Possible plea bargain in Machanik case
Former estate agent Wendy Machanik's case was postponed by the Commercial Crime Court in Johannesburg on Wednesday for a possible plea bargain agreement.
The postponement to May 7 was to allow for negotiations in terms of section 105(a) of the Criminal Procedures Act, which permits a guilty plea in exchange for information, the court heard.
Bail for Machanik and her co-accused Bruce Bernstein was extended. Bernstein was also allowed to have his passport back so he could travel to the United States to see his sick brother.
"The state is in no fear that he is a flight risk," prosecutor Adele Carstens said.
On May 7, a date for confirmation of a plea bargain, if reached, would be set, or if the negotiations failed, a trial date would be set.
The two were arrested last year on charges of conspiracy to commit fraud, failure to keep accounting records and failure to reflect over 100 transfers between the company's trust and business accounts.
The amount involved is around R28 million.
Sapa
Property Law, Property Developments and related Real Estate thoughts. www.prop-law.co.za
About Me
- Gareth Shepperson
- Pretoria, Gauteng Province, South Africa
- Property Lawyer & Conveyancer ... Lover of Life in general!! www.prop-law.co.za In this Blog we have always brought you the latest PROPERTY NEWS but now we will also bring you a Q & A SECTION, where we answer readers questions. Please e-mail your questions to gareth@propertylaw.onmicrosoft.com (The information contained in this Blog does NOT constitute legal advice. If you require legal advice, you are very welcome to contact me.)
15 March 2012
14 March 2012
Implications of the Consumer Protection Act on property
Implications of the Consumer Protection Act on property
A tidal wave of press comment on the implications of the new Consumer Protection Act has hit the media in recent months - and among those most concerned about it are South Africa's estate agents and their principals.
For this reason Gunston Attorneys' Commercial Director, Trudie Broekmann, has investigated the impact of the act on estate agents' mandates.
In terms of the act, said Broekmann, the mandated estate agent supplies services and possibly, goods, to the principal, as well as to the potential purchaser, tenant or even seller, where the agent was mandated to find a property for a purchaser to buy. The agent is consequently a 'supplier' as defined in the act, and in that role, needs to ensure that he or she complies with the many relevant provisions of the act when interacting with buyers, sellers and tenants.
"The mandate deals with the relationship between the agent and the principal, and may not contravene the act. In addition," said Broekmann, "it can and should also be used to protect the agent against some of the most onerous legal risks in the act."
The new act, she added, is aimed primarily at protecting individuals and vulnerable consumers. For this reason it will only apply fully to a transaction where the purchaser is a juristic person (defined to include a company, close corporation, trust, association, partnership and body corporate) which has assets and turnover below R2 million, or an individual or individuals. The financial position of the purchaser entity at the time of concluding the agreement is relevant, as well as the position as at date of transfer.
A big question now, said Broekmann, is what estate agents can do to protect themselves under the new legal conditions. This, she said, is necessary because the act contains several 'radical' provisions to protect consumers which did not previously form part of South Africa's body of legislation. The first of these provisions is that, unless both seller and agent are juristic persons, the seller now has the right to cancel the mandate he has signed at any time (even one day after signing) provided he gives 20 business days' written notice to the agent. This right overrides any period signed for in the mandate document. The agent can provide for a cancellation penalty in the mandate, but it must comply with the principles in the regulations to the Consumer Protection Act.
As it now stands, added Broekmann, the act also appears to have the effect that a mandate is automatically renewed on its expiry, so that it runs on a month-to-month basis. Redrafting of mandate agreements will, therefore, said Broekmann, be necessary to resolve the uncertainties here and ensure that mandates can effectively come to an end at the time agreed between the agent and the principal.
Equally radical, said Broekmann, is section 48 of the act which stipulates that all prices and terms affecting the consumer have to be fair, reasonable and just. "This wording," said Broekmann, "is obviously hard to interpret in a particular factual situation, and it is still too early to know how the National Consumer Tribunal will interpret it."
Giving an example, Broekmann said that until now estate agents have sometimes been able to claim commission on signed sales agreements negotiated by them where, through no fault of theirs, the sale did not materialise, e.g. if the buyer absconded. This practice will now in all probability be deemed unfair to the consumer (the seller). An unfair, unreasonable or unjust clause is void, and in certain cases, can mean the entire contract becomes void.
Similarly, said Broekmann, when an agent even in these difficult times is able to sell a very high priced property in a very short space of time the Tribunal (if appealed to) might judge that the agreed commission was not fair, reasonable or just, as it was too easily earned and could authorise a reduction in it. It has to be understood, said Broekmann, that the act will supersede written agreements.
Yet another radical section in the act, said Broekmann, imposes a duty on the supplier (the agent) to draw to the attention of the consumer (usually the seller) 'in a conspicuous manner' and before the agreement is signed any condition which limits the liability of the supplier or imposes a risk or liability on the consumer. Furthermore, the consumer has to sign or initial the condition to show his or her assent.
Section 22 of the act stipulates that estate agents' mandates (as well as all other relevant documents) must be written in 'plain' language so that a consumer with 'average literacy skills' and minimal experience in selling property can be expected to understand it 'without undue effort'.
"These provisions of the act," said Broekmann, "necessitate careful redrafting and layout of agreements and the setting up of a watertight procedure to be followed by the agent before a consumer is asked to sign."
Broekmann added that any statement, whether made verbally or in the course of direct marketing or in any marketing literature, has to be totally free of statements that could be deemed to be misleading. If it can be shown later that the buyer was misled in any way, or even that the agent made a statement without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true, then not only can the agent be held responsible, but also possibly the seller, and the penalties for breach of the act are severe. Broekmann recommends that principals insist that an indemnity in their favour is included in the mandate, in case the agent contravenes the act.
The act stipulates that the agent has to provide a written sales record (which complies with section 26 of the act) to every consumer to whom he or she has provided services or goods. This record would include such details as the agent's full name, VAT registration number, if any, their address, the dates on which the agreement was concluded and the services were rendered or goods supplied, a description of the goods or services and the price.
The agent's services will now also have to comply with certain 'warranties of quality'. Here the act calls for the 'timely performance and completion of services' as well as 'timely notice of any unavoidable delay in the performance of these services'. It also stipulates that the manner and the quality of these services should be what the consumer is 'entitled to expect'.
"An interesting aspect of this section," said Broekmann, "is that a demanding seller might read it as giving him the right to complain to the National Consumer Commission if a sale does not materialise or if the sale takes too long. This would be a difficult proposition to defend - but it is a possibility."
Just how serious non-compliance with the act might be is shown by the penalties that the Tribunal is entitled to impose. These can amount to 10% of the agency's annual turnover in its previous financial year or R1 million, whichever is greater.
Furthermore, section 113 of the act provides that the principal is 'jointly and severally' liable for the misdemeanours of his estate agents. This is yet another reason why Broekmann recommends that principals insist on an indemnity before signing a mandate.
"Estate agents, for their part," she said, "must familiarise themselves with the act, have their documents redrafted by a consumer law expert and take professional advice if they want to avoid landing themselves in serious difficulties."
Gunston Attorneys Press Release
A tidal wave of press comment on the implications of the new Consumer Protection Act has hit the media in recent months - and among those most concerned about it are South Africa's estate agents and their principals.
For this reason Gunston Attorneys' Commercial Director, Trudie Broekmann, has investigated the impact of the act on estate agents' mandates.
In terms of the act, said Broekmann, the mandated estate agent supplies services and possibly, goods, to the principal, as well as to the potential purchaser, tenant or even seller, where the agent was mandated to find a property for a purchaser to buy. The agent is consequently a 'supplier' as defined in the act, and in that role, needs to ensure that he or she complies with the many relevant provisions of the act when interacting with buyers, sellers and tenants.
"The mandate deals with the relationship between the agent and the principal, and may not contravene the act. In addition," said Broekmann, "it can and should also be used to protect the agent against some of the most onerous legal risks in the act."
The new act, she added, is aimed primarily at protecting individuals and vulnerable consumers. For this reason it will only apply fully to a transaction where the purchaser is a juristic person (defined to include a company, close corporation, trust, association, partnership and body corporate) which has assets and turnover below R2 million, or an individual or individuals. The financial position of the purchaser entity at the time of concluding the agreement is relevant, as well as the position as at date of transfer.
A big question now, said Broekmann, is what estate agents can do to protect themselves under the new legal conditions. This, she said, is necessary because the act contains several 'radical' provisions to protect consumers which did not previously form part of South Africa's body of legislation. The first of these provisions is that, unless both seller and agent are juristic persons, the seller now has the right to cancel the mandate he has signed at any time (even one day after signing) provided he gives 20 business days' written notice to the agent. This right overrides any period signed for in the mandate document. The agent can provide for a cancellation penalty in the mandate, but it must comply with the principles in the regulations to the Consumer Protection Act.
As it now stands, added Broekmann, the act also appears to have the effect that a mandate is automatically renewed on its expiry, so that it runs on a month-to-month basis. Redrafting of mandate agreements will, therefore, said Broekmann, be necessary to resolve the uncertainties here and ensure that mandates can effectively come to an end at the time agreed between the agent and the principal.
Equally radical, said Broekmann, is section 48 of the act which stipulates that all prices and terms affecting the consumer have to be fair, reasonable and just. "This wording," said Broekmann, "is obviously hard to interpret in a particular factual situation, and it is still too early to know how the National Consumer Tribunal will interpret it."
Giving an example, Broekmann said that until now estate agents have sometimes been able to claim commission on signed sales agreements negotiated by them where, through no fault of theirs, the sale did not materialise, e.g. if the buyer absconded. This practice will now in all probability be deemed unfair to the consumer (the seller). An unfair, unreasonable or unjust clause is void, and in certain cases, can mean the entire contract becomes void.
Similarly, said Broekmann, when an agent even in these difficult times is able to sell a very high priced property in a very short space of time the Tribunal (if appealed to) might judge that the agreed commission was not fair, reasonable or just, as it was too easily earned and could authorise a reduction in it. It has to be understood, said Broekmann, that the act will supersede written agreements.
Yet another radical section in the act, said Broekmann, imposes a duty on the supplier (the agent) to draw to the attention of the consumer (usually the seller) 'in a conspicuous manner' and before the agreement is signed any condition which limits the liability of the supplier or imposes a risk or liability on the consumer. Furthermore, the consumer has to sign or initial the condition to show his or her assent.
Section 22 of the act stipulates that estate agents' mandates (as well as all other relevant documents) must be written in 'plain' language so that a consumer with 'average literacy skills' and minimal experience in selling property can be expected to understand it 'without undue effort'.
"These provisions of the act," said Broekmann, "necessitate careful redrafting and layout of agreements and the setting up of a watertight procedure to be followed by the agent before a consumer is asked to sign."
Broekmann added that any statement, whether made verbally or in the course of direct marketing or in any marketing literature, has to be totally free of statements that could be deemed to be misleading. If it can be shown later that the buyer was misled in any way, or even that the agent made a statement without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true, then not only can the agent be held responsible, but also possibly the seller, and the penalties for breach of the act are severe. Broekmann recommends that principals insist that an indemnity in their favour is included in the mandate, in case the agent contravenes the act.
The act stipulates that the agent has to provide a written sales record (which complies with section 26 of the act) to every consumer to whom he or she has provided services or goods. This record would include such details as the agent's full name, VAT registration number, if any, their address, the dates on which the agreement was concluded and the services were rendered or goods supplied, a description of the goods or services and the price.
The agent's services will now also have to comply with certain 'warranties of quality'. Here the act calls for the 'timely performance and completion of services' as well as 'timely notice of any unavoidable delay in the performance of these services'. It also stipulates that the manner and the quality of these services should be what the consumer is 'entitled to expect'.
"An interesting aspect of this section," said Broekmann, "is that a demanding seller might read it as giving him the right to complain to the National Consumer Commission if a sale does not materialise or if the sale takes too long. This would be a difficult proposition to defend - but it is a possibility."
Just how serious non-compliance with the act might be is shown by the penalties that the Tribunal is entitled to impose. These can amount to 10% of the agency's annual turnover in its previous financial year or R1 million, whichever is greater.
Furthermore, section 113 of the act provides that the principal is 'jointly and severally' liable for the misdemeanours of his estate agents. This is yet another reason why Broekmann recommends that principals insist on an indemnity before signing a mandate.
"Estate agents, for their part," she said, "must familiarise themselves with the act, have their documents redrafted by a consumer law expert and take professional advice if they want to avoid landing themselves in serious difficulties."
Gunston Attorneys Press Release
| Reactions: |
Concourt sends tenants in lease row to tribunal
Concourt sends tenants in lease row to tribunal
A group of tenants whose leases were cancelled to make way for more expensive apartments must take the matter back to the Gauteng Rental Housing Tribunal, the Constitutional Court has ruled.
"The tribunal is empowered to determine whether a landlord committed an 'unfair practice', and it might accordingly rule in the tenants' favour," said Justice Edwin Cameron.
Aengus Lifestyle Properties, which specialises in buying old Joburg buildings and revamping them into modern apartments, had given notice to tenants of Lowliebenhof, Braamfontein, leases.
Aengus wanted to revamp the building so it offered the tenants alternative accommodation, with the option to stay on but paying higher rent.
The tenants lodged a complaint with the tribunal, a body established under the Rental Housing Act, but mediation was unsuccessful.
When the landlord brought eviction proceedings against them in the High Court in Joburg, they withdrew their case and challenged their eviction.
Cameron, reading the majority judgment, said when the matter was escalated to the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal, those courts found the Rental Housing Act did not apply and that the landlord was entitled to terminate the leases with written notice.
However, the Concourt found the two previous courts failed to give adequate weight to the act and that the landlord's conduct may have amounted to an unfair practice. The tenants had not withdrawn their complaint of unfair practices, and so that complaint and any other the landlord might have about the rental rate should be considered by the tribunal.
The court gave the tenants until May 2 to lodge a complaint with the tribunal.
Pretoria News
A group of tenants whose leases were cancelled to make way for more expensive apartments must take the matter back to the Gauteng Rental Housing Tribunal, the Constitutional Court has ruled.
"The tribunal is empowered to determine whether a landlord committed an 'unfair practice', and it might accordingly rule in the tenants' favour," said Justice Edwin Cameron.
Aengus Lifestyle Properties, which specialises in buying old Joburg buildings and revamping them into modern apartments, had given notice to tenants of Lowliebenhof, Braamfontein, leases.
Aengus wanted to revamp the building so it offered the tenants alternative accommodation, with the option to stay on but paying higher rent.
The tenants lodged a complaint with the tribunal, a body established under the Rental Housing Act, but mediation was unsuccessful.
When the landlord brought eviction proceedings against them in the High Court in Joburg, they withdrew their case and challenged their eviction.
Cameron, reading the majority judgment, said when the matter was escalated to the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal, those courts found the Rental Housing Act did not apply and that the landlord was entitled to terminate the leases with written notice.
However, the Concourt found the two previous courts failed to give adequate weight to the act and that the landlord's conduct may have amounted to an unfair practice. The tenants had not withdrawn their complaint of unfair practices, and so that complaint and any other the landlord might have about the rental rate should be considered by the tribunal.
The court gave the tenants until May 2 to lodge a complaint with the tribunal.
Pretoria News
| Reactions: |
13 March 2012
Joburg residents complain about illegal buildings and land use
Joburg residents complain about illegal buildings and land use
The lack of by-law enforcement, especially around illegal buildings and land use, is the main concern for residents living in Joburg's Region B, which covers Sandton and Alexandra.
At a mayoral roadshow held to hear residents' main concerns in their area, the issue of the flagrant disregard for building regulations by property owners came to the fore.
Residents of suburbs such as Riverpark in Alexandra and Orange Grove complained that nothing was being done about illegal buildings and the erection of shacks.
Riverpark residents said the number of shacks going up in the area was of concern because it was leading to overcrowding and illegal land use.
There were also no toilet facilities, which was leading to shack dwellers using the Jukskei River for their ablutions.
In suburbs such as Lombardy East, property owners were building back rooms and renting them out at a handsome profit.
In one case, a court order was obtained for the demolition of the rooms, but this was ignored by the owner, who simply continues renting out the rooms.
Other areas of concern that Alex residents raised were: the lack of an integrated master plan for Alex; failure to manage and allocate housing; basic service delivery issues such as water leakages, dumping, littering and illegal connections; uncontrolled land invasion; the ratio of toilets versus the number of people who use them, and dilapidated sewerage infrastructure; rodent control; and illegal dumping.
In the wider Region E areas, ineffective law enforcement was the main gripe.
The invasion and overcrowding of abandoned houses that were leading to unhealthy living conditions; illegal activities; incorrect billing; the inability of people's centres and the Joburg Connect centre to assist residents in resolving their queries; neglected provincial and councilowned property; and vagrancy were the main issues. City of Joburg member of the mayoral committee for finance Geoff Makhubu addressed the gathering, standing in for mayor Parks Tau.
He said all the concerns would be conveyed to the relevant departments.
Makhubu expressed concern at the high number of residents complaining about the lack of building by-law enforcement.
"I can see how widespread this problem is - it cuts across all areas," he said.
The Star
The lack of by-law enforcement, especially around illegal buildings and land use, is the main concern for residents living in Joburg's Region B, which covers Sandton and Alexandra.
At a mayoral roadshow held to hear residents' main concerns in their area, the issue of the flagrant disregard for building regulations by property owners came to the fore.
Residents of suburbs such as Riverpark in Alexandra and Orange Grove complained that nothing was being done about illegal buildings and the erection of shacks.
Riverpark residents said the number of shacks going up in the area was of concern because it was leading to overcrowding and illegal land use.
There were also no toilet facilities, which was leading to shack dwellers using the Jukskei River for their ablutions.
In suburbs such as Lombardy East, property owners were building back rooms and renting them out at a handsome profit.
In one case, a court order was obtained for the demolition of the rooms, but this was ignored by the owner, who simply continues renting out the rooms.
Other areas of concern that Alex residents raised were: the lack of an integrated master plan for Alex; failure to manage and allocate housing; basic service delivery issues such as water leakages, dumping, littering and illegal connections; uncontrolled land invasion; the ratio of toilets versus the number of people who use them, and dilapidated sewerage infrastructure; rodent control; and illegal dumping.
In the wider Region E areas, ineffective law enforcement was the main gripe.
The invasion and overcrowding of abandoned houses that were leading to unhealthy living conditions; illegal activities; incorrect billing; the inability of people's centres and the Joburg Connect centre to assist residents in resolving their queries; neglected provincial and councilowned property; and vagrancy were the main issues. City of Joburg member of the mayoral committee for finance Geoff Makhubu addressed the gathering, standing in for mayor Parks Tau.
He said all the concerns would be conveyed to the relevant departments.
Makhubu expressed concern at the high number of residents complaining about the lack of building by-law enforcement.
"I can see how widespread this problem is - it cuts across all areas," he said.
The Star
| Reactions: |
12 March 2012
Building index climbs most in nine months
Building index climbs most in nine months
"Investors are seeing opportunity" – analyst.
Construction-stocks gauge rose the most in nine months on expectations that the outlook for the industry is improving.
The ten-member FTSE/JSE Africa Construction & Building Materials index climbed 2,5% to 44,81 at the close in Johannesburg, its biggest increase since June 7. Pretoria Portland Cement Co led gains.
“The construction sector may have bottomed” after the index fell 26% last year, Henre Herselman, a derivatives trader at Nedbank Group’s BoE Stockbrokers in Johannesburg, said by phone. “Investors are seeing opportunity.”
President Jacob Zuma announced plans for a “massive” infrastructure drive in his February 9 state-of-the-nation speech to help spur investment and support growth in the continent’s biggest economy. The Treasury allocated R844,5 billion to telecommunications, energy, transportation, housing and water projects in the three years through March 2015.
Pretoria Portland Cement, South Africa’s biggest cement producer, rallied 4,1% to R31,35, bringing its gain this year to 14%. Murray & Roberts Holdings, the second-largest construction company, rose 3% to R29,25. Group Five added 1,7% to R27,72 rand while Aveng advanced 1,9% to R36,70.
"Investors are seeing opportunity" – analyst.
Construction-stocks gauge rose the most in nine months on expectations that the outlook for the industry is improving.
The ten-member FTSE/JSE Africa Construction & Building Materials index climbed 2,5% to 44,81 at the close in Johannesburg, its biggest increase since June 7. Pretoria Portland Cement Co led gains.
“The construction sector may have bottomed” after the index fell 26% last year, Henre Herselman, a derivatives trader at Nedbank Group’s BoE Stockbrokers in Johannesburg, said by phone. “Investors are seeing opportunity.”
President Jacob Zuma announced plans for a “massive” infrastructure drive in his February 9 state-of-the-nation speech to help spur investment and support growth in the continent’s biggest economy. The Treasury allocated R844,5 billion to telecommunications, energy, transportation, housing and water projects in the three years through March 2015.
Pretoria Portland Cement, South Africa’s biggest cement producer, rallied 4,1% to R31,35, bringing its gain this year to 14%. Murray & Roberts Holdings, the second-largest construction company, rose 3% to R29,25. Group Five added 1,7% to R27,72 rand while Aveng advanced 1,9% to R36,70.
| Reactions: |
Sapoa mulls court action on surcharge
Sapoa mulls court action on surcharge
The South African Property Owners Association (Sapoa) is on the verge of taking the eThekwini Municipality to the High Court in a legal effort to have the development surcharges that are being levied against property developers declared illegal and thus withdrawn from implementation.
Developers of commercial and multi-unit residential property are having to shell out for this development fee, which the municipality says is a surcharge for infrastructure, as well as the traditional development charges for new projects. This is affecting the feasibility of such developments as well as making the cost of buying property in the Durban area extremely high.
In November 2010, Sapoa made written representations to the municipality on what were then its 2010/11 tariffs, which included a development surcharge.
Sapoa says the surcharge is indistinguishable from the development charge proposed in the draft policy. When this was repeated in the 2011/2012 tariffs, Sapoa took a stand on the matter, and is in the process of challenging the legality of what was described in the draft policy as a "development charge".
"Notwithstanding what Sapoa considers to be the illegality of the development surcharges, a review conducted on its behalf shows that the inclusion of a development surcharge tariff, unique to ethekwini, makes i t the most expensive municipality in which to undertake a number of types of commercial development," says Sapoa's legal services manager, Portia Matsane.
The review tracked the municipal tariffs associated with four development scenarios, namely residential, regional retail centres, commercial office blocks and large industrial factories.
"This represents a significant challenge in the city's efforts to attract new investment and development. If the surcharge is not included in ethekwini's tariff structure, the municipal area compares very favourably to the other major metropolitan areas and also compares favourably from the point of view of consumption charges," Matsane says.
Sapoa believes that negotiations with government and organs of state on key policy issues affecting property developers and owners will be critical in improving property development in SA, as there are many and varied stakeholders that are key players in the property sector.
Sapoa says in the past it has engaged constructively with ethekwini Municipality on many issues, trying to foster the best interests of both the municipality and developers, and to find solutions to the challenges of infrastructure investment.
"We are doing so now in relation to the draft development charges policy, and remain willing to do so in the future," says Matsane.
"The decision to pursue litigation against the municipality has, however, been forced upon us by the unlawful nature of the surcharge, its major financial implications for development, and the fact that, contrary to past practice, the municipality has not at any stage consulted or engaged with Sapoa or the broader development community on its imposition."
Call Matsane on 011 883 0679.
Weekend Argus (Sunday Edition)
The South African Property Owners Association (Sapoa) is on the verge of taking the eThekwini Municipality to the High Court in a legal effort to have the development surcharges that are being levied against property developers declared illegal and thus withdrawn from implementation.
Developers of commercial and multi-unit residential property are having to shell out for this development fee, which the municipality says is a surcharge for infrastructure, as well as the traditional development charges for new projects. This is affecting the feasibility of such developments as well as making the cost of buying property in the Durban area extremely high.
In November 2010, Sapoa made written representations to the municipality on what were then its 2010/11 tariffs, which included a development surcharge.
Sapoa says the surcharge is indistinguishable from the development charge proposed in the draft policy. When this was repeated in the 2011/2012 tariffs, Sapoa took a stand on the matter, and is in the process of challenging the legality of what was described in the draft policy as a "development charge".
"Notwithstanding what Sapoa considers to be the illegality of the development surcharges, a review conducted on its behalf shows that the inclusion of a development surcharge tariff, unique to ethekwini, makes i t the most expensive municipality in which to undertake a number of types of commercial development," says Sapoa's legal services manager, Portia Matsane.
The review tracked the municipal tariffs associated with four development scenarios, namely residential, regional retail centres, commercial office blocks and large industrial factories.
"This represents a significant challenge in the city's efforts to attract new investment and development. If the surcharge is not included in ethekwini's tariff structure, the municipal area compares very favourably to the other major metropolitan areas and also compares favourably from the point of view of consumption charges," Matsane says.
Sapoa believes that negotiations with government and organs of state on key policy issues affecting property developers and owners will be critical in improving property development in SA, as there are many and varied stakeholders that are key players in the property sector.
Sapoa says in the past it has engaged constructively with ethekwini Municipality on many issues, trying to foster the best interests of both the municipality and developers, and to find solutions to the challenges of infrastructure investment.
"We are doing so now in relation to the draft development charges policy, and remain willing to do so in the future," says Matsane.
"The decision to pursue litigation against the municipality has, however, been forced upon us by the unlawful nature of the surcharge, its major financial implications for development, and the fact that, contrary to past practice, the municipality has not at any stage consulted or engaged with Sapoa or the broader development community on its imposition."
Call Matsane on 011 883 0679.
Weekend Argus (Sunday Edition)
| Reactions: |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)