shady work ethics

From: Munava, Matthew Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2019 15:37 To: Danisile Ngwenya <***> Subject: This will be to hello petter.com

STBB is a law firm which I think need to be audited. Am now ready to get started with the watch dog to get STBB audited. They are owing and stilling money from the institutons and the clients. Truly if the ACCA auditors spend just a week with their books they will for sure see huge blocks of clients looking for their money. A case which touched my emotions was the fact that a gentleman lost his job after being retrenched , but STBB could not refund him back since he could not continue with purchase and had to withdraw from the deal.

SARS has to check STBB out .

In out case : We signed a Offer To Purchase with the agent and as one will expect “I and my family was so happy looking forward to the new house”. Truly as STBB is know to be a true bubble popper , the happiness was short lived. From the patterns(shady work ethics) and the nature of complaints by clients it indicated that they do not care, not at all about the clients they serve.

They where pushing us to pay the transfer costs prior to us knowing that we have a Occupational Certificate and the related documents. They even have a tendency of taking what you talk about in passing and documenting it as if it’s your official statement.

This is my case : As we(I and my wife) where viewing the house with the agent giving us a tour I and my wife mentioned in passing, that when we move in after buying the property we will do renovations to get the house to the state we will want on a gradual process.

That statement come to impact us negatively. Under the covers of communication channels they requested the bank to waive the Occupational Certificate(OC) . The problem with that was that the bank needs to have the OC prior to the completion of the registration of the house and release of the money to the seller and bond account to the buyer.

Buy asking for the waive they directly made us accountable for OC . This OC head this to intel : 1) The current sellers house did not have fully approved plans as to the current build structure. 2) Plans where drawn to and provided, from that point(all in good faith by the buyer) 3) Seller should have taken the new plans and updated the house structure as per the city council standard. Or- 4) A meeting was to be setup between us and the seller and discuss on the matter as to get the way forward to answer questions like a. What will be the cost of rebuild the structure which the city council reapproved b. Who was to take up the cost c. Agree to agree with the seller

The major problem come about when the started pushing us to pay the transfer cost . This then raised questions within us, we then went into an over driver to find out what the waiver could have costed us.

It was going to costing us in this manner : 1) The waiver was doing to mean that the bank was not going to release the money to the seller tell the OC is obtained implying the no house to us 2) This was going to cost us the building/construction cost. a. The reason was that they linked us to the accountability of the OC at the time they asked the bank to waive 3) We could have paid the transfer cost which from the nature of bad service where never going give it back 4) Where going be stuck with a bill to build for the seller so that we could send it to the city council for the evaluation to enable the OC to be generated. 5) The waiver was doing to mean that the bank was not going to release the money to the seller tell the OC is obtained implying the no house to us