PropActive Property Management

Nonresponsive management shying away from responsibility due to damaged caused by inferior construction

On 4 September 2025 at about 11:30 my wife went to a small shopping center, Garsfontein Corner (next to Jacqueline Drive in Garsfontein, Pretoria) and parked close to Woolworths. When she returned to her vehicle at about 12:15 with the goods that she had purchased, the trolley got stuck in what appeared to be wet tar, at the rear of her vehicle. Unfortunately, her New Balance specialized walking shoes also got stuck in the wet tar. The Security Guard came closer and apologized, but he hadn't done anything wrong. On 5 September 2025 at 15:39 my wife sent an e-mail to a certain Dorothea, whose details she found on the Center's website, but received no acknowledgement or response. She sent a second e-mail on 9 September 2025 at 12:54, referring to her earlier e-mail. An e-mail acknowledgement was received on 11 September 2025 at 07:38. In that e-mail, Dorothea asked a Mr Francois Praeg to advise on the relevant procedures with regard to the reported incident. On 15 September 2025 at 12:14 my wife followed up again, and again on 23 September 2025 at 14:56. On 30 September 2025 Dorothea requested my wife's cellphone number to provide feedback. My wife sent her cellphone number four minutes later. In an e-mail of 30 September 2025 09:50 from Dorothea, she thanked my wife for vreporting the incident of 4 September 2025 and apologized. Then she explained that the crack sealing product gets soft in warm weather and that they were going to consider alternative products. They refused to accept responsibility for the damage to my wife's specialized New Balance walking shoes because it was not "gross negligence". They wanted to offer a voucher in lieu of the specialized walking shoes that cannot be worn for exercise walking, visiting a gym or the bio kineticist, etc. Due to the tar that is stuck on the sole, the alignment of the shoes is now incorrect and could lead to injuries, if my wife would endeavor to use them for their intended purpose. I am a professional civil engineer (Pr. Eng.) and wrote to the Center Management. They still denied any responsibility. I then did an in-situ investigation and sent a report, that I had written, on 10 October 2025 at 09:36 explaining the problems on the parking area, supported by photographs taken on the site. "Good day We did not receive any response to my trailing e-mail, so we drove there. Here are some photographs that I took. Comments (from a Professional Civil Engineer perspective): 1. Failure of the base course is evident (see heaving and ditching in parking bay, as well as shear cracks in asphalt (black top). 2. Very poor asphalt laid – uneven grading, too much binder (bitumen) in mix in some areas causing bleeding (blobs of bitumen protruding at the surface). 3. Too little binder (bitumen) in mix in some areas causing stone loss, which will result in potholes. 4. In the fourth photograph, the print of my wife’s New Balance walking shoe is still evident in the bleeding area. 5. In the fifth photograph, the tyre print of a motor vehicle is evident in bleeding area. In my professional career as a consulting engineer, I was involved with similar developments, i. e. Gateway Plaza along Old Johannesburg Road, south of the N14. I know that the developer must obtain an Occupation Certificate from the City Council before the shopping center can commence operating. One of the pre-requisites for the Occupation Certificate, is the independent registered engineer’s Completion Certificate. The latter is only certified and issued once the construction work has been successfully completed, meaning that it complies with the applicable SANS1200 specifications and that all the test results comp**** with the test criteria of the relevant SANS1200 specifications. I can, without any doubt, state that the asphalt could not have met the criteria explained here, and that whoever certified and issued a Completion Certificate, did not do his/her professional duty towards the developer and the public who would make use of the facilities. Any “man of the street” must be able to use any facilities open to him without even having to consider whether it is safe to use and/or complies with appropriate standards used in the industry. With the above said, I am of the professional opinion that the Disclaimer placed under the veranda (and not readily visible at the parking area) will not stand the test of the law, should , for instance, an elderly person trip over the heaved areas in the asphalt and/or the areas where bleeding is evident, and get injured badly, e. g. break a hip, dislodge a limb, or bump their head and develop bleeding on the brain. Considering the above, we respectfully request your harsh stance regarding my wife’s specialized New Balance walking shoes. The details can be made available and confirmed by Run-A-Way Sport." To date, we have received no acknowledgement of my e-mail or any response.