[ad_1]
The Rancagua Court of Appeals declared admissible the protection appeal filed by an affiliate against the AFP Capital, after he denied delivery of the 10% of your pension savings.
This is the case that affects an affiliate, who requested identity reservation, which turned to her insurer to request the withdrawal of part of her pension savings, after being unemployed.
However, after completing the procedure, the AFP denied the delivery of his money, assuring that it appeared in the records of the Judiciary.
Let us remember that as approved in Congress, the only reason to deny the delivery of the money would be a alimony debt, question that would not be the case this time.
The latter because according to her background, although the woman has two causes of divorce with her ex-husband -with whom she had no children-, there is no court order to withhold money.
Finally, and in view of the refusal of AFP Capital, the affected party filed an appeal for protection before the Rancagua Court of Appeals.
The case is already being processed in the courts, in fact the appellate court dispatched an official letter to the AFP to issue a report within 10 days.
According to the woman’s lawyer, Roberto Mella Olivos, This situation is very complicated because it depends on that money to survive. And although she has a job, it is temporary, to which are also added the expenses for the labor lawsuit she maintains.
“This contributor was unjustifiably denied her 10% withdrawal, alleging the AFP that it would be informed by the Judicial Power. Reviewing her background, we were able to verify that she only has two causes related to divorces by mutual agreement, but in no case is it related to alimony ”, says the lawyer.
“In fact, after reviewing the two causes, there is no current order regarding withholdings of 10%,” he insisted.
The “mistake” of AFP Capital
“The AFP was absolutely wrong. And without a doubt it violated the property right of my client by not being able to receive its 10%, which is a benefit granted by the State to all contributors to be able to alleviate the negative effects of the pandemic ”, Mella said.
“She is very affected from the psychological point of view, especially because she has a pending labor lawsuit for a labor protection that has not yet been resolved. She has many expenses and very little income, she works sporadically and unfortunately she does not have access to other benefits such as bonuses or emergency family income and the only option that she had been able to resort to was 10%, ”said the lawyer.
In this sense, Mella appreciated the decision of the appeal court to declare the protection appeal admissible, although obviously it is only the first step.
“The fact that the Court has declared the appeal admissible is an important step, because the true triumph will occur once the final judgment is issued regarding the appeal, where we hope it will order the AFP without further formalities to pay the corresponding 10%”, sentenced.
Lawyer called to appeal to Justice
Finally, the lawyer called on the members who are suffering from this problem to present actions before the Justice.
“People who are in a similar situation or parents who are up to date in compliance with alimony and who have also been withheld 10%, also have this possibility of resorting to protection,” he said.
“The most important thing is to protect people’s rights and for that there are courts of law, even more so in situations as exceptional as the one we find ourselves in, considering that it is a direct benefit for users,” he concluded.
[ad_2]
