08-08-2025
Somerset West couple sues estate agency and seller over severe property defects in Cape High Court
The house in the middle of the dispute
Image: Supplied
A couple from Heldervue, Somerset West, are pursuing a R620 000 claim in the Cape High Court against the seller of their home and Pam Golding Properties, after discovering severe structural defects that rendered their house unsafe and unfit for occupation.
Antoné van Heerden and Schalk Pienaar bought the property in October 2017 for R1.6 million. During the viewing, an estate agent from Pam Golding Properties, reassured them the home only needed 'a little bit of tender loving care and a fresh coat of paint.'
The agent also allegedly dismissed visible cracks in the walls as 'regular hairline settlement cracks which were normal for properties of that age,' assuring them, 'This house has stood for 27 years and is going nowhere.'
However, after moving in and commissioning a structural engineer's report, the couple found a very different reality. Several interior walls were 'hanging in the air,' unsupported and unattached to the floor. The main bedroom was deemed so unsafe that the engineer, Albert Coetzee, said he 'would not sleep in it because its collapse was possible.'
The report revealed the foundations were inadequately compacted, the floor slab was uneven and much thinner than building standards require, and the foundations of both the house and garage sagged. Some of the foundations stopped short of the full external size of the house, with parts protruding above ground.
Coetzee stated the house and garage were not constructed in accordance with national building regulations and failed to comply with approved building plans. The defects should have been noticeable to the seller within five to seven years of occupancy, yet neither the seller nor Pam Golding Properties disclosed these issues.
At the time of viewing, the house was cluttered and carpeted wall-to-wall, obscuring visible defects. Despite the couple's requests to lift the carpets, the seller's sister and conveyancer prevented them from doing so prior to transfer.
The plaintiffs' attorney, Trudie Broekmann, a specialist consumer attorney based in Cape Town, said the 'severe defects rendered the property hazardous and unfit for occupation in breach of various sections of the Consumer Protection Act.'
This is the bedroom in 2018
Image: Supplied
The couple incurred over R600 000 in repair costs, paid nearly R20 000 for furniture storage, and had to secure alternative accommodation for a year while remedial work was done.
Gerhard van der Merwe, senior associate at Trudie Broekmann Attorneys, explained the legal basis for the claim: 'In terms of section 55 and 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, the plaintiffs have a right to receive goods that are reasonably suitable for the purposes for which they are generally intended, are of good quality, in good working order and free of any defects.'
Estate agents, he added, 'are required to desist from making any statements where they do not have a reasonable ground for believing the statement to be true.' Van der Merwe said the defendants had asserted the property was fit for immediate occupation and use, which was not the case.
Defective buildings in South Africa have recently provoked public outrage, notably after a five-storey building collapsed in George in May 2024, killing 34 construction workers. Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson attributed that tragedy to 'multiple failures including the use of substandard materials, structural cracks, and visible gaps.
In response to the allegations made by the claimants, Pam Golding Properties stated:
'Eight years after purchasing the property, the claimants – now residing in the Republic of China – attempted to amend their original legal claim to include alleged misrepresentation by Pam Golding Properties. On 28 July 2025, the Honourable Court refused the application, finding that it had no prospects of success and was not brought in good faith.'
Pam Golding further added: 'The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of Trudie Broekman Attorneys for trying to introduce the allegation so late without any explanation for the delay.
'The Court's decision recognised that the claimants were opportunistic in attempting to hold Pam Golding Properties liable for repairs on a property they knowingly purchased in need of remedial work, at a substantially reduced price.'
They said the Judge ordered the claimants to pay Pam Golding Properties' costs related to the amendment application, as well as both defendants' wasted costs from the postponed trial.'
Pam Golding Properties further strongly rejected the allegations, calling their legal action 'without merit' and defending its conduct during the 2017 property sale.
In a detailed response, the company said the purchasers bought the property for R1.6 million, a price significantly below market value, with full knowledge of its condition.
The slabs in the dining area allegedly had varying thickness
Image: Supplied
'The advertisement clearly showed the dwelling had serious defects and required remedial work,' said the agency.
'The purchasers were advised that the value lay in the stand itself and its development potential, not the structure.'
Pam Golding Properties explained that the sale was not subject to the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), as the seller was a private individual and not selling in the ordinary course of business.
'Pam Golding Properties did not sell any goods or render services to the claimants. We acted as the seller's agent and received no compensation from the purchasers,' said Willem van Heerden of Van Wyk Van Heerden Attorneys, representing the company.
The firm said all known and visible defects were disclosed, and the property was marketed transparently.
'Our advertising materials included photographs and stated that the home required extensive remedial work. There was no misrepresentation,' it said, adding that even an expert close to the deceased seller had not detected any structural problems.
Pam Golding Properties also highlighted that the bank granted a bond exceeding the purchase price by R400,000, further affirming the property's value and that the purchasers took early occupation and never raised any issues with the agency at the time.
The agency further criticised the timing of the claimants' attempt to amend their case.
They explained the misrepresentation claim was only introduced eight years later, shortly before the July 2025 trial, and was dismissed by the court, which found the application lacked prospects of success and was made in bad faith.
'We remain committed to ethical practice and full compliance with property legislation, including the Property Practitioners Act,' Pam Golding Properties said.
'Our disclosure protocols were updated in 2022 when the new law took effect, and we continue to uphold the highest standards in all transactions.'
[email protected]
Weekend Argus
