Venditor Auctioneers. © Unknown
Venditor Auctioneers. © Unknown

VENDITOR Auctioneers are accused of giving a non-winning bidder a second chance to buy a house after the auction was closed.

VENDITOR Auctioneers are accused of giving a non-winning bidder a second chance to buy a house after the auction was closed.

The auctioneers have also withheld a R126000 deposit of the successful bidder without giving him a validreason.

Les Sekhakhane, of Rievaleirand in Pretoria, said he attended an auction, intending to buy a house valued at R1,2million.

He paid the deposit into Venditor's trust account, as agreed. He had to pay the balance within 30 days .

Sekhakhane said that while negotiating finance with Investec he noticed that the house was still on sale.

"A new buyer was painting the house I successfully bid for," he said.

He said he realised that Venditor had double- crossed him.

Sekhakhane said the problem started when Investec requested Venditor's Griselda Theron to send them the municipal account and the zoning of the property documentation for evaluation.

"It took Theron a month to respond and when she did, she asked the bank to hold on with any valuation of the property as she still needed to discuss my matter with her director," Sekhakhane said.

She never called or responded to any e-mails thereafter, Sekhakhane said.

Ten days after paying the deposit and in an attempt to expedite the process, the bank official handling his file tried to communicate with Venditor's conveyancers on the telephone number they had provided but discovered that it no longer existed.

The bank knew they had to act within 30 days, but this was made impossible when Venditor failed to send the documents the bank needed to facilitate payment.

From June 30 this year there was no communication from Theron, who ignored all telephone calls until Sekhakhane cancelled his contract and demanded his money back, he said.

"Since August, Theron has not responded to my letters of demand."

Consumer Line noted that Sekhakhane had signed a one-sided contract.

It reads: "If he failed to comply with any of his obligations, the property could be resold at the risk and cost of the defaulting purchase that would be liable for any shortfall cost and interest."

It says nothing about them failing to comply in terms of the contract.

Sekhakhane said Theron neglected to supply important documents to enable him to pay the balance within 30 days.

Sowetan is in possession of e-mails sent to Theron requesting the municipality account and the zoning of the property document. We also have a document requesting the bank not to proceed until Theron contacts them.

The e-mail also created doubts on whether Sekhakhane still wanted to proceed with the sale, but these doubts were quickly dismissed when Investec confirmed he was buying and they were financing him.

Theron told Consumer Line she sold the property to another buyer, but could not reveal when or whether she would refund Sekhakhane.

"All I can say is that I have prepared a letter which my director must sign and cannot reveal the contents until it is signed," she said.

Her director, Koop Styger, who was not aware that a new buyer had occupied the house, said they would have to place the property on auction again, and that this was costly.

He later said: "The insolvent person cancelled the sale and later sold the property to someone else without telling us."

Styger did not have the letter of cancellation to prove his statement, but felt they were entitled to Sekhakhane's deposit.