1 reviews | Active since Nov 2022
********* & theft
Just bought a house in Sunningdale, Blouberg. The property had COCs completed by Bugs & Sparks. As I have had bad experiences with COCs previously I always appoint my own people to do an independent COC. The electrician discovered that none of the work that was quoted and paid for by the seller (R10,500) had been done. The seller asked B&S to return and complete it. Had I not had my own COC they would have got away with it. How many other people have they done this to? (my friend had a similar experience a number of years ago I have since discovered yet B&S are still in business). I have subsequently discovered that the gas installation was also ******* but a COC was issued by B&S I have had to pay to have this corrected. I do not understand how estate agents continue to refer sellers to this company???
I hope my questions does not come across as too forward- let me explain why I ask this:
Your claims are gravely concerning, especially to an established and trusted compliance company. We are well aware of many contractors out there signing off ******* certificates. Fortunately Bugs & Sparks is registered with all the necessary regulating authorities, and should a client ever feel that we have called for items that are not compliance related or if a company did not rectify any compliance issues that needed to be sorted before COC's could be issued, it should be taking up with the inspection authority so that the company can be taken to task.
We regularly come across independent contractors who shed a bad light on reputable companies by making such statements, and we try not make a habit of defending ourselves against illegitimate accusations, as we have many repeat customers that can attest to the legitimacy and efficiency of our work. Please feel free to contact us directly to find out what compliance issues were indeed rectified by Bugs & Sparks and which COC's we issued. All inspections and reports are kept on record by means of a digitized report including pictures. Thank you.
I hope my questions does not come across as too forward- let me explain why I ask this:
Your claims are gravely concerning, especially to an established and trusted compliance company. We are well aware of many contractors out there signing off ******* certificates. Fortunately Bugs & Sparks is registered with all the necessary regulating authorities, and should a client ever feel that we have called for items that are not compliance related or if a company did not rectify any compliance issues that needed to be sorted before COC's could be issued, it should be taking up with the inspection authority so that the company can be taken to task.
We regularly come across independent contractors who shed a bad light on reputable companies by making such statements, and we try not make a habit of defending ourselves against illegitimate accusations, as we have many repeat customers that can attest to the legitimacy and efficiency of our work. Please feel free to contact us directly to find out what compliance issues were indeed rectified by Bugs & Sparks and which COC's we issued. All inspections and reports are kept on record by means of a digitized report including pictures. Thank you.
I have copies of the COCs from the conveyancing attorney. The facts are that the initial list of items identified by a B&S representative were invoiced and paid for in good faith by the seller but later found to be not completed. A B&S representative had to be asked to come back to the property and actually complete the work. This was later confirmed as having been done. But this would not have been the case if the independent check was not completed.
I have copies of the COCs from the conveyancing attorney. The facts are that the initial list of items identified by a B&S representative were invoiced and paid for in good faith by the seller but later found to be not completed. A B&S representative had to be asked to come back to the property and actually complete the work. This was later confirmed as having been done. But this would not have been the case if the independent check was not completed.
