Tony Clarke, MD of Rawson Properties, says they can lose their homes as a result of their landlords being unable to meet his regular monthly bond repayments.
Clarke says the Cape Dutch legal principle on which SA law regarding this matter has traditionally been based is "huur gaan voor koop". This means that the tenant's lease and welfare take precedence over other considerations. If the owner of the property is falling behind in his bond repayments the bank is expected to show restraint, at least initially, with regards to evicting the tenant and is expected to find some other solution.
In practice, says Clarke, what happens is that, when it is clear that the bondholder cannot meet his obligations, the bank will apply for a court order authorising the repossession of the home and the sheriff will then put it up for auction on the date advertised.
"At this first auction the home will be sold on the condition that the lease continues to be honoured by the buyer. If, however, the bank finds the bids at the auction to be unacceptably low, they can then ask for a second auction, with no conditions attached. In these situations the tenant will have to negotiate a lease with the new owner, and if he fails he has to vacate the property."
The whole question of tenants' rights and tenants' suffering if evicted through no fault of their own, has recently received attention in the US Congress, says Clarke.
Faced with the large number of homes on which the bondholders have fallen behind in their payments, President Obama, in May, signed the "Helping Families Save Their Homes Act".
This specified that tenants of any repossessed homes have to be given 90 days to find alternative accommodation. This new law will remain in operation only until December 2012 – by when, it is believed, the US economy will have recovered sufficiently to make repossessions a fairly rare occurrence.
Clarke said that some form of legislation of this kind might be acceptable in South Africa but, he pointed out, such a law could be used by a defaulting bondholder to extend the period during which he remains in possession of the home: he has only to produce a signed lease, possibly with a fictitious tenant, to delay the auction by three months.
It has been suggested, says Clarke, that no bondholder should be allowed to sign a lease without getting it approved by the mortgagee.
"In theory, this would seem to be a good idea. In practice, I cannot see it being a workable proposition because the bank does not have the time and resources to go about approving vast numbers of leases," said Clarke.
In the circumstances, said Clarke, to protect themselves, tenants signing a new lease should insist that the owner gives them written confirmation that he has been conscientious and thorough in maintaining his bond repayments up to the date on which they take occupation.
"A check of this kind will often reveal that some bondholders are not reliable landlords and are in danger of losing their properties – avoid them at all costs."
For more information contact Tony Clarke on 021 658 7100 or send an email.
Readers' Comments Have a comment about this article? Email us now.
Thanks for the article
It certainly gives the other side of the situation and highlights to the prospective tenants reason to also be selective in choosing a landlord and a rental home.
I presume that my comment may not have a complete bearing on this particular article, but it does convey the effects of a vicious cycle in this industry.
The one had can feed the other, provided it does not become one hand just taking.
In the past few years I have increasingly heard of landlords where tenants renege on their rent and then there is a battle for months to get them either to pay or to be evicted.
One particular case, my brother had a 9 month court battle to get this non paying tenant evicted. The tenant knew that he would not feel the "accountability". By the time my brother eventually got the property "back" he had lost a year's rental and the house was so badly damaged that it would cost thousands of Rands to bring it back to the state when he rented to this person. . Eventually my brother lost his home. Working in the Police force and knowing the Law did not help him in anyway.
So I think that a lot more should be done to protect the Landlord in whose name the Bond is registered, as the tenant has nothing to lose and often not to concerned about that either. – Val
Print
