WeeklySA_AdminSTRESS:The strain nearly killed her ailing mother
By Thuli Zungu
An 85 years old granny who was at loggerheads with an estate agent who demanded nearly R140 000 commission on her house which they did not sell, is relieved after being paid her money by the agent who actually sold her house.
Siphiwe Sibanyoni was at last paid R1,1 million this month after t,he house was sold in January this year. She has since moved into her daughter’s home in Mpumalanga. Her daughter, Lindiwe Thela had unsuccess- fully lodged a complaint with the Estate Agency Affairs Board (EAAB) . She then approached Consumer Eye for intervention. It took six months for the Estate Agent Affairs Board to action Sibanyoni’s matter.
Initially, the EAAB wanted a power of Attorney before they could respond to Sibanyoni’s media inquiry which was sent but still ignored . It took one call away to its CEO Mamudupi Mohlala for Consumer Eye to receive their attention. In June this year WeeklySAMirror reported Sibanyoni’s plight after she assigned two estate agents to sell her house only to end up with both demanding commissions despite the fact that only one of the agents sold the house.
An ailing Sibanyoni did not have a clear understanding of the terms and conditions of the contract she had signed with an agent from Re-max. Apparently Sibanyoni had unknowingly granted Re-max the sole mandate to sell her house for R1,2 million in November last year. This oversight later caused tension between her and the Re-max agent who was demanding a commission although her house was sold by another agency, Huizemark.
Remax claimed R138 000 from her while Huizemark rightfully demanded R117 000. When granting a sole mandate to sell her property, the semi-literate granny did not know that she was not supposed to get another agent to sell her house. Her daughter Lindiwe, had also initiated the sale on her mother’s behalf as she wanted to take her to her house in Mpumalanga where she could take care of her. Lindiwe said she had specifically told the Re-Max agent who signed the mandate that they wanted the house to be sold as soon as possible.
“My mother is not educated. That is why I was negotiating on her behalf. She is not able to understand the terms and conditions of any contract and it is for this reason I also told the agent that I will enlist the services of other agents to help expedite the sale,” Lindiwe said.
When signing and granting the sole mandate, it means that the buyer cannot appoint another estate agent to sell their property unless the sole mandate has expired or is terminated. This mandate that was signed by Sibanyoni, was signed in the absence of her daughter when the agent went to view the house.
“I did not hide anything. I had an open relationship with both agents, “ Lindiwe said.
She added that Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act states that a consumer has a right to fair and honest dealing. It further states that any agent or supplier of goods and services must not take advantage of the consumer who cannot protect their interest because of physical or mental disability, illiteracy, ignorance, inability to understand the language of an agreement or any other similar factor.
In Sibanyoni’s case, no explanation was given to her that she had limited her rights to Re-Max and that she should not proceed to give another agent the right to sell her house or that she would be liable to pay commission to both agent she said.
Sibanyoni said she spoke to the agent in isiZulu and would have understood that no matter how desparate she was to sell the house, she had to wait for them to sell the house at their pace.
When the family realised that the Remax agent was moving at a snail’s pace, Lindiwe then approached Huizemark agency and their agent Mapaseka Somo helped her to put the house on the market. She had also made Somo aware that ReMax were the first agents they had contacted. Upon checking Re-max’s advert on their online platform,
Somo discovered that the house was an open mandate as they (Re-Max) did not disclose that they had a sole mandate when advertising it, Lindiwe said. “It was only later that Remax disclosed the status of Sole Mandate on their advert, something that was never there when I first opened the link the agent had sent me’’. The first advert dated the 15th November, 2020 did not have a notice that they had a sole mandate. This notice only appeared in their recent advert in which Re-max was demanding 50% commission after Huizemark had successfully sold her mother’s house, she said. The house was sold in January this year.
Rookaya Balim of the legal department at the EAAB offices said Lindiwe only lodged a complaint against Huizemark for not discussing the commission with her mother. However, upon investigation, the EAAB discovered that the commission amount of 8,5 % was part of the contract she had signed for. Therefore, Huizemark was entitled to the R117 000 commission agreed upon. Balim said the commission included VAT of R15000.
According to Balim, Lindiwe did not complain against Remax and Huizemark did not want to share the commission with Remax as they (Huizemark) were the ones who sold the property.
