Resident questions developer
"All I want is a refund on the money I put down, with interest," she said.
A Greenstone house buyer parted with R4 000 in what was going to be her dream home.
60-year-old Ms Faye Mortassagne approached estate agent Mrs Sharon Roux early in 2012, hoping to buy herself a unit in the new Highcrest development.
“When I went into the area, there was a caravan on-site with big boards indicating that the units were on sale,” said Ms Mortassagne.
“After being told phase one was sold out, I told her I wanted to buy number 76 in phase two, which had one bedroom and one bathroom and was three levels up,” she said.
According to ms Mortassagne, Mrs Roux told her to put down a deposit to secure the property.
“She insisted I pay it to Greenstone Hill Properties and gave me the address and banking details.”
Ms Mortassagne said she made a deposit of R4 000 to Mrs Roux and it was allegedly only after six months of pushing her for documentation, that Ms Roux gave her the offer to purchase. After the deposit was made to Ms Roux, she minimized all communication with Ms Mortassagne.
“I would call and e-mail her for progress on how the deal was going and she would not respond.When I went back to where the caravan was stationed, I found it was no longer there and even the boards had been taken down. I took a drive down to the actual development site and found no sign of action to develop the place,” said Ms Mortassagne.
Mrs Roux was contacted several times by the NEWS to get an explanation as to what had happened to the project and whether Ms Mortassagne was going to be refunded or not.
Despite the efforts, as Mrs Roux’s phone rang unanswered until it went to voicemail. There was a message instructing the caller to send a text message as an alternative and state the reason for the call.
Ms Mortassagne said she does not care much about further developments on this matter.
“All I want is a refund on the money I put down, with interest,” she said.
When the NEWS tried Mr Peter Roux’s number, he first denied knowing Mrs Roux. But a week later, when questions were sent to him, he called back to explain.
Mr Roux said that the development will no longer go ahead due to problems, which he did not disclose. In the case of Ms Mortassagne, he said she did not pay a deposit.
He said the money Ms Mortassagne paid was a reservation fee, which was assurance that the person is serious about the unit. Although he said people were sent emails to explain this, Ms Mortassagne did not receive it. Ms Mortassagne said there has never been any information on the website to keep the buyers in the loop with the development. Mrs Roux subsequently updated her website it and explained that most issues rest with the City of Johannesburg (CoJ).
According to the update on the website, “The Highcrest development was started in early 2012 after the rezoning of the project was approved in principle by the City of Johannesburg. This allowed for the selling of units to commence with an expected completion of units possible within nine to 12 months.”
The website also says the offer to purchase contracts stated to the buyers that it was subject to the approval of the site development plan. Therefore, the delay of the project was caused by the rezoning requirements which required developers to upgrade surrounding road networks.
The CoJ was asked for comment regarding the development. They were unable to respond by the time the paper went to print.
When the NEWS visited the site of the proposed development, a security guard employed by Balwin Properties was on duty.
The Balwin Properties marketing manager was approached to discover if they had taken over the property and if they could help with information, but they refused to comment.
More questions were sent to Mr Roux, but by the time of going to print, he had not responded. However, he did not deny that people would be paid back the money owed to them if the proper claiming channels were followed.
