The chairman (Mr. Frik Birkenstock),
Dear Frik,
Find attached a PDF file regarding a law. Although this law was originally developed to protect occupiers that lease/ rent property it is also applicable to occupiers of a share block scheme. For clarity:
a) The ‘owner’ would be the company (So-Ja Aandeleblock (Eiendoms) Beperk, because the property, Koedoesveld 666, is registered in its name);
b) The ‘person in charge’ would be the directors / managers (because shareholders vote them in on an annual basis);
c) The ‘occupier’ would be the 50 shareholders (because they were given occupier status when signing the usage right agreement). But, they are also shareholders of the company that own the property they occupy.
The porpoise of the letter is:
a) To ask the chairman to peruse this act and study the following points:
a. The definitions of ‘owner’, ‘person in charge’ and ‘occupier’
b. Section 5 (Fundamental rights),
c. Section 6 (Rights and duties of occupier)
d. Section 7 (Rights and duties of owner)
e. Chapter IV
b) To ask the chairman to discuss this with all concerned before the next management meeting and notify me (by e-mail) of any legal reason why it is not applicable (or, as soonest thereafter). Eg. Why I may be considered an ‘owner’ and not ‘occupier’ and therefore the directors/ managers do not have the rights they have allocated to themselves.
c) To notify the chairman that if he can’t supply a legal alternative to the above statement, I have to assume he agrees with me.
d) To ask the chairman to familiarise himself with the examples below and if he disagrees with any statement notify me per e-mail. If he does not notify me by the stated deadline I will assume he agrees with me.
e) To ask the chairman (if he is in agreement with the examples below) to instruct all concerned (with immediate effect) to stop with this malevolent and illicit practice.
In my family’s (my wife and I) opinion, examples of unfair tenure practise (this is only a small sample of unfair tenure practices the ‘person in charge’ subject the ‘occupier’ to. This is not only applicable to this Act but general grievances accomplished by the directors/ management of the share block scheme):
a) Human dignity; For my family (my wife and I) it is undignified , unfair and humiliating for the ‘person in charge’ to:
1. Invite someone to a meeting to humiliate them (e.g. giving my spouse a personal invite to a management meeting and throw her out?).
2. Accuse someone of being a despot in an open meeting (e.g. after I requested why a three hundred times more increase is need in a budget without a project allocation?).
3. Put someone’s life in danger and make them the responsible participant (e.g. on a number of times of the year making me accountable for my safety if I walk on the main access road {yet I can drive there during the same period and the ‘owner’ is now responsible}?).
4. Notify some ‘occupiers’ about a service failure and not all (e.g. Mr. Dawid Bosch would visit certain ‘occupiers’ and deliver a personal message to some but, not all?).
5. Put up a notice board in such a method that it can’t be read by normal sized ‘occupiers’ (e.g. (to be able to read the top part of the board you have to be in the 1% average hight of South Africans {i.e. taller than 2 meters).
6. Scrape, dress or do roads maintenance between the ‘occupier’ units without prior arrangements (e.g. scrape the road in front of houses during laundry day so all the laundry needs rewashing?).
7. Ignore reported problems (e.g. when an ‘occupier’ reported swearing on labourers it got noted that it would be investigated and never acted upon again?).
8. Acknowledge reported problems (e.g. the chairman would never ever {except for the rare occasion} even acknowledge a letter or e-mail and would never report the action they may have taken?).
9. Blame on ‘occupiers’ reporting the problems. They are just the messengers (e.g. whenever I report management in general actually complain and try and make as if it a personal issue?).
10. Use words they do not understand like using ‘synergy’ when he/she meant ‘co-operation’. It is misleading and confusing and leads to ‘occupier’ being take in.
11. Make available a point of payment of services accounts and that point is never manned but the ‘occupiers’ get ostracised at General Meetings for non payment (e.g. the chairman’s wife even made remarks about the non-payment of the permanent ‘occupiers’?).
12. When the chairman in his annual report refers to the fact that ‘occupiers’ don’t correspond enough with them but yet restrict another ‘occupier’ (in the same period of time) because they have received too much communication (e.g. during the 2009 to 2010 annual share block period more then once was mentioned about the volume of correspondence I generated?).
b) Freedom and security of the person; For my family (my wife and I) it is undignified, unfair and humiliating for the ‘person in charge’ to:
1. Lock gates, doors and other common property to restrict ‘occupiers’ access without an agreement (e.g. more then 13 years ago the locks had to be cut off electrical distribution boxes because no access was available in an emergency and, just a year ago the Western access gate was locked because it ‘left open’?).
2. Spread untrue rumours of how unsafe the share block scheme may be (e.g. at various social functions Mr. Dawid Bosch warns ‘occupiers’ to be very careful because foreiners hide on the property?).
3. Solicit others to act against ‘whistle blowers’ (e.g. by trying various means to stop me writing factual e-mails?).
4. Allow full use of pressure pumps to some ‘occupiers’ but restrict some ‘occupiers’ (e.g. by the ‘person in charge’ falsely claiming that I ‘take the water out of their mouth. Even if it was proven untrue?).
5. Require full building plans from some ‘occupiers’ but other ‘occupiers’ need only submit sketches (e.g. by allowing Mr. Andre Lubbe to only need to submit sketches?).
6. Require that the electrical connections be indicated on building plans but nobody can verify the reason for it (e.g. this point was raised many times but the local authority has never demanded/ requested it?).
7. Agreeing where the usage right peg might be and then move it because of a complaint (e.g. by the ‘person in charge’ falsely claiming the peg of a Mr. Emile Kok has been moved to the advantage of Mr. Kok, even after signing off plans by the ‘person in charge’ that had the old value of the peg indicated on?).
8. Agreeing to the use of common property and then remove that right (temporary or permanent) without prior agreement or adjustment of the usage right they have signed and agreed on (e.g. toilet facilities was out of the blue just locked and major complaints to the ‘person in charge’ had to be lodged to get it unlocked?).
9. Make a ruling that all pets must be on a lead but the ‘person in charge’ does not even have his pet on a lead (e.g. Mr. Dawid Bosch, one of the ‘person in charge’ members, has never had his dog on a lead?).
10. Discuss ‘occupiers’ at management meetings without giving them the option to defend themselves (e.g. it has come to my attention that my wife and I was discussed at the meeting after the management meeting and none of us was invited to defend our actions?).
11. Make certain rulings regarding ‘occupiers’ with the ruling that they will be notified and it never happens. (e.g. Four years ago the chairman of ‘the person incharge’ was given the instruction to notify my spouse and I that a lawyer will monitor our communication. We are still waiting for this notification. Yet, we are judged as if we are now malicious for ignoring the notification that was never sent?).
12. Refer to intended rules as if the ‘occupier’ has signed a contract and agreement for it (e.g. the Act for controlling share block schemes make it clear that unsigned usage agreements are null and void yet ‘the person in charge’ insist that the unsigned usage right are enforceable?).
13. Assume that ‘occupiers’ have no rights (e.g. ‘the person in charge’ even change the same usage right at will? {i.e. banning ‘occupiers’ from attendance of management meetings with even asking their participation}).
14. Assume that ‘occupiers’, or the law, have given them boundless power (e.g. going into contractual agreements for bow-hunting without occupier approval?).
15. Assume that decisions made at management meetings meet with ‘occupiers’ approval (e.g. going into contractual agreements for bow-hunting without occupier approval that had to be reversed at the next Annual General Meeting?).
16. Assume that decisions made at management meetings are assimilated by ‘occupiers’ (e.g. only referring to such decisions on non-distributed minutes?).
17. Be demeaning to ‘occupiers’ that volunteer their service for the improvement of the community (e.g. thirteen years ago I volunteered to update all site plans but just got insulted for even suggesting it?) .
18. Assume that volunteer ‘occupiers’ has become personal when they refuse to perform further services after being debased (I was even received erroneously a lawyer’s letter for using a ‘person in charge’s’ name because it was assumed to be deemed personal and opinionated?).
19. Start unauthorised projects and revolve a story about “it is now there, let’s live with it”.
20. Assume that by threatening ‘occupiers’ with the court they should just roll over and ‘play Rover’ (e.g. in more than one occasion I was verbal and in writing threatened because I pointed out that ‘the person in charge’ is busying themselves with illegal activities?).
21. Assume that permanent ‘occupiers’ are puppets to the temporary ‘occupiers’ and need to play ‘caretaker’ to their occupancies (e.g. this statement was even made on a open forum like an Annual General Meeting and was also indicated that permanent ‘occupiers’ enjoy special privileges and should be penalised for it?).
c) Privacy; For my family (my wife and I) it is undignified, unfair and humiliating for the ‘person in charge’ to:
1. Feel it their right to just trespass onto your ‘occupiers’ usage right without permission e.g. the previous chairman of ‘the person in charge’ made it his mission to torment me this way until I lost my temper and regrettably told him I would shoot him if he trespasses again?).
2. Feel it their right to give other persons the right to trespass onto your usage right (e.g. the person in charge even gave Mrs. JJ Claasens permission to use a shortcut over my property?).
3. Give permission to some to put up boundary fencing to protect them and make a general ruling that it is not allowed (e.g. Mrs. Joubert was given permission to fence in her property but when I asked, I was told it is not our policy?”.
4. Distribute private correspondence to other members of the public or other members of the ‘person in charge’ (e.g. the current chairman admitted that he did this action at regular management meetings?).
5. Ignore that e-mail nowadays is a more accepted media of communication (e.g. at a management meet last year the management made a decision to restrict me using e-mail because it interferes in their ‘bookkeeping and filing’?).
6. Demand the rights to intellectual copy right systems (e.g. I made a spreadsheet indicating valuations of property at my own cost. The ‘person in charge’ demand that they have the right to that spreadsheet but only have the rights to the results?).
7. Single out certain ‘occupiers’ to penalise them without referring to the usage right agreement (e.g. only I was singled out in the above point?).
d) Freedom of religion, belief and opinion and of expression; For my family (my wife and I) it is undignified, unfair and humiliating for the ‘person in charge’ to:
1. Assume that personal opinions are not allowed (e.g. the chairman claimed a civil action is being taken out against me for my personal opinion?).
2. That freedom of expression is a personal attack on the person concerned (e.g. this has been raised in many conversations and civil action was even instituted against me for this reason?).
3. Take matters in hand and change, without permission, a general decision made by all ‘occupiers’ e.g. this is a common complaint but the most notorious is where in a general meeting a decision was mad and 30 minutes after the meeting ‘the person in charge’ in had another management meeting and reversed the decision. Both instances well documented in minutes of meetings?) .
4. Perform sub-standard services just because it is a voluntary service (e.g. in an annual general meeting this issue was raised and ‘occupiers’ were told that we must remember that it is voluntary service and we should not expect professional standards?).
5. Become demeaning to ‘occupiers’ should they ask detailed explanations as to the expenditure of the money they donated to the ‘owner’ (e.g. nearly on an annual basis the expenditure is questioned and the chairman always fobs it off by explaining that detailed accounting is not done and miscellaneous expenditure gets subdivided in mainly terrain expenditure?) .
e) Freedom of association; For my family (my wife and I) it is undignified, unfair and humiliating for the ‘person in charge’ to:
1. Not to invite all ‘occupiers’ to general social functions (e.g. by word of mouth only selective ‘occupiers’ are invited to social functions that all occupiers must pay for?)..
2. Assume that all ‘occupiers’ should attend Annual General Meetings (e.g. a letter I received it states that if I attend these meetings I will knoew what is happening and will be well informed yet I had a proxy member attend on my behalf?).
3. Assume that all ‘occupiers’ automatically agree about religious functions being held on the common property and that they agree to subsidise such functions (e.g. No documentation can be found since registration of the share block scheme where the NH church was given exclusive rights to perform service on the premises and subsidised by all occupiers?)..
4. Condemn an ‘occupiers’ political association (e.g. I have heard it from various members of the ‘person in charge’, as if a criminal act has been performed, that I am a card carrying member of the ANC?).
5. Condemn an ‘occupiers’ friendships and connections (e.g. some ‘occupiers’ made it clear that they may not visit me because the may not be invited again so social functions?).
6. Assume they only have rights to attend management meetings.
f) Freedom of movement; For my family (my wife and I) it is undignified, unfair and humiliating for the ‘person in charge’ to:
1. Restrict walking access when they feel like it (e.g. the only access road to the residential facilities get restricted when management feel like it?).
2. Lock electrical boxes without notice after having given ‘occupiers’ the right to have the boxes unlocked for at least 10 years (e.g after I sent a letter of complaint about an electrical DB box the box gets locked to restrict my access?).
g) Freedom to receive communication; For my family (my wife and I) it is undignified, unfair and humiliating for the ‘person in charge’ to:
1. Try and restrict an ‘occupier’ to a method of communication but not apply the same standards to other ‘occupiers’ (e.g. during the financial year 2009 to 2010 the ‘person in charge’ made a conscious decision that that I no longer may send the e-mail?).
2. Send communications to an occupier knowing they may not fully understand the language that communication is in (e.g. my home language is English and my spouse German. My spouse and I use a English to communicate. Yet the ‘person in charge will insist using Afrikaans, knowing either myself or my spouse may misunderstand so as to ridicule us?).
GEN (Ernest) Bessinger
PO Box 106,
Waterpoort, 0905
Cell +27 73 073 3505
Fax 0867416512
Google profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/ernestbes/
Confidentiality Warning
This message/ e-mail contain confidential information and is intended only for the message recipient. Any disclosure, retransmission, dissemination, misuse or other use of this information is strictly prohibited and will lead to prosecution. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
The Disclaimer forms part of the content of this email in terms of section 11 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, 25 of 2002.
