TJ
Tim J
Active since May 2021
15
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
15 reviews14 months ago
UNSATISFACTORY MANAGEMENT BY ECLIPTIC BUILDING MANAGEMENT
Ms J Brook of Ecliptic estate management has failed in her duty to respond to owners' legitimate enquiries about maintenance matters at Gleneagles complex. She has been rude in email correspondence. She has failed to comply with proper professional conduct by offering an electioneering speech immediately prior to the election of Trustees at an AGM. She is an employee of the owners of the building, and has no right to offer such a speech at an AGM. Ms Brook takes the Minutes at Trustee meetings, has omitted crucial details and has not correctly represented others. On having this pointed out by a trustee, Ms Brook was rude in response. And failed to amend or supplement the Minutes. Needless to say, Minutes are a crucial official record of Trustee business, and the aw requires them to be full, accurate and comprehensive. Ms Brook's company is responsible for painting at the complex. One of her staff members managed to allow at least three lift landings to be painted in a wholly inappropriate colour, a vast deviation from the original colour. This "mistake" was app**** from floor to ceiling, and the slightest glance showed the colour was wrong. It was only after owners raised the alarm, that this project was stopped. This "ërror" bespoke lack of supervision or even proper knowledge of how to proceed with such a paint project. Ms Brook's employee, when questioned, stated she was told that the colour would change "when it dried." This with reference to the original beige/cream as opposed to the new paint, a pink colour. Additionally, the original was 3 different tones in specific sections. However, the pink colour was painted floor to ceiling, uniformally.. On 7/2/25 at about 7:30 pm I heard a rushing of water. On investigation, I discovered a serious hot water leak, gushing down an exterior wall and also pouring into the ba*****t. I immediately mailed Ms Brook about this. To date, 13/2/25, Ms Brook has not deigned to acknowledge receipt of that communication, let alone thank one. These examples suggest serious deficiencies in the abilities of Ecliptic Estate Management. They suggest Mis- and mal-management. I would give this business no "stars" if the option was available.
53 replies
14 months ago
Angor Refuses to support Owner's Rights under Sectional Title Laws of South Africa.
On 31 January 2025 I sent a request to the Portfolio specialist at Angor Property Specialists asking for the City Of Johannesburg invoices submitted to the building I live in and which Angor manages. I requested the invoices for November and December 2024 and for January 2025. This request followed the suspension of the electricity to my building by City of Johannesburg. I received no acknowledgment of this lawful request, Today, 11/2/25, I asked again. The request today was submitted, inter alia, to the CEO of Angor. I was told by Angor today, 11/2/25, that all information to which "I am legally entitled has been sent to me." This is simply not true. It is worrying that, with the CEO of Angor's support, I should be denied my legal rights to information concerning the building I live in. On Jan 30 2025, I requested information about the arrears levies in this building. I am lawfully entitled to this information. In the past, Angor has supp**** it on request. This time, I did not receive acknowledgment of the request. Today, 11/02/25, I requested again. Again, as above, and under a mail addressed inter alia to the CEO of Angor, I was denied this information. This denial is contrary to law as anyone conversant with sectional title law knows. Again, Angor is in breach of the law. Neither Angor Property Specialists nor the Trustees of the building are "entitled" to deny owners their right of access to information concerning the building's finances. The relevant law makes this perfectly clear. From this `brief factual account it is clear that Angor - in this instance right up to the CEO - is willing to breach South African Sectional Title law.
371 replies
17 months ago
ANGOR PROPERTY SPECIALISTS: UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE
On 28/10/2024, Angor Property specialists facilitated an AGM for Gleneagles Body Corporate. Angor is the Managing agent for Gleneagles Body corporate. The AGM commenced with the a Trustee of the Gleneagles Trustees claiming that the Trustees had declared that she (the Trustee) would chair the meeting. This Trustee was not the Chair of the Board. This unilateral appointment of someone other than the Chair of the Board is against the rules of meetings. I pointed this out. The would-be chair challenged my point and claimed I was "alleging" this. I pointed out I was reading it from the Prescribed Management Rules. A similar controversy occurred at an AGM 13/12/23, with the same Angor facilitator. At that earlier meeting the Angor representative insisted that the ******** appointment of a chair for the meeting was in fact lawful. The Angor representative was wrong. The facilitator on 13/12/24 also challenged the point I had made, despite her being incorrect on a point of law. Now, about a year later, the Facilitator still did not correct the would-be chair's assertion, despite having been told a year earlier that the procedure was out of order. The would-be chair then had to concede, after a pause, that she was incorrect. In the Minutes of the AGM 18/11/24, Angor, who drew up the Minutes, state on the issue: "The owner's comments were noted." The Minutes need to be a full and fair reflection of what occurred at a meeting. Angor chose not to reflect in the Minutes that the would-be chair's position was against the rules, or that the Owner had reminded the Meeting that exactly the same contravention had occurred at the AGM of 13/12/23 where the same Angor facilitator was officiating. Immediately prior to the election of a new board, with the old board standing for re-election, the Angor facilitator entered on a homily about how good the Trustees were. This, too, is out of order. No owner, nor the Chair of the meeting, requested - at the meeting - the Angor facilitator's opinions. This was not requested in the meeting. No Angor representative at an AGM is entitled to lobby for candidates for the Board of Trustees. Angor claims, inter alia, this illicit intervention was a "thank you." These words were not used. Additionally, the representative was a facilitator, not a participant. It is unacceptable for the Angor facilitator to behave in this way. Angor has, I am told, since complained to the Trustees about complaints leveled at its employee. It is noted that Angor is employed by the Building, and as such its representatives actions/inactions in relation to the Building's business are not immune to criticism. For quite a while during the meeting, certain owners, and always the same owners, were removed from the meeting. They were then re-admitted, obviously having missed proceedings while excluded. The Angor facilitator did not know how to prevent this happening, though she was the Administrator of the meeting. It is not unreasonable to expect that the Administrator/Facilitator of an online meeting is fami**** with the operations of the platform. The law requires that Minutes of AGMs are circulated not later than 7 days after the meeting. The Angor contract undertakes to do this if they are taking the minutes. The Minutes were not so distributed within the required 7 days. Thus Angor did not comply with the law or with its service contract. A controversy arose about the time allocated for online voting for Trustees. The Angor representative claimed that "4 minutes" was an adequate time. Despite please for the voting to be re-opened, this did not happen, and the Angor representative was adamant that "4 minutes" constituted adequate time for people to consider the candidates and vote using an online portal a number found difficult to negotiate. Again, It is not for the facilitator from Angor to be expressing an opinion on voting times. The (belated) Minutes indicate that the meeting was at a stage no longer quorate... yet item 21 on the agenda, after that, an item dealing with the domicilium of the Body Corporate is noted in the Minutes as "passed unanimously". A motion to prevent the Trustees from imposing a NDA on Trustees was indeed debated, as indicated in the minutes. However, the Minutes seem to indicate that this Motion was not passed. If a motion is proposed, it needs to be voted on. The Minutes sent out by Angor - who took it upon itself via its representative to argue about various points of procedure - invariably in favour of the Trustees - do not indicate that a motion was proposed and not voted on, a procedure that is contrary to the Rules of meetings. In addition to the domicilium vote when the meeting was said to be no longer quorate, the item General is recorded in the minutes as "None". People wished to introduce matters under general. The Rules of meetings dictate that if the business is not concluded the meeting is adjourned, not closed. Angor's representative did not point this out, but proceeded to close the meeting. An SGM was held on 31/10/24. The same Angor employee was the facilitator at the meeting as at the AGM of 28/10/24. A motion was moved to remove the chair after the chair had made what a number of owners regarded as derogatory remarks. The facilitator did not at that point indicate that the Chair is required to stand down while the motion is being discussed, and then voted on. The Minutes of this meeting, prepared by Angor, record the Angor representative offering up various pieces of legal advice and declarations on points of order. The Angor representative claimed that it was ******** to record an AGM without the permission of all parties. This is offered at the meeting and in the Minutes as a statement of legal fact. Angor has been asked to produce sound evidence for this, but has, to date, not done so. What the Chair said and what was found offensive is a matter of dispute. Requests have been made to Angor for the recording so that doubts can be laid to rest. Angor refuses to produce the recording. Angor claims it is their property and is for "minute taking purposes only." If there is a dispute, good faith would require that the recording be produced for purposes of verification. Additionally, Angor has failed to indicate how a recording of Body Corporate's business can become Angor's property. Moreover, the Chair insisted she would request a copy of the recording for purposes of intended litigation. Angor has not disclosed whether a copy has been made available to the Chair. The Minutes compiled by Angor contain the following sentence: "CSOS required that there be a process of contravention in the Rules." Minutes must be a true and accurate reflection of what was said. This sentence is completely unintelligible. Angor writes in the Minutes: "When residents transgressed, there needed to be a mechanism in place in order to modulate." This sentence is unintelligible. (Presumably Angor meant to write "moderate." This could only be ascertained via listening to a recording). The Minutes record that the Angor facilitator said that "ANGOR was not giving legal advice." This is directly contradicted by the facilitator having said that recording was ******** in the circumstances, a statement that is nothing if not "legal advice". Minutes are meant to be a full and accurate account. Here it is clear that the minutes sent out by Angor have the Angor representative failing to give an accurate account of her own statements. None of the above reflects any credit on Angor's performance at the General Meetings in question, or in the composition and circulation of the Minutes.
71 replies
17 months ago
ANGOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCT OF ANGOR'S EMPLOYEE AT AN AGM
1) On 28/10/2024 an Annual General Meeting was held with Angor Property Specialists' Ms Natasia Voyiatzis as "facilitator." The meeting commenced with one of the Trustees asserting that the Trustees could nominate someone from among their (the trustees') number as the Chair of the meeting before the meeting commenced. And that owners of the complex must accept that prior nomination. At an AGM of the same building, the same point was made in December 2023. It was pointed out then that this was contrary to law. Ms Voyiatzis of Angor took it upon herself at the AGM on 13/12/23 to assert that this position was in fact lawful, though in fact it was not. So in December 2023 Ms Voyiatzis was either ******** of the law on this point, or was for some reason advancing incorrect information. Neither position is satisfactory. Now, nearly a year later, Ms Voyiatzis of Angor, despite having been told in December 2023 that the proposed method of "election" of a chair at an AGM was contrary to law, was again facilitator of an AGM where the same ******** method of "appointing" a chair was attempted. As facilitator at the AGM of October 2024, Ms Voyiatzis did not mention that the proposed strategy of "appointing" the chair of the AGM was contrary to law, as had been pointed out to her in December 2023, and as was again pointed out in October 2024. 2) The would-be breach of the law was challenged and Ms Voyiatzis failed, as facilitator, to point out to the Trustees that their (the Trustees') claim on the matter of the chairing of the meeting was in fact contrary to law. After the would-be chair had checked the law, the would-be chair had to acknowledge the error. However, given the history outlined above,, and given that Ms Voyiatzis was acting as a facilitator deployed by Angor, an organization whose business is sectional title, one might have expected that Ms Voyiatzis would have been able to immediately provide correct information on a very basic aspect of the chairing of meetings at an AGM in a sectional title complex. 3) For some time during the online AGM of October 2024, various owners were being removed from the meeting. They then had to apply to rejoin the meeting. This occurred to me a number of times. Ms Voyiatzis stated she did not know why this was occurring. She also said she did not know how to prevent this from happening. For Angor and Ms Voyiatzis to supply a platform for an online meeting, and then not know how participants are being evicted from the meeting, is obviously unsatisfactory. It must at least suggest that Ms Voyiatzis/Angor is/are inadequately equipped to operate the platform, or are ******** of how the platform works, or that the platform is unsuitable for the online meeting. After repeated episodes of owners being ejected, Ms Voyiatzis asked if anyone knew how to prevent such evictions from the meeting. This in itself indicates her own inadequacy in operating the platform, or knowledge of the platform. Obviously, it is extremely disadvantageous for owners to be repeatedly removed from a meeting. The operators of the meeting's platform should be able to prevent such evictions from happening. 4) Immediately prior to the voting in of a new board of Trustees, Ms Voyiatzis offered a glowing account of the outgoing trustees, most especially of two of the said trustees. The outgoing trustees were all standing for re-election. Ms Voyiatzis was not invited by anyone in the meeting during the meeting to offer this encomium. It would have been improper for anyone to so invite Ms Voyiatzis to sing the praises of Candidates for Trusteeship immediately prior to a vote taking place - or at any point during the meeting. Ms Voyiatzis works for a company hired by the Body corporate to perform certain functions. She was present at the meeting as a facilitator, not as an owner or a participant. Her attempt to sway the voting was completely improper, and contrary to any function of Ms Voyiatzis' or of Angor's during the meeting. For an employee of a managing agent to actively lobby for the election of specific trustees, and to do so immediately preceding the voting, is unprofessional. The employee of a managing agent, Angor, has no right to be canvassing for Trustees-elect. 5) The proceedings of the AGM were recorded by Angor/Ms Voyiatzis. A number of owners have requested a copy of the recording. Ms Vouyiatzis has refused to provide the recording. She claims it is "Angor's property" and that it cannot and will not be provided to "external parties." This is both silly and unreasonable. How owners, who participated in an AGM discussing the Building's business, and who contributed to such a discussion, can be regarded as "external parties" is extraordinary. Furthermore, if as Ms Voyiatzis states, the recording is for "the purpose of the minutes," how are owners to verify or clarify the Minutes, should a dispute arise, without access to the recording? Again, Ms Voyiatzis on behalf of Angor is overstepping the mark, and in a way that suggests bad faith. All of this is entirely unsatisfactory. The examples cited point to what could be called obstruction of owners' right to access information relating directly to the business of running their property. It also points under 1) and 2) and 4) above, to a degree of unprofessional conduct.
213 replies
34 months ago
LE CAR INVESTMENTS: MR DANIE VAN ZYL: UNRELIABLE DEALING
DISAPPOINTMENT AND FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FULL INFORMATION ON ADVERTISED CAR: On the morning of Friday23 June 2023, I saw an adverti*****t in AUTOTRADER for Mercedes Benz SLK 350. The adverti*****t was placed by Le Car Investments, of Mr Dani Van Zyl. I rep**** to the adverti*****t. At about 11:36 Mr Van Zyl of Le Car Investments called me. He said the car was in Potchefstroom - we are both in Johannesburg - and he would arrange for a viewing. He further told me that he would revert to me and we would go to see the car. I asked him to set a time and revert to me. He agreed to this. Having not heard form him, I sent him an sms at about midday on Saturday 24 June 2023. He rep**** via sms saying the car was sold to a dealer. I queried how this could be, given our discussions the day before. I then called Mr Van Zyl of Le Car Investments. He told me that "the car was advertised over the whole world". I asked how that could be? He said that the person he was dealing with had "called a whole lot of dealers" and one of these bought the car. He said that as soon as he heard the car was sold, he "called Auto Trader and canceled the ad." Presumably the latter point was made to suggest he was acting with integrity. On my pushing the point, he told me he Ï was not not aware that you want the vehicle? Interested yes but then I had to withdrew [sic]. End of discussion." This is unsatisfactory for various reasons: 1) Mr Van Zyl of Le Car Investments did NOT actually disclose in our first conversation that there were various dealers vying for the car. It obviously makes a difference to the whole circumstance when in fact Mr Van Zyl has no sole mandate to sell the car. 2) As I pointed out to Mr Van Zyl, had he told me that there was a group of dealers in the market, one would have been in a position to act differently, because the whole situation is different. I HAVE NEVER been placed in a position where the advertising dealer is in fact NOT simply the only one trying to sell the car but is actually competing for a quick buck on the off-chance that he might wangle a sale. 3) Once Mr Van Zyl was informed that he was out of the running in vying for the car, he did not even have the decency to tell me the car was sold - understandably, of course, since he hadn't informed me of the actual dynamic surrounding the marketing of the car. 4) He had told me he would revert to me. He did not. *I* had to contact him. 5) To tell me that he "was not aware that you want the vehicle"[sic]. This simply cannot be true: given the history and the time frame outlined above, no rational person of integrity could possibly deduce that. t Previously I viewed a car being "sold" by Mr Van Zyl of Le Car Investments. A day after viewing he told me it was sold to somebody else. Then he told me it was actually withdrawn from the market. I would STRONGLY urge anybody trying to investigate a car being sold by Mr Van Zyl of Le Car Investments to do their best to establish if Mr Van Zyl ACTUALLY is in a position to actually negotiate with them over the sale of the car in question. My own recent experience suggests that Mr Van Zyl does not actually disclose where he actually stands in relation to the sale of a vehicle. In other words, crucial information is withheld. Furthermore, when things inevitably go South , he fails in basic courtesy: he had undertaken to get back to me, but didn't; when *I* got in touch with him, it's nonsense about not knowing I "want the vehicle"[sic]. None of this seems to ne to meet the BASIC standards of fair dealing.
0 replies
39 months ago
AUTOCITY ALBERTON: EXTREME DISSATISFACTION
I have given this auto dealership a single star since it is not possible on the system to give them less. Towards the end of 2022 I purchased a vintage car from them. On 20 December 2022, prior to collecting the car, I asked if the eNatis forms would be available. I collected the car on 21 December 2022, and the papers were not available but was assured they would be soon. On 9 January 2023 *I* contacted them since I had not heard a word. I was told by the salesperson, Mario, that the papers would be ready "on the 11th or 12" of Jan 2023. On 13 Jan 2023 I contacted them again: I was told the papers would "be ready today." On 19 January 2023 *I*, having heard not a word, contacted them again. I was told that the matter would be "escalated" to the dealer principal. So much for the promise they'd be ready on the 11th or 12th. On 31 January 2023 I receive a voice note asking me to send a picture of the license disc for Registration Purposes. I indicated my extreme displeasure, and was told "we are trying" we "haven't forgotten you." I pointed out the above history and indicated things must have been misrepresented to me otherwise I would have had the dox on the days promised. "with respect", Mario disagreed. I pointed out that he had said the dox would be ready on specific dates and they were not. He couldn't have made such claims if the claims were true, since I had not received the dox on the promised dates. Either he misrepresented the situation or someone misrepresented the situation to him and he echoed it. Either way, it is less than satisfactory. I have pointed out to them weeks back that I have a car that I cannot insure nor can I drive it on the road: I don't have the documentation. So for over a month I have sat in this position. The car's fuel gauge was not working at the time of delivery. They refused to remedy this as a condition of sale despite having marked the car up over 100%. They told me the car would be delivered with a full tank of petrol. I have had the gauge repaired at my expense. I told Mario that the gauge was sitting on empty. He disputed this. I had put in R200 after the gauge repair and the gauge hardly moved. It did, but barely. When the car left the showroom its odometer was on 0. It now shows just on 40 kms. So, according to Mario, the car used about 55 litres to go 40 kms.
240 replies
40 months ago
FNB FRAUD LINE AND CELL PHONE APP: APPALLING
This morning, 321/12/2022, I received a sms telling me that I must fill in details for the purposes of FICA or my account would be suspended. I had recently filled in forms for purposes of SARS, so thought this was a follow up/related matter. Sadly, I clicked on the link, and then realised, belatedly, this was probably a scam. I used the FNB app to reach an agent who confirmed I had been silly. I then called the FNB fraud line. I held on for about 20 minutes before someone answered. SURELY this cannot be a satisfactory response time for a fraud line? (Previously, in late 2020, I was mugged and had to call the fraud line... that tine I waited for nearly an hour for a response!) I then went to the bank to reinstate all the applications. I went to the Killarney branch in JHB and had very good service. I later discovered that my cell phone banking was still frozen. I go back to the app. An agent tells me to dial 130321. This it turns out, obviously, is an unrecognisable number. When one corrects this onself, to *130*321# one is told what one knows already: the facility is suspended. The agent has now been disconnected. So one must start all over again. Another agent. Tells one the same erroneous thing. so one tells the agent this will not work. The agent then give one a cell number to dial. One dials the number. The agent tells one at about 17:45 this number to dial. I do so, as stated. The answering service says the number only works up until 17:00 on weekdays. The agent surely should know this? But the agent doesn't tell one this. Additionally, at times, there is a lapse of up to three minutes for the agent to respond on the app!! When I pointed this out, and how exasperating it is, especially given the constant disconnecting that accompanies the app function, the agent tells me they are "experiencing load shedding". I point out that this being the case perhaps it might be advisable to tell the clients this, so we know what to expect? No response at all to this. FNB's slogan is "how can we help you?" I have found, in recent weeks, they are mostly, via their phones and their app agents, of no help whatsoever.
60 replies
51 months ago
MITMAK MOTORS: UNSCRUPULOUS PRACTISE
I was approached by Mitmak Motors in relation to a car I have for sale. Note, *I* was approached. I provided all the details they requested. They then sent me a quotation estimating a price between R150 000 and R165 000 depending on condition. On this basis I agreed they could send an assessor. The assessor expressed satisfaction with the car's condition. HE said it was very good. *I* know it is exemplary. What offer does Mitmak Motors make me? R100 000. I have the written message in which they stated a price of R150 - R165 000. It is clear to me that their strategy is to mislead a potential seller in order to get to look at the car. They have wasted my time. They have displayed themselves as clearly uninterested in keeping to the pricing parameters they themselves set. I advise potential sellers not to rely on the pricing parameters these people promise, and not to waste your time with these people. They don't want to buy your car. They want to steal it.
371 replies
55 months ago
MIT MAK MOTORS: DISINGENUOUS PRACTISE: TWICE
Morning all. It is 10:00 am on Monday morning, October 11, 2021. At about 9 am I spoke to Dylan of Mit Mak motors about a car I had seen advertised. At 9:05 Dylan told me "the vehicle is still in stock." I said I would come at 11:00 am to view it. He requested I arrive at 12:00 midday as they needed to "pull the vehicle." I agreed. At 9:09 am Dylan confirmed the 12 midday meeting. At 9:39 he sent a message saying, "See you soon." At 9:40 or so a manager called confirming the appointment. At 9:50 Dylan says the car is sold and has a holding deposit. I object, and express annoyance. He does not apologise and in fact sounds to me quite dismissive of my concerns. I try to call the manager who had just confirmed our 12 midday meeting. He does not answer his phone. How surprising. This is the 2nd time this company has done this to me. The previous time they sold a car inhouse to one of their employees after telling me the car was available. It is clear to me this company lacks any kind of integrity, based on my experience. They simply wish to shift stock. I understand the desire to sell stock. But to behave in this way, twice, indicates a pattern that I think is offensive, lacking in integrity and simply dismissive of potential clients. And, as I say, judging from my experience, twice, it is a pattern of their practise. I cannot condemn it strongly enough. Dylan tells me they "have a system there". - He tells me this in a recorded voice note.
530 replies
55 months ago
Citton Cars Menlyn: UNSATISFACTORY service and PROBLEMATIC DEALING
Following my earlier comments on the relationship and experience I had with Citton Cars, Menlyn, I'd like to report the following. A follow up call on my part to the Manager of the Branch, Arnold. He was not especially pleasant, when I told him of my complaint about the non-disclosure of the fact that the car did not have a spare key. He asked, "So what do you want me to do about this?" I replied I would like him to supply me with a spare key. He said he would speak to management and revert "in a few minutes." That was 3 working days ago. I am still waiting. (5/10/2021) Additionally, I was told that the car had been serviced and properly checked by the Bosch Service division attached to Citton cars. The book holds a stamp to that effect. On delivery, I discovered a vibration through the steering when you moved the car from Park to Drive, and also when in drive and at a standstill. I had a Volvo agent investigate: the right engine mount had collapsed, resulting in this vibration. One wonders how thorough the Bosch service was, a service designed, Citton Cars tells one, to give you "peace of mind." I repeat, that I paid "top dollar" for this car. And it would seem that Citton Cars were only interested in taking one's money. Nothing more.
0 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
1 (6.666666666666667%)
1 Star
14 (93.33333333333333%)