“Our quote had my daughter listed correctly by name but in the adult category from the wrong month. The audit report put the application date, birthday threshold and quoted line beside each other, so the administrator could answer without another long explanation.”
— Priya S., dependant status check
“The review took a day longer than I expected because my signed application was missing. That was mildly frustrating, but refusing to guess was ultimately useful. Once I found the right version, the income-band difference became clear.”
— Willem K., household application audit
“We had treated every variance as a payroll error. The sample reconciliation showed two timing differences, one subsidy-cap issue and one member record that genuinely needed correction.”
— HR manager, 86-member Cape Town group
Case note: from a blended amount to four traceable lines
An employee’s scheme invoice and payslip differed for three consecutive months after a dependant was added. The initial complaint referred only to the total deduction. We reconstructed each month as gross scheme contribution, fixed employer allowance, expected employee share and actual deduction.
The first variance came from payroll cut-off timing. The second included a catch-up entry. The remaining difference traced to an effective date recorded one month earlier on the scheme invoice than on the employer amendment. Our memorandum did not decide which date should prevail; it gave HR and the administrator a shared schedule on which to resolve it.
Case note: quote comparison with a hidden date difference
A couple received two quotations that appeared to cover the same option and household. Aligning the documents showed that one used the current contribution schedule and the other a schedule effective the following January. Once dated correctly, the apparent discrepancy was no longer evidence of a capture error. The client took the benefit comparison back to their registered adviser with the price basis understood.