Wilneth Properties

Statement Regarding Conduct of Managing Agent Wilhelm Steenkamp

I wish to formally record my concerns regarding the conduct of Mr. Wilhelm Steenkamp, the managing agent of the property I previously occupied. His actions reflect unprofessional behaviour and disregard for obligations owed to tenants under South African property law. Upon commencement of my lease in 2024, the premises were in an unhygienic and unacceptable condition. Refuse had been left in the sink, and bottles containing unidentified liquids were present. It was evident that the unit had not been cleaned or prepared for occupation following the departure of the previous tenants. I documented the state of the property extensively through photographs and video recordings, which serve as contemporaneous evidence of the condition at handover. During my tenancy, I maintained the property in a habitable state. Upon vacating, I undertook a thorough cleaning of the unit. My efforts were acknowledged by a neighbour, who confirmed that no prior tenants had left the premises in such a clean condition. Despite this, Mr. Steenkamp alleged that my cleaning was inadequate, citing minor stains on a cupboard, dust on an inaccessible curtain rail, and one electrical plug. He further made inappropriate personal remarks, which I consider unprofessional. Mr. Steenkamp indicated that he intended to engage professional cleaners and painters at my expense. This demand is unreasonable and contrary to the principle of fair wear and tear, recognised under South African lease law. A tenant is not liable for deterioration of fixtures or finishes resulting from ordinary use. Painting, in particular, falls within the landlord’s maintenance obligations. Since my occupation, the unit has never been repainted, despite assurances that the paint was “washable” and that maintenance would be arranged. I had already indicated my willingness to contribute towards repainting limited areas where I had affixed a television and a portrait, but not the entire apartment. Mr. Steenkamp refused to disclose which services he had requested quotations for, leaving me uninformed of potential deductions from my deposit. This lack of transparency contravenes Section 5(3)(g) of the Rental Housing Act, 1999, which requires that any deductions be reasonable, substantiated, and supported by invoices or receipts. Subsequently, Mr. Steenkamp claimed to have obtained a quotation of R17,800, later negotiated to R3,413.80 for repainting the entire apartment. I refused to pay this amount, as I had only agreed to repair the walls where fixtures were mounted. When I requested proof of the quotation, I was provided with a word document containing only a painter’s name and amount, without contact or banking details. I then obtained my own quotation for the agreed repairs (R950) and offered either to pay that amount or to carry out the repairs myself. Mr. Steenkamp rejected this, stating that the painter had already completed the work and that I was liable for the full amount. I requested a meeting at the apartment, during which I spoke with the painter, who consented to being recorded. He confirmed that he was being paid less than the amount claimed and that the materials used were not new. When Mr. Steenkamp arrived, he became hostile and ordered me to leave. I subsequently provided my banking details and requested that only R950 be deducted from my deposit. Although he agreed, the deposit refund reflected deductions exceeding this amount. In summary, Mr. Steenkamp’s conduct reflects: Breach of his duty to deliver the property in a clean and habitable condition at the commencement of the lease. Failure to adhere to the principle of fair wear and tear in assessing tenant liability. Lack of transparency and failure to substantiate deposit deductions as required by law. Unprofessional behaviour in his dealings with me. I reserve my rights to pursue remedies available under South African law, including lodging a complaint with the Rental Housing Tribunal and seeking relief for any ******** deductions.