Question posted in the Landlord Tenant Law category relating to Gauteng
Dear Sir/Madam
It wil be much appreciated if you could answer the following for me as I am in need of legal council:-
I leased a small shop from in Marlands Germiston from Patrick & Patterson Brakpan and for this paid a deposit of R5 465.00. When the keys was handed over to us by the Agent there was no inventory done by the agent nor the owner of the shop
With the permission of the agent I erected an office, wine shelves, painted and fixed the light fittings which not one was not working. I cleaned the store which was very filthly which cost me between R15 000.00 and R20 000.00.
The Landlord sold the complex and a new agent was appointed LPS Lorraine Property Sales. Once again did neither of the two came to inspect the shop in question.
When we sold the business and requested our deposit back, the wife of the landlord then appeared stating that we have broken a window which we did not as a wall was build by the previous owners to cover the window nobody knew about the broken window as it was cover by an ADT" Board which board was ripped off during a heavy storm.
We immediately called the Agent and advised her but she kept quite not advising the Landlord and now the landlord was deducting R875.00 from the deposit.
She also deducted R1 800.00 stating that an incorrect electrical connection was done to the cold room. We always complaint about the electricity to the Agent and the Landlord and they just kept ignoring us and now I have to pay for something we were not even aware of.
What action can I take against the landlord and/or the agent as I am paying for their mistakes.
If you could assist me it will be much appreciated.
Enna Kruger
Message from the Attorney
In court papers filed last week, Sharon Ann Vlok, an investor and signatory to the founding affidavit, alleges that the intended claims are aimed at various directors and individuals related to the investment schemes in their personal capacities for “their fraudulent and/or reckless conduct which resulted in the investors losing much of their investments, if not everything”.
The crux of the case is that no immovable properties were transferred into the relevant investment vehicles, despite such promises and representations having been made to investors. In total R3.6 billion was paid by investors for the properties which they never received.
The group of investors asks the court to allow one individual class action on behalf of investors in the Highveld Syndications 19, 20, 21 and 22. The class action suit will allow the 18 600 investors, if they so choose, to collectively sue the companies and individuals associated with the investment scheme.
The application follows after the group of investors held several information sessions with other investors all around the country. The court papers do not reveal how many investors are backing the application.
Vlok’s affidavit lists 22 respondents, including Nic Georgiou, several other members of the Georgiou family, Zephan Properties, Hendrik Myburgh, Bosman & Visser, Willem Steyn, Hans Klopper and Orthotouch.
In the affidavit Vlok alleges that Georgiou, a property billionaire and MD of Orthotouch, controlled the scheme and that the directors of the various syndication companies did not act in the best interest of investors.
Vlok also states that Klopper, the business rescue practitioner, compromised himself as he accepted an appointment as a director of Orthotouch, the company he should have stood up to in order to act in the best interest of investors.
In court next year
Following the filing of the application, the respondents will need to file answering affidavits within 20 days of receiving the documents. If the parties oppose the application, the case will only be heard early next year.
This application for leave to institute a class action was brought two weeks before investors will vote on a proposed scheme of arrangement on 12 November.
This proposed scheme of arrangement comes after Orthotouch, which in terms of the business rescue process owns the syndicated properties, failed to meet its interest-payment obligations to investors.
In her affidavit, Vlok strongly opposes the proposed scheme of arrangement.
She alleges that Orthotouch has breached its obligations in terms of the business rescue process, and that the proposed scheme of arrangement would result in investors signing their rights away and having less security than they have had before.
It is uncertain how this application for leave to bring a class action will affect, if at all, the voting on the proposed scheme of arrangement.
Georgiou did not respond to emails to respond to the proposed class action and the allegations against him.
On Monday Klopper said the Sherrif has not served the papers on him and that he could not comment. He did not respond to questions emailed to him on Tuesday.
Message from the Attorney
Read more > http://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-special-investigations/investors-pursue-a-class-action-against-pickvest-o