Recent Financial Services Tribunal (FST) decisions have highlighted the importance of beneficiaries acting promptly when concerns arise regarding retirement fund benefits. Jaya Leibowitz explores what these cases mean for employers and their advisers, and why delays in addressing contribution- and benefit-related disputes can have significant consequences for members.
When it comes to lodging a complaint about a retirement fund dispute, timing is only one part of the picture. A complaint may still proceed many years after a problem first occurred, particularly if the affected member had no reasonable way of discovering it sooner.
The three-year rule
Section 30I of the Pension Funds Act generally gives members three years to lodge a complaint with the Pension Funds Adjudicator (PFA). However, the calculation of the three-year period does not always start when the issue giving rise to the complaint occurs. According to the Prescription Act – a law that determines how long a person has to enforce a legal claim before it "prescribes" (expires) and can no longer be pursued through the courts – the clock only starts ticking once the complaining member knows, or is reasonably expected to know, what went wrong and who is responsible.
What recent cases tell us
Many of the prescription-related determinations handed down by the FST in the past year have involved complaints about the non-payment or underpayment of contributions that occurred many years prior to the lodging of the member’s complaint with the PFA.
- Mpengesi v PFA & Others (PFA26/2025)
In this case, the member filed her complaint shortly after discovering missing contributions for periods almost 20 years prior. However, she had not yet retired from employment and only became aware of the missing contributions in the process of retirement planning. The FST found that the complainant could not reasonably have known that contributions were missing any sooner, so the complaint was not time barred. The matter was referred back to the PFA for further consideration. - Rapasa v PFA & Others (PFA57/2025)
In this case, the complainant’s employment had terminated in 2018, but he only submitted a complaint relating to alleged missed contributions in December 2024. The PFA declined to investigate the complaint because too much time had lapsed. On appeal, the FST confirmed the PFA’s decision not to investigate the complaint. - Sehlabaka v PFA & Others (PFA8/2025)
Similar to Rapasa v PFA & Others, the complainant had exited his retirement fund in January 2015. He received a withdrawal benefit from the fund in April 2015 and a further payment in 2019, each of which was accompanied by a detailed benefit-payment communication, explaining the calculation and tax treatment of the benefit payments. The complaint, which related to a number of points of alleged maladministration, was only lodged in August 2024. Again, the PFA declined to investigate the complaint because too much time had lapsed. On appeal, the FST held that a member who had received benefit statements and payments years earlier should reasonably have known the facts giving rise to the complaint, meaning the complaint was out of time.
These decisions demonstrate that prescription is highly fact-specific. The key question is when a member is expected to become aware of the relevant facts, rather than when they actually decide to pursue the matter.
Key takeaways
To avoid recourse and ensure that they are able to properly respond to complaints, employers should:
- Ensure that eligible employees are registered with the retirement fund timeously and that contributions are paid correctly and on time.
- Maintain complete payroll, contribution and membership records, as these may be required years later to resolve a dispute.
- Ensure that employees receive benefit statements and other retirement fund communications promptly. Effective communication can reduce the risk of disputes and assist members in identifying issues early.
- Investigate and resolve contribution queries as soon as they arise. Delayed engagement may prejudice members and make disputes more difficult to resolve.
- Not assume that prescription will always apply where the complaint has not been lodged within three years of the relevant fact arising. If a member could not reasonably be expected to be aware of an issue, a complaint may still proceed despite the period of time that has lapsed.
Employee benefits consultants can support these efforts through effective governance oversight, clear communication and the early escalation of potential issues before they develop into disputes.
Early intervention matters
These recent FST decisions reinforce the importance of taking a proactive approach to retirement fund concerns. For employers and employee benefits consultants, strong recordkeeping, clear communication and prompt resolution of issues remain the most effective ways to protect members' interests and reduce the risk of future disputes.