Gross misrepresentation from Seeff George.

'Just over a year ago I decided to purchase a second property in George with a view to rent it out. My criteria was strictly that it must have a main house, and a legal 2nd dwelling to rent out. I responded to an advert of Seeff's online, which stated ''Flatlet for Granny or extra income''. Despite assurances from both Seeff and the seller, that the plans were in fact correct; after signing the offer to purchase, we discovered the flatlet was NOT on plan (and that the seller and possibly Seeff was aware of this weeks prior to signing). After much legal consultation, I was advised to cancel the OTP due to misrepresentation from both Seeff and the seller. Seeff for the last year has been suing me for the lost commission. This despite the fact that it was the seller who ****. The magistrate in George found in favour of myself, the defendent, and has instructed them to pay my legal fees. I find it very concerning that despite the court finding that both Seeff and the seller with held critical info to me, that Seeff George is still continuing to pursue me for the lost commission. I would like to know if Seeff SA are aware of the shocking behaviour of their franchise in George.'' This totally smacks of bullying tactics from the franchisee, when two independent legal experts have advised me to not be bul****, and as mentioned earlier a subsequent court ruling. Very sad that one franchisee holder is able to ***** the entire Seeff name.