The Ombud Council has formally adopted the Rules for the Pension Funds Adjudicator, 2026, bringing into force a new procedural framework governing the operations of the Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator (OPFA).
The rules were published on the Ombud Council’s website on 4 March 2026 and are binding regulatory instruments made under the Financial Sector Regulation Act. They must be read together with Chapter VA of the Pension Funds Act (PFA), which establishes the Adjudicator’s complaint-resolution mandate.
Click here to download the rules.
The adoption of the new rules marks an important step in aligning the OPFA with the financial sector’s Twin Peaks ombud oversight structure. They also formalise several procedural practices already followed by the Adjudicator while introducing mechanisms intended to improve the efficiency and transparency of complaint handling.
Read: New Rules for Adjudicator emphasise efficiency, consistency, and COFI readiness
Phased implementation
Although the rules have now been formally adopted, not all provisions will take effect at the same time.
Most of the framework came into operation immediately upon publication on 4 March. This includes the provisions governing the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction, the receipt and handling of complaints, the dismissal of unmeritorious matters, default determinations where parties fail to co-operate, and the power to set time limits.
However, several provisions will commence later to allow the Adjudicator’s office and affected institutions time to prepare operationally.
The following provisions will come into force on 1 October 2026:
- Sub-rules 6(1), (2), (3), (6) and (7), which deal mainly with communication with parties and procedural obligations in responding to complaints, including requirements relating to the information respondents must provide and how the Adjudicator manages interactions between parties.
- Rule 10, which deals with the Adjudicator’s power to award costs and interest.
- Sub-rule 14(6), which relates to aspects of liaison and reporting between the Adjudicator and regulators, particularly where contraventions of legislation are identified.
Sub-rules 7(1) to 7(5) will come into operation on 1 April 2027. These provisions govern the conciliation and settlement process, including:
- the requirement that the Adjudicator consider whether complaints can be resolved through conciliated settlement;
- the process for making settlement recommendations; and
- how settlement agreements are confirmed or rejected by parties.
Procedural framework for complaint resolution
According to the Ombud Council, the rules are intended to provide clarity on the practical processes governing how the Adjudicator handles complaints.
The rules also formalise several operational practices that have developed over time within the OPFA, reflecting the Council’s view that the framework largely codifies existing processes rather than introducing fundamentally new ones.
Importantly, the rules emphasise that the Adjudicator retains significant procedural discretion when dealing with complaints. Subject to any specific procedures required by legislation, the Adjudicator may follow any process considered appropriate to resolve a complaint, including mediation, conciliation, and investigation.
At the same time, the rules require parties involved in complaints to act professionally and to co-operate with the Adjudicator to facilitate the efficient resolution of disputes.
Encouraging conciliation before determinations
One of the features of the new framework is the encouragement of conciliated settlement before the Adjudicator proceeds to issue a formal determination.
Under the rules, the Adjudicator must, in the first instance and at any stage of the complaint process, consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of resolving the complaint through a conciliated settlement acceptable to all parties.
Where a conciliation process results in a settlement recommendation, the parties are given an opportunity to accept or reject the recommendation within a specified period.
If all parties accept the recommendation, the Adjudicator confirms that the complaint has been resolved through conciliation. If the settlement recommendation is not accepted or the conciliation process fails, the complaint proceeds through the normal determination process.
The Ombud Council has emphasised that conciliation is not mandatory. Rather, it is intended to promote early resolution of disputes where appropriate while preserving the Adjudicator’s ability to issue determinations in cases that cannot be settled.
Summary dismissal of complaints
The rules also introduce clearer provisions governing the dismissal of complaints.
The Adjudicator may summarily dismiss a complaint without further consideration of its merits where, after an initial investigation, it appears that the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success, where the issues raised have already been adequately addressed, or where the complaint is being pursued in a frivolous, vexatious or abusive manner.
In addition, complaints may be dismissed if the matter has already been considered by the Adjudicator.
Where a complaint is summarily dismissed, the Adjudicator must inform the parties of the dismissal and the reasons for the decision within a reasonable period.
Default determinations for non-co-operation
Another procedural mechanism introduced by the rules is the ability to issue default determinations in cases where parties fail to co-operate with the complaint process.
If a party fails to respond within a reasonable time or fails to comply with the procedural requirements of the rules, the Adjudicator may proceed to dispose of the complaint based on the available facts and information. Where appropriate, this may include issuing a default determination as contemplated in the PFA.
The purpose of this provision is to prevent complaint proceedings from being delayed or obstructed by parties that do not respond or provide information when requested.
Costs and interest
The rules also clarify the Adjudicator’s ability to award costs and interest when issuing determinations.
In general, costs may be awarded against a respondent. However, the rules allow the Adjudicator to award costs against a complainant where the complainant’s conduct has been improper or unreasonable, or where it has caused an unreasonable delay in the investigation.
Where costs are awarded, they must be quantified by the Adjudicator with due regard to the nature of the complaint and the time spent dealing with it.
The rules also confirm that interest may be awarded where appropriate.
Communication and procedural fairness
The rules contain several provisions aimed at improving communication between the Adjudicator and the parties to a complaint. For example, financial institutions responding to complaints must ensure that their written replies include:
- contact details for the institution and its internal complaint escalation channels;
- an explanation that the complaint may be lodged with the Adjudicator if the complainant is not satisfied with the response; and
- the contact details of the Adjudicator.
The Adjudicator must also take reasonable steps to inform complainants about the documentation required to support their complaints and the responses received from respondents.
In addition, the Adjudicator may provide parties with a preliminary determination before issuing a final determination, inviting submissions from the parties on why the preliminary determination should not be made final.
Jurisdiction and the scope of complaints
The rules clarify the types of complaints that may be dealt with by the Adjudicator.
Complaints generally include written expressions of dissatisfaction relating to decisions taken, maladministration, or the failure to perform duties by:
- a retirement fund,
- a person administering a retirement fund, or
- an employer participating in a fund.
However, the rules do not extend the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction beyond the scope established by the PFA.
Where a complaint falls outside the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction, the Adjudicator must decline to investigate the complaint and inform the complainant of the reasons for that decision.
If the matter appears to fall within the jurisdiction of another ombud scheme, the Adjudicator must refer the complaint to the relevant scheme and provide the complainant with the necessary contact details.
Consultation feedback highlights industry concerns
The final rules follow a consultation process during which industry stakeholders submitted comments on the draft framework. According to the Ombud Council’s consultation report, submissions were received from the Association for Savings and Investment South Africa, the Institute of Retirement Funds Africa, Old Mutual, and the OPFA itself.
One of the issues raised was whether the rules might inadvertently extend the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction beyond what is permitted under the PFA. Commentators questioned whether certain provisions dealing with the definition of complaints and complainants could expand the scope of matters that may be considered by the Adjudicator.
In response, the Ombud Council emphasised that the rules cannot contradict or expand the jurisdiction created by the PFA. The Adjudicator’s authority remains strictly limited by the statutory framework and inserted an additional provision clarifying that the rules must be interpreted consistently with the Act.
Another theme raised by commentators was the extent to which the rules should anticipate reforms expected under the proposed Conduct of Financial Institutions (COFI) framework. Some stakeholders suggested the rules should align more closely with the anticipated COFI approach to complaint handling, including the possibility of allowing oral complaints or permitting representatives to lodge complaints without demonstrating a direct interest in the matter.
The Ombud Council acknowledged that the regulatory framework may evolve once COFI is enacted. However, it indicated that the rules must remain consistent with the current legislative framework. For example, the PFA currently requires complaints to be submitted in writing and defines complainants in a manner that presupposes a direct interest in the complaint. As a result, the rules retain these requirements.
Submissions also raised questions about the treatment of complaints involving retirement fund administrators. Some commentators argued that administrators should be treated as distinct respondents in the complaint process given their operational role in administering funds.
The Ombud Council noted that the PFA places primary responsibility for fund administration on the fund itself, even where functions are delegated to administrators. The rules therefore do not create a separate category of complaints against administrators, although administrators may be joined as parties to complaints where appropriate.
Another area of concern related to the level of procedural prescription in the rules. Some stakeholders suggested that the framework should include clearer timelines and more detailed procedural steps to provide greater certainty for parties involved in complaints.
The Ombud Council declined to adopt a more prescriptive approach, stating that the Adjudicator requires flexibility to determine appropriate procedures depending on the circumstances of each case. The rules therefore allow the Adjudicator to set time limits where necessary rather than imposing rigid timelines.
Certain provisions dealing with investigations also drew comment. Some stakeholders expressed concern that rules allowing the Adjudicator to engage with parties during investigations or share information between parties might create perceptions that the Adjudicator is assisting one side in presenting its case.
The Council rejected this interpretation, stating that these provisions are intended to facilitate the fair and efficient investigation of complaints and do not undermine the Adjudicator’s independence.
Further comments addressed the proposed powers to summarily dismiss complaints and to issue default determinations where parties fail to cooperate with the complaint process. While commentators generally supported the objective of improving efficiency, some suggested that additional procedural safeguards should be introduced.
The Ombud Council concluded that the proposed safeguards were sufficient and retained the provisions largely unchanged.
Finally, some stakeholders suggested that the rules should allow the Adjudicator to correct clerical or factual errors in determinations after they have been issued. The Council acknowledged that such a mechanism could be useful but indicated that implementing it would require legislative amendments because the Adjudicator becomes functus officio once a final determination has been made.
