Homeowners want recourse on their houses

Olive Tree Estate homeowners are not impressed by the developer, Calgro M3 Developments Limited after they detected many defects in the newly-built houses in Klipriviersberg Estate, South Hills.

They are livid because they were threatened with court orders whenever they attempted to raise these issues with the developer. Even now, they have an order from the High Court in the Gauteng Local Division dated June 13.

The Southern Courier met with the homeowners on June 19. The director of trustees in the estate, Phathutshedzo Muhali, represented them.

Muhali said they were sold a dummy.

“Most of the things promised when buying these houses are not here. We are supposed to have two entrances – for residents and visitors. However, we have only one gate. The pedestrian gate is not where it is supposed to be and does not come with a biometric system as promised.

“In our signed contracts, the developers said we would have smart meter gas (pre-paid gas). We found two 19kg cylinders we never asked for. Remember, we have insurance and they will never pay (God forbid) if we have a fire because cylinders are not in the contract.

“There is no private park, as promised. This neighbourhood is dangerous and people are being mugged outside the estate. Where is our private park?

“Our expectation versus reality are two different scenarios,” she said.

She said most houses have cracks. They called on an independent expert to evaluate their homes.

“Calgro M3 will fix the cracks and in a matter of days they will reappear. Our property value is depreciating. It seems the cause of the cracks is the land is not conducive for houses built in five days. Where have you seen a house built in a week? We have been here less than a year, however, it feels like we are living in shacks.

“The price we are paying doesn’t match the service we are getting. Most things are broken. I am sure they used inexperienced contractors. They hired locals who are not experts in this field because they wanted to pay them cheap rates.

“We are in this mess because they cut corners and when we complain, we are being intimidated. This site was advertised as an estate, but it is a township. When we query this, we are told we are interfering.

“Everything is a mess. Even the boundary wall is weak and can easily be tampered with. There is a lot of political meddling, and even if you want to open a case at the police because of people trespassing, you cannot do it,” she said.

Muhali also mentioned that Calgro M3 lied to them as some houses are not what they are on the building plans.

“There is a 46m² house, sold as a 51m². There are four mirrored houses here. They used matte instead of glossy paint inside our houses.

“The developers told us every house would have an olive tree, but they gave us indigenous trees instead.

“People paid over R1m for these matchbox houses. We demanded to speak to the bosses of Calgro M3 to sort out the mess. We also proposed that each house gets R300 000 back because we are forever fixing these houses. We overpaid them,” she noted.

Ward 57 Clr Faeeza Chame, also present, said these people deserve better.

“I have been into some of these houses. Their bathrooms are leaking, and when they fix a crack, they use different paint from the original. Some of these contractors are not qualified, hence these results.

“How can you tell the people to move in when you have not finished, as happened at one house?”

Response for the managing director of Calgro M3 Developments, Allistiar Langson:

“Olive Tree Estate forms part of the South Hills integrated development, consisting of a vast number of units. Olive Tree Estate forms a small part of this bigger development and will eventually consist of 125 free-standing houses.

Of these houses, 100 have been completed, 15 are under construction and the 10 last housing packages have been sold, with construction commencing soon.

“The Estate is, and remains, our development until the last of the houses have been constructed.

“Certain of the residents within Olive Tree have become displeased with Calgro as we are not willing to comply with unreasonable requests, though we have agreed to provide, at our costs, certain further features and amenities which were not initially on the specifications of the agreement of sale.

“These displeased residents have now unilaterally and illegally taken over the access control of the estate. They locked our builders and employees out of the estate, stating that until we meet their demands, we cannot have access to our erven to complete the construction of the houses.”

Langson said the Calgro team has been attending to the residents’ concerns on an ongoing basis. Since the beginning of the year, the team has engaged with the homeowners association (HOA) on a more regular, even weekly, basis to address their issues and concerns.

1. Many defects detected in the newly built houses

• The Calgro Development managers together with members of the HOA reviewed the defect lists and inspected each house.

• We attended to all defects, inspected them and signed them off in the presence of the owner and HOA representatives.

• Issues started to arise whereby the HOA started intimidating contractors on the quality of work and what they expected of them. This resulted in arguments and accusations between local contractors and the HOA. The HOA decided to unilaterally ‘ban’ certain contractors from the estate – ones they did not get along with or trusted.

This is illegal and cannot fall within the ambit of the HOA as the construction work relates to houses built for new owners and has nothing to do with the HOA. The Calgro team notified them on various occasions that they were interfering with our duties to resolve the defects. Eventually, even our construction manager was ‘banned’ by the HOA from our own building sites.

2. Residents threatened with court orders

• This statement is incorrect. The team has engaged with the HOA regularly and even weekly to address their issues and concerns. The court order dealt with it was obtained as a last resort and has not prevented some residents from acting illegally.

3. Sold a dummy as most of the promised items were not there

• The initial sales were done with a paper bark show unit. New buyers were advised to rather buy units at Olive Tree as they will be at a higher specification and in a secure estate. A luxurious, safe estate is mentioned on the website.

• Residents are referring to the tenders done for the gatehouse. I do not have a copy of that. It was also on a billboard at the site entrance.

• We issued correspondence in June last year about the gatehouse changes, but we received very few responses. After follow-ups, the agents spoke to the clients and confirmed there were no issues.

• The changes to the gatehouse were a result of restrictions enforced by Rand Water in the crossing of their servitude immediately outside of the estate and are not something that is within our control.

• An alternative gatehouse proposal was submitted for final approval to the HOA at the beginning of April. It was approved that the revised layout includes two entrances and one exit lane, with a new entrance canopy. The pedestrian gate moved to be in view of the guardhouse. We provided new sliding gates and biometric access/ boom gates.

• We are waiting for City Power approval. All of this depends on moving the sub-station located adjacent to the entrance.

• Biometric system – the website only refers to security access.

• The estate was completely enclosed with a ClearVue fence from the onset. On request of the HOA and after meetings, we agreed, at our expense, to erect a brick-and-mortar perimeter wall around the estate at an additional cost to Calgro of over R2m. This was not an agreed spec in the sale of the houses. This is indicative of Calgro’s goodwill in resolving concerns/issues from the residents.

4. Issues with smart meter gas (pre-paid gas)

• We informed the residents in writing, explaining why it is not possible to provide this service as there is no bulk gas storage provision for Olive Tree and is, as such, an impossibility.

• About the insurance, the gas cylinders are installed as per SANS requirements. Issued with the necessary Certificates of Compliance, relates to insurance compliance.

5. Promised private

• An area of 6 765m² has been allocated as the private park play area.

6. Cracks in most houses which re-appear after being fixed

• Defects were addressed as per the defects list received from residents.

• None of the cracks reported and/or inspected related to structural cracks. All cracks related to the settlement of the houses, which is a natural occurrence and were attended to and repaired.

• The majority of the cracks reported were along vertical control joints provided in the kitchen/lounge and bathroom adjoining wall areas and concrete stock bricks/clay face brick interface. Cracks are, as they should, forming along this joint due to settlement and movement.

• We have no further reports of cracks re-appearing. At one house the defects were not attended to properly, and we have made alternative arrangements to repair it.

7. Houses built in a week

• We are not sure where this information comes from. The construction period for a single-storey house is 14 weeks.

• Foundations are inspected and signed off by a structural engineer, designed to accommodate soil conditions on site.

8. This site was advertised as an estate, however, it is a township

• Clarification on this matter was provided in a letter dated January 27. The township is the general term used in town planning matters. All neighbourhoods are part of a specific township.

• We also provided them with input on how to establish an ‘estate’, which the HOA has done

9. Weak boundary wall

• We assume this reference is to the ClearVue fencing provided. As stated, we are busy replacing the fencing with a 230mm thick face brick boundary wall, which we were under no obligation to do. This fence is at 45% completion, but the progress on the wall is being delayed by residents.

10. Other houses are not what they are on the building plans, there are also mirrored houses

• That house is a separate matter with an independent expert report. The house sold was 46m2 and the price paid was for a 46m2 house.

• We have reviewed accusations of mirrored houses, and plans single are a match to the house constructed on erf.

11. Matte vs glossy paint and trees issue

• The specifications sheet indicates there is no clear provided for the internal walls.

• Reference made to high gloss enamel is a compliance reference only. The contractors used the paint specification originally used by our initial contractor.

• In the specification sheet no reference was made to Olive Trees.

• We planted olive trees at the entrance gate. Residents want olive trees because of the estate name.

Additional contributions from Calgro over and above what was contractually obliged to deliver:

• The ClearVue fencing was replaced by a brick-and-mortar fence, at great expense to Calgro – an improvement on the original specifications.

• We have provided additional paving to all houses – from paved parking to the back door – in addition to the specifications agreed to.

• Paving was also provided to all gas bottle cages, which was not in the original specifications.

• A portion of indigenous trees allocated to the site was changed to olive trees.

• Roads and vacant sites cleared and cleaned every month, should be an HOA function.

• The area outside in front of the gatehouse is maintained by Calgro and the security is still paid fully by Calgro even if the HOA should contribute.

• We provided additional trees provided to pavements.