The flip side: Helderkruin neighbour feud

The clash between neighbours is one that is difficult to govern and resolve, as was realised in an ongoing neighbour feud in Helderkruin.

Accused neighbour Jack* visited the Record offices to explain his side story following the ‘media onslaught’ in a recent Record investigation.

“I did not mean anyone any harm and genuinely thought my alterations would be for the greater good in this relationship,” Jack explained.

Jack and Elsa* clashed over continuous alterations on his neighbouring property. Though Jack and his wife used to live in the house on that property, they moved out temporarily until the renovations are completed. Jack corrected previous information that he owned the property since 2010.

“We bought the property in 2007 and lived there until serious renovations commenced in 2010.

“I was under the impression that I was on good terms with all my neighbours since that has always been the case.

“Since I am not residing on the property, I am in constant contact with some of my other neighbours to ensure that the property does not become a liability to the whole neighbourhood.”

Jack presented the other side of the story to the Record, backed by photographic evidence. His reasons for cutting branches and trees (carrying all the expenses) was that it was causing damage to his swimming pool and its filtration system.

“Some of my alterations to the property were to target these problems specifically or to make both her and my own property more secure.”

Jack was not aware that cutting trees on her property by leaning over the boundary wall of his property was considered an offence.

“The problem is that once these disagreements become regular, one neighbour tends to spite the other and it escalates into a bigger problem.

As the Record suggested, Jack is hoping to have an open discussion with his neighbour to solve their issues.

Jack has signed for the protection order that his neighbour has filed against him, and the case is due to be resolved in the Roodepoort Magistrates’ Court.

*Both parties were given pseudonyms to protect their identities.