Home | News | E2 000 REFUND WORRIES ASPIRING PROPERTY OWNER

E2 000 REFUND WORRIES ASPIRING PROPERTY OWNER

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

MANZINI – “If I paid E2 000 about 20 years ago and it was to be used for infrastructure development, why have the plots increased while the refund is the same?”

This rhetorical question was posed by Ikraan Mansoor, an aspirant property owner of Mkhosi Township. He asked the question when he appeared before the Zonke Magagula-led Commission of Enquiry on the Mkhosi Township Petition.

Mansoor claimed to have paid E2 000 at or about the year 2 000 after seeing an advertisement in this publication inviting low income earners and aspiring first time title deed property owners to register interest in procuring plots.

After paying the deposit, the hopeful property owner claimed that he was assigned a plot number and its size, which was about 853 square metres. Thereafter, Mansoor claimed there was no communication between him and the municipality until he visited the institution’s offices wherein he was verbally offered to continue with purchasing the plot or be refunded his deposit.

He purported that when the plots were availed to the selected target market group, they had an opportunity to even register for two plots, which was an offer he did not take up.

While there was no communication between him and the municipality, Mansoor supposed that there were advertisements of meetings in this publication inviting the hopeful plot owners to attend them at the municipality.

Bothered

However, he claimed to have not bothered attending them as he frequently visited the municipality and enquired about issues relating to the property. In his last visit, he claimed that an employee of the municipality handed him contacts of a Mbabane-based lawyer whom he had to contact regarding his property.

“When I contacted the lawyer, he laughed at me before asking if I wanted my E2 000 or the plot. To register interest in either of the two, the lawyer advised me to write a letter identifying myself and stating what I wanted to happen in relation to my interest,” Mansoor claimed.

He purported that the lawyer had relayed to him that the municipality had tried to get hold of him but had failed in its quest. In the communication between him and the lawyer, the hopeful property owner claimed to have verbally indicated that he still wanted to retain his plot.

Thereafter, Mansoor said the lawyer informed him that the township had changed in terms of pricing and plot sizes. In light of this, the hopeful property owner purported to have had a nagging question which was, if one had been allocated a plot number, why was it necessary to apply and renegotiate a price again yet there was an agreement.

“I was upset and did not entertain him. I asked the lawyer why he wanted the letter if they had my name,” Mansoor claimed.

When asked by the chairman if there was any infrastructure when he registered his interest in the plot, the hopeful property owner said there was none.

He claimed to have gathered that the municipality by then was waiting to be financed in order to develop the infrastructure. Mansoor supposed that the municipality should have communicated throughout the process as the aspirant property owners would have created a pool of resources to assist.

However, the chairman of the commission reminded Mansoor that the municipality was selling plots and was not a cooperative. Magagula then asked the hopeful property owner if increasing the plot prices was not part of distributing costs.

Evaluate

To this, Mansoor said should he had received communication on same; he would have had a leeway to evaluate whether his quest to own property was still valuable.

As Magagula had read a letter, wherein the then town clerk communicated that the municipality had envisaged an expenditure of E3.5 million on developing the infrastructure, it had increased almost twofold to E6.9 million.

Mansoor responded by claiming that the same should have applied to the plots then. He submitted that a plot valued at E38 000 should have then been increased to atleast E76 000 instead to the current retail price of over E300 000.

The hopeful property owner had more questions for the commission as he wanted to establish if the municipality was selling plots at commercial prices, how the low income earners who were initially targeted would have benefitted. 

Following this question, Magagula advised Mansoor to raise that question to his councilor. However, he claimed that the councillor would not assist as he and other ratepayers attended meetings and they spoke from the heart with no action taken thereafter.

The hopeful property owner emphasised to the commission that he still wanted his plot as he had children. Furthermore, he supposed that if his E2 000 was invested, it could be over E50 000 by now. 

“I feel what is fair is to be offered land. We’ve waited for this long and moving forward, how long should we wait?” he asked rhetorically.

He claimed that in recent months, no one was guaranteed of tomorrow and to expedite the township project was essential. Mansoor further wondered how those who were allowed to construct structures were different from him and whether they were part of the initial group of aspirant property owners.

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image: