Waterproofing Cape Town

Failed and shoddy roof repairs

Waterproofing Cape Town undertook to repair a section of our asbestos roof which had been leaking for quite some time. I was assured that the procedure that they had in mind would resolve the issue once and for all. Work commenced on 11 July 2023 and ended 1 July 2025. Unfortunately their mandate has failed dismally as: 1. The roof still leaks badly after a number of attempts to rectify . On 1July 2025, their final attempt once again failed as on the 30 July, while it was raining, I took 2 videos showing a large volume of water dripping through the ceiling damaging it to such an extent which now leaves me with no alternative but to replace it. 2. Cosmetically the standard of the repairs is very sub-standard as detailed photographs on record show. 3. The slates underneath the torched-on bitumen layers are now worthless and the purchasing of new alternative non-asbestos slates will be very costly. 4. As a result our predicament is that not one of the several contractors that were contacted were interested in attempting to rectify this leaking mess and pointed out that we would also incur expensive asbestos removal costs. Waterproofing CapeTown stated that the terms and conditions of their warranty had been violated and notified me via email 7 July 2025 that they would have no further dealings with me. I then decided to take the matter to Court. During our recent Court Case breaches of their terms and conditions weren't even discussed. What did concern the Commissioner was the shoddy state of repair seen in photographs handed to him as well as the fact that despite 3 attempts over the last 2 years our roof still leaks badly. The Court was also shown a video 30 July 2025 of rain water falling into the bar room and leading to the ultimate destruction of the ceiling. Although I envisaged being granted a possible refund, the Commissioner asked the owner of Waterproofing CT if he was prepared to have a final attempt at repairing the roof which he agreed to do at their own cost. It is fairly obvious why the Commissioner would have made this gesture. Sub-standard and failed repair. The Commissioner then asked me if I would accept this a solution to the case and I stated very clearly that I wanted no further dealings with WCT and would rather forfeit any refund and subsequently "withdrew" my case. The Court file was noted accordingly. I thereafter posted a review on Google Maps to which they responded as follows: “Your attack on our company is noted. Your case in Small claims court was rejected and you withdrew your case. Because you violated our Terms & Conditions. But still we were more than prepared to come back and assist. Even though it was not even a problem we caused. Please note that this is now seen as harassment as we did absolutely nothing wrong and was more than happy to assist. You agenda is clearly to be malicious. Your review has been noted and I will strongly suggest that you refrain from any further slander.” A voluntary "withdrawal" is vastly different from having had a case "rejected" as imp**** by the owner, so despite their denial or wrong doing I still welcome any queries from members of the public if they have any concerns.