Property

“A fundamental principle in issue here is that nobody may take the law into their own hands. In order to preserve order and peace in society the court will summarily grant an order for restoration of the status quo where such deprivation has occurred, and it will do so without going into the merits of the dispute.” (Excerpt from judgment below)

Many a landlord is tempted to go the “self-help” route when non-paying tenants refuse to pay up and also refuse to leave. Holding costs mount with not a cent in rental income to show for it, the landlord gets desperate and locks are changed, access codes blocked, electricity and water cut off.

But what if, instead of meekly packing up and vacating, the tenant rushes off to court? As we shall see from our discussion of a recent High Court decision below, now the landlord has a real problem, regardless of whether or not the tenant has lost its legal right of occupation.

You cannot take the law into your own hands

• A tenant under a verbal lease dating back some 27 years, and in terms of which the rental included payment for water and electricity, stopped paying rental in January 2021.
• The landlord, citing both failure to pay rental and allegations of unlawful sub-letting and overcrowding, gave the tenant notice of eviction. The tenant refused to vacate, and had her attorney warn the landlord against evicting or cutting services without a court order.
• When the landlord nevertheless went ahead and cut the electricity and water supplies, claiming this to be a lawful attempt to reduce its losses since the (unpaid) rental included the supply of electricity and water, the tenant asked the High Court to (among other things) grant it a “spoliation order” (an order giving possession back to someone deprived of it without due legal process) restoring services immediately to the premises.
• The case didn’t go well for the landlord, and it is now back to square one after eighteen months of no rental income, with the added costs of two sets of legal bills to pay. Landlords, said the Court, must pursue the remedies at their disposal to enforce payment of rental in accordance with the law. “Landlords are not entitled to take the law into their own hands.”
• A vitally important factor to bear in mind here is that at this stage of proceedings a court will not enquire into whether or not the tenant has a legal right to be in possession: “Irrespective of the lawfulness or otherwise of the occupation, a landlord may not disconnect water and electricity without the intervention of a court.” (Emphasis supplied).
• Relevant to the Court’s decision was the fact that on the facts of this case, supply of services was not a “personal right” between the parties but part of the tenant’s possession of the property: “To my mind, the supply of electricity and water is not merely contractual, but an incident of the possession of the property.” That can be a fine distinction, so specific legal advice is essential if you are a landlord (or a tenant) embroiled in a dispute of this nature.
• The end result – the landlord was ordered to restore electricity and water immediately to the tenant and must pay the tenant’s legal costs.

Lessons for landlords

1. You are playing with fire if you take matters into your own hands when dealing with problematic tenants. No matter how intransigent they may be and no matter how unlawful their occupation, the only safe route is to follow the appropriate legal channels with specific legal advice and assistance –
   
   • All a tenant needs to prove to get a spoliation order against you (with costs) is that they were in “peaceful and undisturbed” possession, and that you unlawfully deprived them of that possession. Nothing more.
   • And that’s by no means your only risk – you could also be charged criminally in terms of the Rental Housing Act, which provides that anyone who “unlawfully locks out a tenant or shuts off the utilities to the rental housing property” faces a fine and/or two years’ imprisonment.
2. Secondly, it is clear that one of the landlord’s practical problems in this matter was the fact that (amazingly after 27 years) it had no written lease in place. That made it difficult to prove the terms of the lease, the parties’ rights and duties, duration, grounds for termination, and notice periods. Although a verbal lease is valid in law (for now anyway; change is in the wind on that one), a properly drawn written lease is vital to protect your rights!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“There is no sound more peaceful than rain on the roof, if you’re safe asleep in someone else’s house.” (Anne Tyler)

You move into your new dream home, excited and happy. Until it rains, and the roof leaks. As the repair teams tramp around on your roof and the bills start piling up whilst you weave around buckets and tarpaulins and sodden carpets, you go back to the seller and demand recompense.

“Sorry”, says the seller, “read the sale agreement. I sold the property “voetstoots” and without liability for any defects. I sympathise, but it’s actually your problem not mine. Good luck, and goodbye.”

Can that be correct? Let’s address that question with reference to a recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) decision over a flooded-out guest house.

A leaking roof puts a real damper on a guest house dream

• A couple bought a guest house for R1.3m to fulfil their dream of running one.
• Barely three months after they moved in, heavy rain caused extensive leaking of the entire roof. The guesthouse was flooded and furniture, carpets, linen and luggage soaked. Guests were, unsurprisingly, unhappy.
• The buyers had to take out a loan to cover the repair costs, plus they lost 2 months’ income during the repairs.
• They successfully sued the seller for a total of R240k in damages (a combination of repair costs and lost income), an award confirmed by the High Court and then by the SCA on appeal.

To understand that outcome, let’s take a look at our law’s requirements for such a claim to succeed.

Fraudulent non-disclosure of latent defects – 3 things you must prove

As a buyer claiming damages on the basis of “fraudulent non-disclosure in respect of latent defects” (we deal with the alternative of an “implied warranty” claim below), you will, as the Court set it out, have to prove that –

1. The seller was, at the time of the sale, aware of the “latent” defects (defects that “would not have been visible or discoverable upon inspection by the ordinary purchaser”), and
2. The seller deliberately failed to disclose those defects to you, and
3. The seller’s aim was to induce you to conclude the sale.

The buyers in this case had, before buying, noticed water staining in several places. The seller had assured them that although he knew of one roof leak, it had been fixed by his handyman and that he didn’t believe leaks would reoccur.

The Court however preferred the conclusion by an expert witness (a civil engineer) that “any claim by the previous owner that no problems with roof leaks were experienced in the past [would] simply be impossible and untruthful”. The roof, said the engineer, was defective both in respect of inferior design (“the entire roof speaks of negligent design, inferior workmanship and bad maintenance”) and inferior workmanship (“it is evident that [the builder] of the roof was not a skilled artisan … the roof under investigation was prone to leak from the day that it was built.” The engineer also found evidence of past efforts to seal the roof and believed that the problem had escalated over time.

The Court’s conclusion – the seller had fraudulently misrepresented the true condition of the roof and had failed to disclose it to the buyers. “On the probabilities, the only reasonable inference to be drawn …. is that the non-disclosures and misrepresentation were made deliberately in order to induce the sale of the guesthouse, and this constituted fraud.” Hence its confirmation of the damages award to the buyers.

Another way to claim: Breach of the “implied warranty”

The buyer in this case sued on the basis of “delictual liability” which requires you to prove a list of factors, including both wrongfulness and fault. Fortunately, you also have an alternative avenue available to you. Our law is that a seller (of anything) automatically gives the buyer an “implied warranty” that the thing sold has no latent defects. Prove that the seller has breached that warranty and you have the basis of a claim.

You are very likely, however, to come up against the seller protections in a voetstoots clause (common in sale agreements). That clause transfers the risk of latent defects to the buyer by providing that the property is sold “as is” and without any warranty.

To defeat the seller’s protection under voetstoots you can either –

• Prove fraud by the seller. To be protected, the seller must have been genuinely unaware of the latent defect in question at the date of sale; or
• You can show that the protections in the CPA (Consumer Protection Act) apply to your sale. The CPA, where it applies, protects buyers from defective or not-fit-for-purpose goods, regardless of what the sale agreement says. There are grey areas here, so specific legal advice is indispensable, but in broad terms the CPA does not protect larger “juristic person” buyers (those with an annual turnover of R2m or more), nor will it generally cover one-off “private” sales between individuals – normally it is developers, estate agents and others acting “in the ordinary course of business” who will be bound by the CPA.

Sellers: Disclose all possible defects of which you are aware in the “mandatory disclosure form” which, since February 2022, must be attached to and form part of the sale agreement.

Buyers: Inspect the property thoroughly before putting pen to paper – you cannot complain about any patent (“obvious on reasonable inspection”) defects that you should have seen yourself. To cover yourself against any latent defects, get expert reports in any doubt.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“No alienation of land … shall … be of any force or effect unless it is contained in a deed of alienation signed by the parties thereto or by their agents acting on their written authority.” (Alienation of Land Act)

Ensure that all the important terms of your sale agreement are recorded in writing and signed.

Leave out anything “material” and, as we shall see from the Supreme Court of Appeal case discussed below, your entire sale could well collapse. At the very least, you face significant legal consequences, delay and cost.

The omitted term that sank a R4.5m sale (after 7 years’ delay)

• In 2016, liquidators of a property-owning company sold several pieces of land (including a “private ring road” erf) to a buyer for R4.5m plus vat.
• A saga of delay and confusion followed, including changes to the original sale agreement such as an addendum changing the date of transfer, and another correcting a mistake in the ring road’s erf number.
• Eventually it became clear that a subdivision of the ring road erf would be necessary to save the sale, and the parties started negotiating in an attempt to do so.
• Whilst it was not clear to the Court whether or not the buyer and seller did actually reach any agreement on the matter, the critical issue was that at best there was only an informal arrangement or an oral agreement – “no formal written agreement or addendum was ever concluded and signed by or on behalf of the parties”. Nor was it clear that they were agreed on what exactly was being sold, the buyer claiming to have had no intention of buying the whole ring road erf as set out in the original agreement.
• That rendered the whole sale agreement null and void.

The formalities required for validity

• Property sale agreements must be in writing and signed. Whilst generally our laws hold us to even our verbal agreements, there are exceptions where only written agreements are binding. A vitally important one is the sale of land. The Alienation of Land Act requires that the whole contract of sale be reduced to writing and signed by or on behalf of both buyer and seller.
• That written sale agreement must include all “material terms”, incorporating both –
  • “Essential” terms, which must set out the identity of the parties to the contract, the identity of the land sold, and the amount of the sale price; and
  • Any other term that is “material … determined with reference to its effect on the rights and obligations of the parties.” That’s an imprecise and wide definition so each case will be decided on its own facts, but for example a subdivision would clearly fall into that net.

    In this case, the omission of a subdivision term had created uncertainty about the parties’ rights and obligations concerning the subdivision process, including responsibility for costs and potential consequences if approval was not granted. Their failure to record in writing their agreement on these issues (if indeed they ever reached one) rendered the whole sale invalid.

Note that your written agreement must be clear in itself, sufficiently accurate and comprehensive to avoid any need for oral evidence on any of those critical issues.

Takeaways

1. Even when our law doesn’t require your agreement to be written and signed to be valid, put it in writing! Always insist on a written agreement that covers all the material terms of your sale. That’s make or break with property sales, but in all cases verbal agreements are a recipe for uncertainty and dispute.
2. Seek legal advice before you sign anything: Engaging an experienced property lawyer upfront will ensure that your interests are protected throughout the process.
3. Clarify anything important like subdivision: If your transaction involves subdivision (or indeed any other important aspects), make sure that all obligations, cost liabilities, and potential outcomes are clearly stipulated in the written agreement. It’s the only way to ensure the validity of your sale, avoid ambiguity, and reduce the risks of any unforeseen circumstances and dispute.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“Look before you leap” (wise old proverb)

Don’t let the excitement of buying a property blind you to the necessity of doing your homework before you agree to anything. Look before you leap!

It’s not just a matter of buying the right property at the right price – make sure that your finances (and particularly your cash flow situation) won’t stop you from fulfilling the financial obligations your signature on the sale agreement binds you to.

Otherwise, you could find yourself in the same unenviable position as the property buyer recently ordered by the High Court to pay substantial damages after she couldn’t pay the required deposits.

Three sales, and the seller claims damages

• A trust sold a property to a buyer for R750,000.
  
• The buyer failed to pay the two required deposits totalling R280,000, the trust cancelled the sale and put the property up for resale.
  
• It resold the property for R500,000 and sued the buyer for its R250,000 loss on the sale, plus the estate agent’s commission of R22,500 it paid for the new sale.
  
• The buyer fought the claim on a variety of grounds, none of which found favour with the Court. It ordered the buyer to pay, in addition to legal costs on an attorney and client scale, a total in damages of R235,875. That’s a figure seemingly arrived at by the Court by taking into account an amount of R40,000 already paid in by the buyer, which presumably leaves the buyer down a total of just under R280k plus two sets of legal costs.

Important lessons for buyers and sellers 

1. Buyers: Before you sign…
   
   Of course, the big lesson here for buyers is to make sure they can comply with the terms of the sale agreement they sign, with particular emphasis on their ability to make payments as and when due.
   
   
2. And sellers: Before you sign…
   
   Sellers on the other hand will want to avoid all the risk, delay and cost that the trust in this case was put to by investigating upfront the financial position of all potential buyers before accepting any offer. Make sure also that the terms of your sale agreement protect you adequately in the event of any default by the buyer.
   
   
3. Seller: Mitigate your damages
   
   Our law requires that if you want to sue for losses you incur as a result of someone else’s breach of contract (or wrongdoing), you must first take reasonable steps to minimise your losses.
   
   As the Court put it: “… the mitigating rule is a rule where a breach of contract has occurred. The innocent party cannot merely sit back and allow their losses to accumulate; the party must take reasonable positive steps to prevent the occurrence or accumulation of losses. The rule does not require the innocent party to do anything more than a reasonable person could do under the same circumstances. Reasonable expenses incurred in carrying out the mitigation steps may be claimed as additional damage suffered. The onus of proving what steps could reasonably have been taken, or that the expenses incurred were unreasonable, rests on the party in breach.” (Emphasis added) 
   
   As the seller, therefore, be sure to actively seek alternative buyers, use professionals to assist only as reasonably necessary, and accept only a reasonable resale price. In this case the evidence had established that the trust had acted reasonably both in reselling the property at the price it did, and in using the services of an estate agent to do so.
   
   

As always, agree to nothing without professional advice!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“… a person shall by prescription become the owner of a thing which he has possessed openly and as if he were the owner thereof for an uninterrupted period of 30 years or for a period which, together with any periods for which such thing was so possessed by his predecessors in title, constitutes an uninterrupted period of 30 years.” (Prescription Act)

Here’s another warning to be vigilant when it comes to someone else occupying any part of your property for 30 years or more – you could wake up one day to find you’ve lost your ownership altogether. With not a cent’s purchase price to show for it.

And whilst 30 years may seem like a long time, judging by the cases that come before our courts it does regularly take property owners by surprise.

A feature of our law since Roman times, “acquisitive prescription” is a legal process that allows a person to acquire ownership of a property through long-term occupation.

The requirements for acquisitive prescription

To succeed in such a claim under our Prescription Act, the possessor must prove at least 30 years of continuous “possession” both openly, and as if the owner. “Possession” in this context refers to “civil possession”, a concept which (to put it as simply as possible) means physical possession with the intention of owning the property. Whether or not you think you are the true owner or know that you aren’t, is irrelevant here.

Somewhat more colourfully, you may also come across the Latin phrase (beloved in legal circles) “Nec vi, nec clam, nec precario” – meaning in essence that your possession must be “without force, without secrecy, without permission.”

Let’s have a look at a recent and illustrative case in which a property owning company’s attempts to retain ownership of a piece of its land came to nought.

The buyers who didn’t notice a nursery and park on their land – for 31 years

• In 1993, two individuals bought a property-owning company and were appointed directors. Their plan was to develop and sell the thirty-nine plots owned by the company.
• Unknown to them, a neighbour had since 1990 occupied a portion of the (then undeveloped) property. The possessor had at her own cost transformed the land into a nursery and community park, using water and electricity from other neighbours and reimbursing them.
• The directors had never noticed the nursery and park as they drove past because neither was visible from the road, being hidden by dense vegetation. They assumed the nursery was on neighbouring land.
• After 31 years of continuous occupation the possessor asked the High Court to order registration of the occupied land into her name.

Was the possessor’s illegal use of the property a factor?

• One can imagine the directors’ shock at learning that they stood to lose a portion of their property, with zero compensation.
• One of the defences they raised was that the possessor’s illegal use of water and electricity on the property, her failure to apply for rezoning, and her unauthorised use of the property as a nursery all prevented her from meeting the requirements for acquisitive prescription.
• Not so, held the Court, her possession was in itself not unlawful and her illegal usage did not affect her possession of the land as owner.
• The property will now be registered into the possessor’s name.

Owners – monitor your property!

As a registered owner monitor your property and take action against any occupiers. Or indeed against anyone using your property for anything, because “servitudes” (rights of use or access over your property) can also be acquired by prescription.

Before you buy…

The losers in this particular case would have saved themselves a lot of pain if back in 1993 they had checked properly for occupiers on the company’s land – don’t fall into the same trap!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“The only bad time to buy property is later.” (Steve Bolton)

Buying property – whether to live/work in or on a buy-to-let basis – could be one of the most important investments you make.

Here are some strategies to help you on your way.

Twelve strategies for success

1. Map out your investment goals: Do you plan to “buy-to-let” to provide steady income? Or as a wealth-builder to hold for long-term capital growth? Or to “flip” (quickly resell, with or without renovation)? Formulate your strategy accordingly.
2. Do your homework: Before making any big property investment decisions, research the property market, the area where you want to invest, and the type of property you want to buy (see below).
3. Choose what type of property you want to buy: You have a wide choice here – vacant land (to develop or to hold), residential property (to live in or to let out), commercial/industrial property, agricultural land etc. You might also consider an indirect property investment via for example a REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust).
4. Location, Location: Look for properties in areas with a high demand for rental properties (even if you are buying a house to live in, the time may come when you decide to rent it out), good infrastructure, and potential for capital growth.
5. Consider diversification: If you plan to go big on this, you could invest in different types of properties and in different locations to spread your risk.
6. “Buy Low”: It seems self-evident, but more than a few investors lose sight of the fact that a big part of success when it comes to property investment is “buying low”. Some ways to achieve that –

1. Negotiate: Don’t be shy to negotiate on price, or to bring in a professional if your negotiating skills aren’t up to it.
2. Consider a “renovation” property: Properties in need of renovation can be bought at a lower price and renovated to increase their value and rental potential.
3. Look for bargains: Repossessed properties, properties in insolvent estates, distress auctions, sellers wanting to sell quickly (perhaps for financial or personal reasons) – all could be a source of well-priced property. But tread with care because this type of property can come with more pitfalls than normal.

7. Take professional advice: For most of us, property should be just one element in a balanced investment portfolio, structured to meet our particular needs and goals, so ensure that you take competent financial advice upfront. Then go to the property professionals in your target area and market. Your first port of call in this regard should be your lawyer who can share valuable insights into the local property market and can in need refer you to other trusted professionals in the area.
8. Choose wisely when it comes to financing options: Using mortgage finance to purchase property can provide leverage and enable you to invest in more properties than you would be able to with cash.
9. Manage your cash flow: Ask your lawyer to help you draw up a full budget for your purchase costs so you plan properly both for your cash flow and for profitability.
10. Manage the risks: If you have a bond, build into your calculations the possibility of interest rate increases in the future – a highly-leveraged property leaves you little room to maneuver if the market turns against you. If you are letting out to tenants, provide for vacancy rates and periods of low demand for rental property. Budget for worst-case scenarios!
11. Property management might pay for itself: Consider using a property management company to manage your rental properties, as this can take the stress and workload off you and provide a more professional service to your tenants.
12. Don’t forget the tax implications: This is vital – there are both potential tax benefits and tax pitfalls awaiting the property investor, and taking upfront professional advice to structure your investment for tax efficiency could make all the difference between an acceptable return and an exceptional one.

Investing in property can be a great option for you if you are looking for long-term growth and a steady income. However, it’s important to do your research, to seek professional advice, and to consider all the available options before making any investment decisions.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“We have this handy fusion reactor in the sky called the sun; you don’t have to do anything, it just works. It shows up every day” (Elon Musk)

Eskom’s no-end-in-sight loadshedding, rising electricity costs, South Africa’s abundance of sunshine, and the global move to sustainable energy solutions have all contributed to the current boom in home solar photovoltaic (PV) roof installations.

They don’t come cheap, but quite apart from the direct practical and financial benefits of going as much off-grid as possible, you will be boosting your property’s resale value (supposedly by between 4% and 8% depending on the system you install and your current house value). And at least one municipality is already planning to pay you for any excess power you feed back into its grid – expect that to become a growing trend.

Moreover, in addition to the existing tax incentives for businesses installing solar, the Budget Speech has promised both an expansion of the tax incentives and the introduction of a new tax incentive for individuals in the form of a 25% tax rebate (maximum R15,000 per individual) of the cost of “new and unused” solar panels (not inverters or batteries) – available for 1 year only (1 March 2023 to 29 February 2024) “to encourage investment as soon as possible”.

Step 1: How to choose an installer for a safe and legal installation

Before you accept a quote for your solar project (typically some solar panels, an inverter and a battery or two), there are several regulatory requirements to bear in mind, and the best way to ensure that you comply with everything (quite apart from the safety aspect) is to choose an installer with a good track record and the right qualifications. Bear in mind that you will need your installer to issue a valid compliance certificate for the system for several reasons –

• To complete the process of getting the system authorised (see below),
• To add the system to your homeowner’s insurance,
• To ensure that the system’s warranties aren’t voided, and
• To allow you to claim the new tax rebate as above.

Questions to ask a prospective installer: Here’s a list of questions to ask (adapted from the excellent list in “City of Cape Town’s Checklist for safely going solar” on cape{town}etc) –

• What prior experience do you have in solar PV installations?
• What three recent clients of yours can I phone for references?
• Did you design, supply and install the systems, or did you only carry out one or two of these steps?
• Are you an accredited service provider under PV Green Card, SAPVIA or P4 Platform?
• Can you supply proof of electrical Certificates of Compliance and/or professional engineer sign-offs on previous installations?
• Can you prove that your previous installations were correctly authorised by the local authority (or Eskom if direct customers)?
• Do you employ or subcontract qualified staff to design and install systems? (Note: The City of Cape Town suggests you ask for “proof of up-to-date registration (a wireman’s licence and DoLE registration)”).
• Is the inverter you are quoting for on the local authority’s approved inverter list? (Note: Find the City of Cape Town’s list here; if you are told that your local authority has no such list, get written confirmation).
• If you propose a “grid-tied system” (see definition below) do you have available an Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) registered professional to sign it off?
• Are the solar PV panels in compliance with SANS/IEC standards? (Note: The City of Cape Town article recommends you get a certificate of compliance for SANS/IEC 61215:2015 / SANS/IEC 61646:2016).
• Are you registered with SAPVIA and the ECB? (Note: Per The City of Cape Town “it’s not compulsory but shows commitment to industry best practice.”)
• What warranties apply to your installation and the components? (Keep proof, with all manuals).
• Is your quote comprehensive and does it include installation of circuit breakers (specialized to the DC current from the panels), obtaining SSEG registration (see below) and a Certificate of Compliance?

Step 2: How to comply with all regulatory requirements

• Next, comply with the SSEG (Small Scale Embedded Generation) process – have your chosen installer do everything on your behalf. You will need to register the system for authorisation with either Eskom or your local municipality (whichever supplies your electricity).
• Note that authorisation is needed whether or not your system will be feeding electricity back into the grid. If your system will connect to the grid (via your distribution board or directly) it will be a “grid-tied” one – either “feed-in” or “non-feed-in” depending on whether or not it will export excess power to the grid. If it’s “non-feed-in” you will need to have “Reverse Power Flow Blocking” installed to prevent any excess electricity feeding back into the grid. If it’s a “feed-in” you have more hoops to jump through as an Electricity Supplier. To complicate matters further, you also get “hybrid” systems which can be either on-grid or off-grid. For more detail read the City of Cape Town article referenced above (“The three types of systems” section).

  Incidentally none of this is just bureaucratic red tape – suppliers need to know when it is safe for their technicians to work on the grid, there are issues related to grid management, and there are home safety issues around risk of fires and other hazards.

  Check with your supplier (local authority or Eskom) whether you need any authority for a standalone (“off-grid”) system. At date of writing, at least one municipality – City of Cape Town – does require registration “to ensure they are not mistaken for grid-tied systems”.

• The process itself, let alone the terminology and technical requirements (such as wiring diagrams and an engineering sign-off), is complicated. Have your installers do everything for you, and in doubt contact your municipality’s electricity department (or Eskom direct if applicable) for more information.
• Failing to register and obtain written authorisation prior to installation could be an expensive business, with some municipalities threatening to use aerial photos, inspections and billing analysis to locate unauthorised systems, which will then attract penalties, contravention notices, and supply disconnection. Failure to register might even cause your insurers to reject a claim and that could be disastrous – think for example of a system failure causing a house fire.
• If you live in a “community scheme” like a sectional title complex or a homeowner’s association complex, check your Rules and Regulations and get necessary consents upfront.
• Make sure that all aspects of the installation comply with local regulations to reduce the risk of any future insurance claims being rejected for non-compliance. For example, check the technical requirements for roof structures (ensure that they can cope with the weight and wind load of panels), also you may or may not need building plans, plus some municipalities have lists of approved inverter makes and models.
  Talking of which, don’t forget to send the compliance certificate to your insurers with an instruction to add your new system to your homeowner’s policy.

Safety and recourse for poor work

The City of Cape Town checklist referenced above is well worth a full read regardless of where you live – read in particular the sections on safety and “Recourse for poor work”.

A final thought – should you ditch Eskom altogether?

A final thought – you could of course go off-grid entirely. It’s tempting isn’t it to wave Eskom and all its issues a cheerful good-bye, you’ll be avoiding a lot of the paperwork mentioned above, plus you won’t be paying Eskom’s “fixed service connection fees” any longer. But then you really will be on your own, with no connection whatsoever to your municipal or Eskom supply. Think about the effect on your resale value as well as the short-term pros and cons of making that sort of decision!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“A kustingbrief … has long been recognised as a superior front-ranking form of security.” (Extract from judgment referred to in the article)

You accept a great offer on your property, the sale agreement is signed and the buyer pays the deposit. You put the champagne on ice. But before you can pop it open, the buyer’s bond applications are rejected by every bank. Your sale is about to die. Is there anything you can do to rescue it?

The “kissing letter” option

A kustingsbrief (literally “kissing letter”) has its origins in old Dutch law and refers to a type of mortgage bond – a “purchase money mortgage bond” – registered in favour of a person or institution to secure the balance of the purchase price (or the full purchase price if no deposit is paid).

Many “bank bonds” and other third-party loans will fall into that definition, but in this article we’ll use the term only to refer to a bond in favour of the seller. For example, a buyer pays a R400,000 deposit on a R4m sale. The buyer can’t get a bank loan so the seller agrees to let the buyer take transfer in return for a bond in favour of the seller for the R3.6m purchase price balance. The buyer then takes transfer and pays off the bond in the same way that a bank bond would work, except of course that all payments go to the seller.

Have a look at the advantages and disadvantages of the concept below before considering this option.

Advantages

• The sale is rescued to everyone’s benefit.
• Interest on the monies due and the terms of repayment are fully negotiable (but note the warning to sellers under “Disadvantages” below).
• Because the bond must be registered in the Deeds Office simultaneously with transfer of the property, it gives the seller very strong security in the event of non-payment by the buyer. It is by definition a “first bond” so ranks ahead of any further bonds registered down the line.
• Even if the buyer’s estate is sequestrated within six months of the bond being lodged in the Deeds Office, this security remains strong. As our courts have put it: “A kustingbrief … has long been recognised as a superior front-ranking form of security.”

Disadvantages

• Assuming the bond carries interest, the seller would probably be wise to register as a credit provider. There are exceptions and grey areas here – for example, lending money to a dependant family member might be exempt, and there are limited exceptions applying to “juristic person” consumers. But if the seller should have registered as a credit provider and failed to do so, the whole deal is invalid and unenforceable, and that will leave the seller unable to claim a cent and in fact having to repay any instalments already paid.
• The seller must be in a financial position to wait for full payment. And whilst being paid in monthly instalments for say 15 or 20 years will be perfect for some sellers, most are more likely to need full payment against transfer.
• In practice, other than perhaps where close family is involved, the seller is likely to need a lot of convincing about the buyer’s creditworthiness if no bank will grant a bond. Most sellers will be reluctant to go this route without some form of comfort such as a larger-than-normal deposit, third party suretyships or some other avenue of recovery should the buyer default on instalments down the line.
• The seller will have to administer the process of collecting instalments and so on, for as many years as the agreed term of the bond.

All that said, in the right circumstances this option could be the saving of a great sale. It goes without saying that full advice specific to the circumstances is absolutely essential here.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews