iGrow – We repeatedly had to manage the problem ourselves

We are tenants at Bergenzicht Country Estate and this review relates specifically to our experience dealing with iGrow regarding a serious and recurring sewerage/drainage problem at the property.

The problem began recurring shortly after we moved in. On 4 February 2026, we personally paid R2,850 for professional drain blasting. The problem returned in March, and the contractor raised the possibility of an underlying structural issue.

From late March onwards, we repeatedly reported the problem to iGrow, including sewage odours, sewage bubbling and overflowing in the yard, slow or impaired drainage and sanitation concerns. We provided photographs, reports and repeated written follow-ups.

On 30 April, iGrow acknowledged that the recurrence could indicate an underlying defect in the drainage line.

On 9 May, iGrow's appointed plumber, KB247, attended and documented a solid obstruction, stagnant water preventing CCTV inspection, broken/dislodged access points and a suspected collapsed sewer pipe. Excavation and repair were recommended.

This is where our experience became particularly frustrating.

Instead of the matter progressing to permanent repair, responsibility became disputed between the house side and the Body Corporate/road side.

On 1 June, iGrow confirmed that the temporary solution would begin backing up again while the responsibility dispute continued.

We continued following up and on 4 June specifically warned that children and overseas family would be visiting and asked for a plan and timeline.

The problem continued into July.

On 11 July, after months of reporting and follow-up, we notified the agency that we were moving out for our safety. Contractors were then dispatched urgently.

On 12 July, excavation finally took place and approximately two metres of damaged sewer pipe were replaced. The contractor's report recorded raw sewage overflow, a cracked and ruptured pipe and hardened concrete inside the sewer, and attributed the damage to construction of the boundary wall rather than normal wear and tear or tenant misuse.

Our complaint is therefore not that iGrow created the defect.

Our concern is how iGrow managed the problem after being repeatedly notified and after receiving professional evidence that a structural defect was suspected.

As tenants, we repeatedly found ourselves sending the emails, providing the evidence, chasing responses, requesting updates and trying to get the matter progressed.

In other words, we often felt that we were doing the administration required to get the administration done.

We understand that iGrow cannot make every HOA or Body Corporate decision. However, we expected effective communication, escalation and follow-through from the managing/rental agent.

That was not our experience.

We have retained the correspondence, contractor reports, photographs and invoices supporting this review. The matter has also been referred to the relevant authorities and is being prepared for legal review.

We are sharing our experience so that prospective tenants and property owners can make an informed decision about the level of management and follow-through they can expect when a serious maintenance problem arises.

We would welcome a substantive response from iGrow addressing the handling of this matter.