ANNEXURE A Number of Complaints received and nature Completed In progress SACQSP Total - (42) Breach of the SACQSP Code of Conduct Candidate working for own account (3) Candidate work not supervised (5) No PrQS in branch office (3) Poor quality of work (3) Mentor not signing workplace skills records (2) Soliciting a bribe (2) Contravening of Act 49 / 2000 – Clause 18(2) Misrepresenting themselves as a registered QS (5) Performing the work of a PrQS but not being registered (16) Mr J. Mpambela – candidate working for own account – fined Mr R. Van Wyk – fined Mr M.Z.C. Buyeye – fined and censured Jacques Olivier – candidate working for own account – fined R & G Consultants – branch not managed by a PrQS – corrected Raphael Bagarette / Jade Hare of Granbuild – candidates misrepresenting their status - corrected Disciplinary Stuart Ray – Unprofessional conduct Anthony Porter – Unprofessional conduct (awaiting evidence) Jayshenie Govender – failed to uphold the letter of supervisor undertaking Siseko Quantity Surveyors cc – unprofessional conduct Lwazi Msani – candidate caught cheating in the Professional Skills Module Exams Number of complaints withdrawn 1 Mr A.S. Van Wyk – theft of funds – the matter was handled incorrectly in terms of procedure and has to recommence from the beginning. A former Registrar failed to issue a formal charge sheet within
the 5-years since the complaint arose. SACAP Total – 112 Failure to perform architectural services within a reasonable time. Failure to comply with Rule 4.1 Carrying out work during the period in the registration has been suspended. Number of Registered Professionals who were sanctioned to a fine including suspended fines: Margueretta v Hennie le Roux fined R10 000.00; Malese v Lungile Nongwana fined R10 000.00 ; v Michael Fakude fined R6 500.00 and R1 300.00 of this amount is suspended for 1 year; v Lorryn O’Sullivan fined R3 000 and R600.00 of this amount is suspended for a period of 1 year on condition v Bruce Dickson fined R8 000.00 and R1 300.00 of this amount is suspended for 12 months; v Eric Phofu, fined R2 000.00 suspended for one year v Nceba Coki fined R10 000.00 Indhul v Raj Maharajh fined R7 000.00. R1 400 of this amount is conditionally suspended for one year; Registered professionals with pending settlement agreements: v Michael Liebenberg SACAP v Sophia Holloway v Andre Griessel Registered professionals who have been cautioned and/or reprimanded: Piotr Plebankiewics Raynier Lewis Danie Kruger Margueretta Bekker Alista van Rooyen Registered professionals whose registrations have been withdrawn: Mongi Mbili Ganesan Govender Lizwe Mabutho Isaac Masotsha
suspended for a period of one year; SACAP v Lucky Segudla fined R4 000.00; SACAP v Michael Liebenberg Number of cases reported to the SAPS - 30 Number of complaints withdrawn 0 SACPCMP Total - 4 1 complaint of unethical conduct against a registered person through influencing the termination of the appointment of an Architect by the client. 1 complaint of rendering a service as a Project Manager for the development of a residential premises even though not registered. 1 complaint of unprofessional conduct by a registered person for advertising for work through a promise of payment of a referral commission. 1 complaint of advertisement of services as a Pr CHSA, Pr CM, Pr CPM and PrC mentor even though not registered in any of categories. 1 complaint of advertisement of services as a Pr CHSA, Pr CM, Pr CPM and PrC mentor even though not registered in any of these categories. The Council has no jurisdiction over unregistered persons, however, it was decided that a formal caution be issued to the person concern to desist from doing so and that if he continues, such misrepresentation, then the Council reserved its right to pursue action against them. 1 case was against an unregistered person practicing as Project Manager and Council has no jurisdiction over unregistered persons no further action was deemed necessary. 1 case of misconduct against a registered person, which upon investigation was deemed to be unproven, hence the complaint was dismissed. 1 case of misconduct against a registered person who upon being requested to provide additional information to substantiate his allegation refused to do so hence this has been put on hold until such time that he provides the information requested from him. Number of complaints withdrawn 0
road whereafter AHOA employed an independent engineering service to do an investigation and provide a report on their findings. The report indicated that standard construction procedures were not followed. The Respondent denied responsibility and refused to guarantee the quality of his work. 4. H P Heath against R L Pr Tech Eng (200170125) The Respondent issued a completion certificate for a roof which had been repaired. The said roof was subsequently found to be defective. (2012/05/11-12) The Complainant withdrew the complaint, but due to the number of complaints received against the Respondent, the matter was referred to PROTT as part of their brief. 5. ECSA against E J Pieters Pr Cert Eng (201290010) Improper Conduct (2013/11/07 - 47) The Investigating Committee considered the Respondent’s formal apology. 6. E Maritz against J Erwee Pr Eng (950433) It is alleged that the Respondent was appointed as the responsible engineer for the Complainant’s home. A dispute arose between the builder and the owner and the Respondent who was appointed by the builder refuses to issue the completion certificate. (2013/12/10 - 54) was insufficient evidence of improper conduct by the Respondent. 7. (2014/02/12 – 04)
from the Complainant regarding this issue. It is alleged that the third Respondent provided the Council with false certification of a wall, that he failed to challenge the statements made by the first Respondent and that he affirmed his “false certification” in the subsequent court action. 10. A D Barratt against A Mitchell Pr Tech Eng (877066) It is alleged that the Complainant pointed out inconsistencies and irregularities in the alteration of his neighbour’s home. A stop works order was issued which led to the Respondent sending a “threatening” email to the Complainant. (2013/09/30 – 41) A Peer Counselling meeting was successfully concluded with the Respondent on 23 April 2014 and the Peer Counselling Report was received. 11. P Venter against H S Van Der Walt Pr Eng (860204) The Respondent was appointed as the engineer to conduct engineering work on the foundation, floor slab and stairs of the Complainant’s dwelling. The said structures demonstrated defects. (2013/03/26 – 08) The Assignee’s report was considered by the Investigating Committee which resolved that there was no evidence of improper conduct by the Respondent. 12. A Solomon against L C Smith Pr Eng (860253) It is alleged that the Respondent undertook work without the Complainant’s consent or approval of the (2013/07/08 - 29) The Assignee’s verbal report was considered by the Investigating Committee
15. Dr A van Rensburg Pr Eng against Prof R Sandenbergh Pr Eng (790475) It was alleged that the Respondent did not comply in accordance with the OHS Act when the Complainant addressed safety hazards with the Respondent during construction of the University. The Respondent allegedly did not adhere to requirements in respect of the appointment of personnel nor did he inform ECSA’s accreditation committee of the employee’s non-registration status and qualifications. It is further alleged that the Respondent “intentionally lied” in an affidavit regarding a formal grievance lodged by the Complainant. (2014/02/12 - 08) Substantiating information was not forthcoming from the Complainant. That the safety issues were addressed with the Respondent and further information with regards thereto supplied by the administration. 16. R Ramphal against V K Ori Pr Tech Eng (9470055) It is alleged that the Respondent submitted a payment certificate which was above the tendered price. (2014/02/27 - 10) That the Investigating Committee considered the matter and resolved that the matter is of a commercial nature. 17. A Parsotham against T W Harper Pr Eng (940368) Subsequent to the builder absconding, a new builder was tasked to assess and repair the damages resulting in a dispute with the engineer. It is alleged by the Complainant that “the internal walls and trenches were non-existent; the soil was (2014/04/22 - 16) That the Investigating Committee consider the matter and resolved that there was no prima facie evidence of improper conduct by the Respondent.
Tech Eng (770101) registration details without the Complainant’s knowledge which allowed him to secure a tender with the Free State Department of Education. 26. J Di Mambro against R L Pr Tech Eng (200170125) It is alleged that the Respondent undertook the design and supervision of a residential apartment complex during 2003/2004. It is further alleged that the Respondent failed to adhere to acceptable standards regarding the adequacy, quality and suitability of a large sub-surface channel which crosses the site diagonally below the residential apartment complex. (2014/01/20 - 01) That a Terms letter was issued to the complainant informing him that failure to respond timeously would result in the case being dismissed. 27. J J van Niekerk against S P Cilliers Pr Eng (980363), W Kruger Pr Tech Eng (200570100) and J T Pidgeon Pr Eng (780227) It is alleged that the Respondents were involved in the development of a complex in Bloemfontein. It is further alleged that building plans for the complex were not approved and building plans were not submitted for a septic tank at the back of the complex which is running into the Renoster River. (2014/02/27 – 11) That there was insufficient evidence of improper conduct. 28. 29. (2014/02/27 – 12) (2014/02/27 – 13) 30. G Rossouw against C F Joubert Pr Eng (800192) The Respondent was appointed to do the structural design and erection supervision of a building in Magaliesburg. It is (2014/03/14 - 15) I was found there was prima facie evidence of improper conduct.
alleged that the Respondent did not indicate that the contractor deviated from the manufacturer’s instructions. Subsequent to a site visit by the Respondent, during which he advised that work could continue, the floor slab collapsed. 31. S Manuier against L L Ashton Pr Eng (870461) It is alleged that the Respondent refused to certify the work of the Complainant who installed a slab on the approval of the owner without the Respondent having seen the requisite drawings and/or plans. The Respondent was requested to provide reasons for his actions. This negatively impacted on the Complainant’s business. (2014/05/12 - 19) There was insufficient evidence of improper conduct. 32 S Chilwan against J C Krogscheepers Pr Eng (920021), P J Bullock Pr Eng (840217) and R H Botha Candidate Pr Eng (20095007) It is alleged that the Respondents acted in breach of the contract entered into between the City of Cape Town and Lumen Technologies CC (the Complainant’s Close Corporation) by amongst others, communicating directly with contractors without the consent of the CC, incurring expenses for the CC, etc. (2014/06/13 – 24) There was insufficient evidence of improper conduct. 33. 34. (2014/06/13 – 25) (2014/06/13 – 26)
informing him. The Respondent’s report was said to be biased leading to the immediate dismissal of the Complainant on the project. The Client also refused to pay the Complainant for outstanding fees and the complainant suffered loss of income and credibility as a result thereof. The Respondent was said to have compromised the position of the Complainant by his actions, which were solely for the Respondent’s benefit. 42. C van Dyk v J C van Tonder Pr Eng (750403) The Respondent allegedly allowed an unregistered person to sign off completion certificates, using Respondent’s profession credentials. (2011/02/08-60) No prima facie evidence of improper conduct. 43. Dr T Scholtz v J R Müller Pr Eng (760565) & J G Claassen Pr Eng (910241) It is alleged that the first Respondent acted as both contractor and registered professional in respect of the Complainant’s home. The first Respondent did not disclose this conflict of interest to the Complainant. The first Respondent then proceeded to act as an expert witness acting on behalf of the second Respondent after being suspended by the NHBRC. It (2013/10/28 – 42) No prima facie evidence of improper conduct. 44. (2013/10/28 – 43)
was alleged that the second Respondent acting as an expert witness, made incorrect statements regarding the boundary walls and damp proofing throughout the dwelling. 45. M Ungerer against J Singh Pr Tech Eng (200170137) The Respondent signed off a completion certificate whilst not attending to any site inspections. It is further alleged that the respondent stated that the A19 was not a legally binding document and that he had no contractual obligations to fulfill as the complainant was not his client. (2013/11/07 – 53) Insufficient evidence of improper conduct from the complainant. 46. R Lees v M M B van Rooyen Pr Eng (880203) It is alleged that the Respondent was appointed as the competent person for the design of a reinforced concrete raft foundation, which has since developed major cracks. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent was not accepting responsibility for the failure of the foundations. (2014/05/12 – 18) No prima-facie evidence of improper conduct.