidence either through the PFA and LTIO just recently, could I as a retired ex auditor 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 branded as *** - artist, Compulsive Liars, Fraudsters, Foul Players, Chameleons and I am sure you as the public can add more. They have already demonstrated their fraudulent skills by submitting “altered documents” to “suit the evidence” in the past to the FAIS Ombud. A comment passed by a reader in this article out rightly calls OLD MUTUAL “you bunch of vermin.” Very likely he is spot on with his observation of this insurer (See http://www.moneyweb.co.za/archive/fais-ombud-slates-old-mutual/ for more details). My experience with OM shows they are not a reformed insurance company they claim to be and still prefer doing business in the same old fraudulent manner as in the past. I want to draw the public’s attention to a phrase used by “F Allie of OM in defense of a claim made at the office of PFA. After blatantly lying outright to the PFA on the circumstances of how OM acquired the rights to force compulsory annuities on Pension Fund pensioners, OM describes their conduct in this way. “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”. The Old Fund decided to convert from a defined benefit fund to a defined contribution fund in 1997, change names and change rules and change its way of doing business. The Old Pension Fund’s pensioners were given one of only two choices. NO 1, take the 26% enhancement on offer and transfer their monies and liability from the Old Fund to an insurance company, after that the Old Fund and ex pensioners would permanently part ways or NO 2, join the New Fund with no changes and the New Retirement Fund would be their new controlling body. THERE WAS NO third OPTION i.e. to stay on the OLD FUND, as it had to close operations so that the name change could be effected. Most (93%) of pensioners ± 700 pensioners said they would take option NO 1(not to join the New Fund but go directly to an insurer). The name change was officially done 01 August 1998 on the FSB register (confirmation by FSB) although the New Fund rules state it was done earlier, in September 1997. The Old Fund stayed open and continued to function long after September 1997 for at least another 10 – 11 months; probably to complete it’s responsibilities toward its pensioners before closing its doors. On 01 August 1998 the New Fund becomes operative (Old Fund closes its doors). A few days later the NEW FUND writes a letter/memo stating the pensioners money was “transferred” to OM.( ± R193 – R204 million). How was the conversion to take place? It was a very simple process that a child could follow. To cut a long story short in this particular case the FSB PROHIBITED the Old Fund , the New Fund and the Insurers from purchasing or issuing “Compulsory Annuities” (annuity not signed by the pensioner) to these pensioners without their consent. The prohibiting of this practice becomes an official right given to each individual pensioner by the FSB. Nobody is going to argue about this point. The ex pensioners would have had to be consulted as to what their individual needs were and then be offered an investment plan that they thought would best suit them. If the ex pensioner could not find one that was offered to him by OM, then he was free to go to another insurer. One thing is certain, to validate the investment plan, required that the ex pensioner had to sign the investment contract. Old Mutual ignored the FSB instruction and just simply issued compulsory annuities that led to Mrs H losing her death benefits for her family. In Mrs H case Old Mutual’ pension department went on a campaign of foul play, compulsive lying, bullying, deception, *** artistry and issuing fraudulent copies of documents all with the specific purpose of deviously manipulating the situation to such an extent that it had the effect of drugging her mind and probably all the other ±700 pensioners into believing she had no constitutional, commercial and contractual rights to invest her own funds. It is true as said of Old Mutual by a different OMBUD for a similar complaint “This attempt to deceive is indicative of a lack of honesty and integrity, “on the part of Old Mutual. I will now give you the facts that unfolded. The documentation is on hand is guaranteed to back it up everything. Little if anything of what is stated below can be successfully refuted in a High Court. 1 In 2008/2009 Mrs H made a request to OM for a copy of her Old Pension rules to be sent to her. Her rules were denied and instead OM (Narriema Latief: Senior Administrator) sent her an absolutely fraudulent copy of an already expired and replaced OPTIPLUS policy. She was deceived in to believing she was still a pensioner on the Old Pension Fund which of course was a lie. She had no way of knowing that the Pension Fund had in fact been closed many years earlier. Old Mutual never advised her at the time. Both original policies (Optiplus and later its replacement Platinum policy) were only found some time after her death in 2011. On comparing the copy policy sent by OM in 2008/2009 with the original Optiplus, it was found to have been altered beyond recognition. The purpose was to willfully hide from Mrs. H how Old Mutual unlawfully converted her pension to a compulsory annuity and deceived into believing she was still a pensioner on her old Pension Fund when the pension fund was long time closed. Both policies that were issued (Optiplus + Platinum) were both contrary to the FSB and SARS specifications at that time to insurers and pension funds. Nor were they in accordance with what the Old Fund had promised the pensioners in the first memo/letter. Those pensioners were going to go directly over to an insurer, not through an intermediate fund and definitely not though the New Fund with its brand new altered rules that made allowance for the pensioners to be screwed of their rights. In fact the 4 memos from the OLD FUND show no disclosure on how the conversion to insurance would be effected. The method used in the conversion was kept a secret from the pensioners along with all the laws and pensioner rights they had at the time in the decision making process. As you will see later it opened the doors for a Triple C rape. (Constitutional, Contractual and Commercial rape). Under false pretenses, misrepresentation, deception lying and foul play, OM gained access to the pensioners’ monies. The pensioners were forced / bullied into believing and accepting what ever OM put in front of them. The pensioners were disadvantaged and their families, most of them became collateral damage in the process by losing all members’ death benefits after 5 years of paying pension payments. 1B For the next part you must keep close in mind that OM was screaming at me that the whole transaction took place between them and the old Pension Fund. OM even employed the use of criminal action to get even the LTIO and PFA to believe that *** When they were caught lying OM screaming changed directions to only doing business with the new Retirement Fund. They then insisted all pensioners without exception were transferred onto the Retirement Fund in September 1997. The evidence on hand shows this also to be a despicable outright lie as well. The evidence supplied does not support their claim. If it did happen the 93% pensioners have no knowledge of it happening. In reality it does not really matter. The fact of the matter is the prohibition of the FSB and the Pension Fund Act under the “Binding force of Rules” forbids the interchanging of fund rules so as to disadvantage pensioners’ rights. In terms of the old fund rules it was the pensioners right to choose his investment plan without outside interference from any other party. 2 I filed a case with the PFA. OM supplied a 2nd even more fraudulent copy of the already expired Optiplus policy as evidence, with a view to deceive and mislead the PFA and with a view to changing the outcome of the ruling in OM’s favor. That false copy differed even more from the first false copy they sent in 2008/2009. The 2nd copy was part of F Allie’s (OM) answering affidavit to the PFA. He/she explained OM followed the GN 18 process with the “OLD PENSION FUND” at the time in 1998 for converting pensions to an insurance policy. The long and short, the PFA unfortunately stated he had no jurisdiction in GN 18 matters. Old Mutual writes to the PFA and tells him that this matter is actually for the LTIO. However it was later discovered because of Old Mutual’s habitual lying, falsification of documents, foul play and it misrepresentation of matters, the PFA was in fact the right party to investigate and finalize this particular case. 3 This time before OM resubmits the paperwork to the LTIO it passes through Advocate CHRIS NEL’s office. At the LTIO, OM was still adamant they followed the GN 18 route with the Old Pension Fund. Mr. Nel obviously agreed with the contents of the Old Mutual’s false affidavit. This time the LTIO catches OM lying again red handed with their trousers on the floor. Old Mutual withdrew the fraudulent story. They devised another even more fraudulent story by producing a never seen before purchase contract they had signed with the New Retirement Fund. I was informed the conversion was supposedly done under clause 9.14.2. The very first thing of course is the Retirement Fund Rules cannot be applied to Mrs.H or to the other ± 700 ex pensioners in her group. Our law courts don’t allow unilateral changing of contracts or rules in this country. It is simply called foul play and unconstitutional which makes it unlawful. But even had it been remotely possibly to link the old Pension Fund pensioners to the Retirement Fund rules it still would not have been possible to issue policies on them anyway. Here is why. The set of Retirement Fund Rules used in the “purchase agreement” are very incomplete. They are signed by only three Trustees, but are without ID numbers, trustees names are not printed, without witnesses signing, they are not dated at all, have no approval stamp by the FSB, without approval by the Valuator of the Fund and none of the pages are initialed by any of the parties. For all I know this could have been a forgery also. If you assume that was all correct, I am told the conversion was done under clause 9.14.2 of the rules. But before that could be followed all pensioners had to qualify for this by meeting the criteria of clause 9.14.1. Here is the clause. (Wrong rules used for the conversion of old Pension Fund pensioners to insurance.) (Retirement Fund Rule No 9.14.2) “Each Pensioner in receipt of a Pension on the Conversion Date(Retirement Fund) shell have the irrevocable option, to be exercised and be communicated to the Trustees in writing by 10thOctober 1997 to have a pension purchased from an INSURER on his behalf, or continue to receive a Pension payable by the Fund.” 1) Mrs H firstly never knew she had to make a choice. So she gave nothing in writing to any party on which they could act. She obviously never joined the new Retirement Fund. She never received a pension at all from the Retirement Fund right up to 31th July 1998 that is 9 months later after the cut off date of 10th October 1997. Mrs H last payment advice received is dated 25th June 1998 and is from her own Pension Fund, not the Retirement Fund. So she missed the bus on clause 9.14.1. Actually this clause disqualifies her and all the other 93% who also did not join the Retirement Fund. Further you would expect the Pension Fund to know who was on their respective registers so as to pay pensions. Well after the Pension Fund acknowledges paying Mrs H in June 1998, the Pension Fund actually issues a list of some ± 700 pensioners’ details that were still on the old PENSION FUND as at 01-08-1998. Guess what Mrs H’s details are on that same list. Therefore clauses 9.14.1 / 2 applied only to the 7% that joined the Retirement Fund and not the pensioners (93%) still attached to the Old Fund during the conversion period. 2) Old Mutual was asked to produce any documents as to the choice she had made. To date OM has not even produced one document with her signature on it. OM says they did not have to have it. But it was a condition of the contract (Retirement Fund Rules); they did have to have it. 3) Old Mutual wrote to Mrs.H as late as February 2002 telling her “The Policy (PLATINUM) constitutes a contract between yourself and Old Mutual and any future liability for the payment of your pension now rests with Old Mutual rather than the “Irvin and Johnson Pension Fund”. (OLD PENSION FUND) The last nail in the coffin is that PLATINUM ANNUITY (upgraded policy) is back dated all the way back to 1st August 1998 the same day the new Retirement Fund transferred the pensioner’s monies to Old Mutual. By telling her this, Old Mutual hereby admitted Mrs. H never changed to the Retirement Fund. So the conversion could not have taken place according to clause 9.14.2. Old Mutual lied about the old Pension Fund buying policies for its pensioners and they again outrightly lied about the Retirement Fund purchasing annuities for the Old Pension Fund pensioners. To add to that we know the FSB did not give authority to do so because it was prohibited at the time. The only possibility left was to get a court order to legalize this and that was not done. At this moment in time (since 1999 until 2016) OM has is totally exhausted all valid explanations as to how they gained legal access to R 204 million rands of pensioners personal and private funds, enforced the ex pensioners to accept compulsory annuities against their will that severely infringed on the rights and contracts of ex pensioners .This has led to the foul play of funds that should have gone to the deceased estates for redistribution. The most usual thing is and I quote from the first letter sent to the pensioners which states “Pensioners may participate in the IJRF with no change to their current position.” So even if all the pensioners were some how transferred to the new fund you still were not allowed to issue compulsory annuities. OM ignored the FSB’s prohibition on issuing compulsory annuities in terms of fund rules that disallow it. OM ignored the Law on the “Binding force of rules” in the Pension Fund Act which restricts financial service providers from applying non original pension rules to members of different funds. You move pensioners between different funds and different rules with impunity to foul play them. Then when the pensioner dies you foul play their estates and finally you make a mockery of our justice system. 4 The Issuing of 2nd (upgraded policy) The Platinum Annuity policy) (OM commercial pensioner rape tool) THIS ANNUITY IS ISSUED BY THE OLD FUND . Even if all the documentation for the Optiplus Annuity had been correct back then, the OPTIPLUS policy would still have automatically lapsed on 24th August 1999. On that same day responsibility and accountability for the pensioners is transferred in full to Old Mutual (OM acknowledgement in writing). Which means the relationship between the pensioners and ALL FUNDS is totally severed. Fund rules fall away, the pensioners become ex pensioners and the ex pensioners must from that time forward manage their own investments. About a year later OM realizes that there are no policies in place to cover OM for keeping R204 million in pensioners’ money. So they fabricate a story that the old policy (Optiplus) was upgraded in July 2000 to the Platinum Annuity which of course was no longer possible because the Retirement Fund (owner of the Optiplus annuity) decided to move their business away from OM. The old Pension Fund’s pensioners could not go with. OM then fraudulently issues Platinum Annuities where in the pensioners are again consolidated and returned to the Old now defunct Pension Fund, its old rules are reinstated and OM is the ADMINISTRATOR OF THE OLD defunct PENSION FUND. In this process there is no disclosure to the pensioners, they are unaware that they are behind the scenes being shunted from one fund to the next and the rules of both funds are being applied to them in order to disadvantage or steal mega millions from the ex pensioners and their future estates. Easy to understand summary easy events. In 1997 The Old Pension Fund needs to help the company trim in-house expenses. It wanted to change its way of doing business but in doing so is barred from harming the rights of existing pensioners. It then offers all its pensioners an additional 26% to what is already in their accounts to transfer off the Pension Fund to an insurer. If the pensioners accepted this offer then the Pension Fund would be totally free of all its responsibilities and all liabilities toward those ex pensioners. In addition there would be no pension fund rules to adhere to. The pensioner would be in exactly the same position as a client whose policy matured with an insurer and received his lump sum payout. The pensioners had to get off the old pension fund because it had to close its doors to make way for the new Retirement Fund to be established. The choice was made on an individual basis, free from outside interference. It was a constitutional matter. 93% want to go to an insurer, and the other 7% decided to join the new Retirement Fund. On 01/08/1998 the Old Pension Fund finally closes its doors and on the same day the pensioners funds including Mrs H‘s is transferred to Old Mutual. Mrs H has no clue what has happened up until the day she passed away November 2011. Come 2008 Mrs H contacts Old Mutual to obtain a copy of her pension fund rules. These are denied but in its place she is sent a copy of a fraudulent Optiplus Annuity . When the original policy was found after her death called OPTIPLUS it was also accompanied by a 2nd policy called the Platinum policy which had been issued to her. On comparing the sent Optiplus copy of policy it was discovered it had been falsified almost beyond recognition. On examining the original polices I became aware of the fraud that starts unfolding. Old Mutual kept insisting the Old Fund purchased annuities for their pensioners and that this was converted by the GN 18 process. The liars even quoted from the law to justify their actions. It was child’s play to see they lied. First their own policy(the original) stated clearly the New Retirement Fund “purchased” the policy, not the OLD. GN 18 excluded pensioners so the law they quoted from was misapplied. I filed a complaint with the Pension Fund Adjudicator. Old Mutual sends a 2nd even more fraudulent Optiplus policy copy to the PFA for defeating the ends of justice and misrepresentation to the PFA. They further claimed they followed the GN 18 process with the Old Pension Fund and told the Adjudicator that the complaint should go to the Long Term Insurance Ombudsman. This later turned out to be a lie. The Adjudicator was in fact the right body for the finalizing of this matter. At the LTIO Old Mutual was still adamant they went GN 18 with the old FUND. But the Ombudsman caught them with their pants totally on the ground. The pensioners did not qualify for GN 18 and additionally the first Optiplus policy (first policy issued) states in no uncertain terms the New Retirement Fund was the purchaser, not the old Pension Fund as should have been. They withdrew their whole scam story. In its place they produced another scam version. This time OM produces a purchase contract between OM and the New Retirement Fund using the new rules and referred me to clause 9.14.2 for the basis of purchase / sale. The clause was found to have no reference to the ex pensioners of the Old Pension Fund. It referred only to the 7% who opted to join the New Retirement Fund and then later that same 7% was transferred to an annuity by mutual consent. Therefore OM’s new claim at the LTIO proved to be another fat lie. That the 2 funds did not purchase anything for the pensioners is correct because they were both prohibited from doing so by the FSB. The 2 Funds seemed to have followed the right conversion process and thus obeyed the FSB directive. I want to come back to the issuing of policies. The evidence shows the Retirement Fund may have purchased compulsory annuities for its own pensioners / members, the 7% that opted to join the new fund. That would have been correct. But they did not buy any annuities for the pensioners of the ex Pension Fund. The 7% that joined the Retirement Fund were going to continue to be serviced by that fund. The 93% were going to be totally on their own, without any interference from any other party. That is why the funds made absolutely no mention of purchasing compulsory annuities for the 93%. They were prohibited from doing so. The Pension Fund paid the 93% an extra 26% for terminating any further responsibility /liability to service pension payments for the then about to become ex pensioners. In short they were going to give each pensioner full control over their portion of the money and they must take responsibility for their own investments. In no uncertain terms the Retirement Fund made Old Mutual fully aware that there were two types of pensioner groups, each to be treated differently. Old Mutual had no illusions that they were prohibited from issuing compulsory policies to soon to be ex Pension Fund pensioners. Ex pensioners should have been treated like any other client coming through the front door for the first time and said “Good day how may I help you Sir, “What would you like Sir. I recommend ---- as I think it would suite your needs” then get them to sign on the dotted line to validate the policy. The evidence now points to OM as deciding to made the decision on their own to issue unlawful policies to the bulk of the pensioners and then embarked on an elaborate scam to deceive, misrepresent, lie, commit fraud, bully, what ever it took to fool / prevent the ex pensioners out of exercising their newly given constitutional rights. After 24th August 1999 the Optiplus annuity expires and had to be replaced. OM could not renew agreements with the new Retirement Fund because the Retirement Fund was about to move all its own (7%) pensioners away from Old Mutual over to an entirely different Fund Administrator, but they cannot take the 93% ex Pension Fund pensioners with because they were not part of the Retirement Fund. At this particular point in time and on this particular day, the pensioners are lawfully fully released from any subjugation to any organisation, pension rules and any and all funds and company that may have previously exercised powers over them prior to this date. They were completely free from being told what to do. OM had decided it was not going to lose it grip on R204 million rand. They concocted another method to keep grips on the pensioners’ money. By means of foul play and back dating of documents, OM issued a different compulsory annuity (Platinum) to each of the 93% ex pensioners. The pensioners have been lifted off (without their knowledge) the New Retirement Fund ( see 1B) (OM kept arguing that all the pensioners were transferred to the New Retirement Fund) and transferred back onto the old Pension Fund. OM then appoints itself as the “Fund Administrator” of the Old Pension Fund to create the perception with the pensioners the Pension Fund is still fully operational when in reality none of the pensioners were aware the old Pension Fund had in fact been deregistered some 3.5 years earlier and is defunct. OM wanted that perception to remain that way until all pensioners had died so as to take whatever monies were left over in the deceased members account. If I look at face value of the investment, the clients never got the full value of their investments in hand. A substantial amount of the profit for the previous year was held back and added on to the capital each year. In theory the capital amount keeps on growing larger and larger with each passing year. Now you have an idea of how much collateral damage loved ones of those ex pensioners have suffered. I wonder how many other funds may have followed a similar route with OM. A note to Mr Louis Kriel, Senior Legal Advisor (Old Mutual) You threatened me with an interdict. I am still waiting for you. I am actually very curious to see on what basis OM might successfully get one. Old Mutual is a habitual and compulsive liars to the extreme, they are guilty of lying to the PFA and guilty of lying to the LTIO, guilty of defeating the ends of justice, misrepresent facts to numerous parties, play fowl clients, “altered documents” to “suit the evidence” and to bully clients. It is only a formality to go to court to chisel this in granite. I am sure when the time comes my advocate will be able to add to the list other serious offences that OM considers to be”” sound pensioner administration experience””. I personally doubt if OM can spell the word Honest. Perhaps OM has spent the last 170 years perfecting the art of lying. This time around the High Court Judge will not be handicapped like the LTIO. Old Mutual had a directive from the FSB on how to convert; they failed and hide what they did. You can be sure the FSB will not be giving you any support in this matter. One thing we all understand Mr Kriel is if OM has lied to everyone as described in this article, then there is no reason to believe why OM did not misrepresent matters to the FSB at the time, all of which could be reversed with ease. Once this has been done I think some of our neighboring countries Registrars’ may decide to review and even cancel their OM’s trade license agreements. Since you feel that I should continue to be part of the collateral damage OM have caused by their dishonorable and unethical business practices, perhaps I should show you what collateral damage really looks like by warning the public and potential investors about OM’s unethical business practices. In fact I am strongly considering writing a book on this.

Good day I hereby write this email in rejection of the claim that I have submitted two years ago. I cannot begin to explain the animosity I have for Old Mutual as a find and as a business entity. I have been given a run around for the past two years for a single claim but have still not been awarded the outcome of this claim. I've have gone to an extent of cancelling all my policies with this fund because of this anarchy they have shown to myself and my family. I will not stop until I get it across to the world what a synthetic scam you truely are. How is it possible to wait for a claim for over two years and get no feedback? Media needs to know what you true my are and what you truly have done to steal people's money. I hereby plead with my legal team to expose this behaviour to all social platform and media in general. People must not to through what I have gone through. My father must be turning on his grave keeping his money with Old Mutual only to find that his children did not benefit from it.

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 ihancock@***.net . 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. Shortened Version 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 Con - 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. Conclusion 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

To whom it may concern Please be advised that I am very perturbed by the way my situation has been handled. I will be giving you all the details from the day I submitted the paperwork for cancellation of a tax free savings plan. The day I sent on my paperwork to my broke, Adiel Albertus, 29 August 2016. I had confirmed that the office received the paperwork hence they received the paperwork on 30 August 2016. Initially I had thought it would take about 7 business days for the finds to be available but after several calls to the call centre, I was told that due to me submitting a cancellation in the cooling off period, there is a waiting time of 14 business days. 14 business days gives me the date for cut off on 16 September 2016. Yesterday, as a result of needing this money so desperately, I called the Old Mutual call centre again, only to be told by some agent that cut off for the cancellation is on 17 September 2016, which is Saturday. They do not even work on weekends which obviously means that they will only be working on my request on Monday, 19 September 2016. Here comes the crunch.... I then ask to speak to a Team Leader and a guy by the name of Irfaan, comes to my assistance and tells me that the cancellation will effectively take place on 19 September 2016 and the plan still needs to go for pricing. OMG what a load of ***. And it gets better. When the plan goes through to pricing it will take another 2 days for that funds to be transferred to my bank account. Please be advised that I need the money. It happens to be MY MONEY. If I had known that investing money with Old Mutual is such a nightmare when it comes to payout, I would never have winked in the direction of your organisation. I am now at a point of absolute sadness, depression and way beyond feeling sick because this money is my money which I worked for and now I am struggling to get my own money back due to people telling me about processes. I asked Irfaan yesterday to get me feedback about getting my money paid out by Saturday, latest. And then some other guy calls me this morning, Clint, to inform that they are busy looking into it but the details I have been given by Irfaan will stand. I will only get my money by next week Friday, 23 September 2016. How unacceptable can something like this be. I will not tolerate such *** from Old Mutual and I will be taking this to the media if I don't have my money by Saturday. I will be sending this same email to a complaints specialist and I will not take this lying down because I desperately need the money. This money is for something very important and that is why I need it asap. I need someone to do something about this as I am not prepared to wait any longer.

Old Mutual caught lying to the Long Term Insurance Ombudsman abb : OM=Old Mutual In a recent case with the Long Term Insurance Ombudsman the following facts emerged. The case was between the estate MM Hancock and O M regarding the rights to convert a pension fund to compulsory annuities. To cut a long story short.The first story O M presented as to how they did business with the Pension Fund I proved conclusively to be an outright lie. O M even quoted from a law the Pension Fund Act. Any 16 year old with some intelligence that compared my evidence to the O M story, could easily discern it was a lie. Some how the Ombudsman could not see it or just ignored the evidence. In addition O M had supplied 2 copies of a policy said to belong to M M Hancock. I had in the meantime found the original policy containing all the stamp duties etc. On comparing the 2 copies to the original there were literally so many alterations that they could easily past for brand new policies. The reason for the all the lies,deception and false copies became apparent later. OM withdraw their first story and produced a hidden purchase agreement between a sister Retirement Fund involving about 700 pensioner and using a different set of rules. Mrs M M Hancock never belonged to this fund. Strangely everyone agreed. In terms of the confidentiality clause in the agreement it is doubtful if any of the other pensioners knew about how the conversion took place. Even in terms of this contract, a policy could only be issued according to the pensioner's choice they were allowed to make of either moving their funds and liability to an insurer or joining the new Retirement Fund just established. No body could produce any evidence of what MM Hancock had chosen to do. It appears MM Hancock was unaware of any of these transactions before her death. The Ombudsman still ruled 3 times against the estate in spite of the lies, tampering with policies. In addition the Ombudsman refused to rule on whether to copy polices were still to be paid (valid)or were fraudulent. OM says they pride themselves in "managing pensioners money professionally" and called this "sound pensioner administration experience. If MM Hancock's original pension rules were used and in terms of the law on "the binding force of rules" only her rules were allowed to be used, the outcome would have been very different. In terms of the GN 18 directive that should have been followed in 1998 MM Hancock would have had the option of managing her own funds and terms and conditions. Incidentally in an article on Moneyweb dated 25 September 2009 the FAIS Ombud caught OM altering documents in the case filed by a 93 year old man. I quote "But the Ombud found that Old Mutual had “altered documents” to “suit the evidence”.“This attempt to deceive on Lottering’s part is indicative of a lack of honesty and integrity,” the Ombud said. http://www.moneyweb.co.za/arc…/fais-ombud-slates-old-mutual/ Long Term Insurance Ombudsman said absolutely nothing about OM's conduct in his ruling. Perhaps he sees nothing wrong with it?