Housing Consumers Protection Measures Bill: Provincial Legislature Mandates
NCOP Public Services
05 September 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
PUBLIC SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE
05 September 2007
HOUSING CONSUMERS PROTECTION MEASURES BILL: PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE MANDATES
Chairperson: Mr R J Tau (ANC, Northern Cape)
Documents Handed Out
Negotiating
Mandates by the following provinces: Free State, Gauteng, Kwazulu-Natal,
Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West and the Western Cape.
Audio recording of
meeting
SUMMARY
The Department of Housing had briefed the Committee on
the Housing Consumers Protection Measures Amendment Bill and now the permanent
delegates reported back on their preliminary mandates. Three of the provinces
were unable to submit mandates at this stage, but the remaining provinces
confirmed general support for the Bill. However, concerns were raised, which
included the final sign-off letters, often in circumstances where inspections
by the new owners were not properly carried out, the stages of the inspection,
what would happen in the case of contractors disappearing, and clarity was
requested on the difference in the subsidy and non-subsidy applications. Some
occupants remained dissatisfied with quality of the houses provided. Questions
were raised on the role of provinces and municipalities in regard to the
National Home Builders Registration Council. The National Home Builders Registration
Council clarified the situation regarding inspections, materials use and
testing. The respective roles played by the municipalities, provincial and
national department and MECs were clarified. The entry level for builders into
the NHBRC was also clarified, and it was noted that the Council had suspended
118 000 home builders to date, and that if a registered member
disappeared, legal action was taken. The
Department of Housing gave some input into the phases involved in the subsidy
sector. The Committee would meet on 12 September to finalise the mandates.
MINUTES
The Chairperson noted that the Eastern Cape delegate was ill, but requested
all other permanent delegates to give feedback on the Housing Consumers
Protection Measures Amendment Bill. He noted that the Free State had submitted
the mandate but there would be no presentation due to the absence of the
permanent delegate Mr L Van Rooyen (ANC, Free State) and his alternate.
Mr M Mzizi (IFP, Gauteng) stated that his province supported the Bill but the
problem was that the Department of Housing was accused of providing houses that
did not meet the required standards. Mr Mzizi pointed out that he had heard
that the occupants signed “happy letters” confirming that they had taken over
the houses and were satisfied with the work done. Prior to signing the
occupants should be made aware that they should be inspecting the property
provided.
Mr G Krumbock (DA, Kwazulu Natal) said that his province was happy with the
concept of the Bill but had complained about entry levels and oncoming of
contractors.
Miss H Matlanyane (ANC, Limpopo) said that the concerns that were raised by her
province were around quality of the RDP houses, and the disappearance of the
constructors before completing the work. The Department of Housing together
with local government had assured her that they were investigating that issue
and that legal action would be taken. The role of the National Home Builders
Registration Council (NHBRC) was questioned and it was said that NHBRC and the
department should do inspections irrespective of those done by the
municipalities. Apart from expressing these concerns, Limpopo supported the
Bill.
Mr A Watson (DA, Mpumalanga) did not submit a negotiating mandate. He noted
that at a previous meeting it was decided that the department should give
briefings. These were only held the previous week, giving the province
insufficient time to make the submission.
The Committee then agreed that Mpumalanga province could make a submission by
way of a final mandate on 12 September, the date set for finalisation of the
Bill.
Mr R Tau (ANC, Northern Cape) pointed out that his province emphasised the role
of the local and provincial government. Mr Tau said that housing was a
concurrent responsibility and the province had its own contribution, which,
according to legislation, needed to be registered with the National Home
Builders Registration Council. At the moment the Department of Housing
accredited the municipalities and subsequent to the accreditation the
municipalities must register with the NHBRC. However, the role of the MEC was
not defined in the legislation. Mr Tau raised questions about the role of the
NHBRC at provincial level.
Rev P Moatshe (ANC, North West) stated that the province could not submit the
negotiating mandate due to the delegates being out of the country.
Mr N Mack (Western Cape) informed the Committee that his province supported the
Bill.
Discussion
Rev Moatshe stated that the matter of the sign-off was important; he
pointed out that since most of the new occupants knew nothing about
construction and did not have any previous houses on which to base any
comparison, they were unable to say whether they were happy with the standard
of work. He suggested that inspection should take place at every stage of the
building.
Mr Watson supported this point.
Mr Mzizi raised the point of applicants not being traceable, and also requested
clarity on the quality of materials used.
Ms Matlanyane questioned why the RDP houses were not interlinked, because the
municipalities were saying that they obtained permission from the NHBRC and
that this design was meant to minimise the amount of material used.
Mr Watson requested clarity on the method that would be used in capturing the
inputs from provinces.
Mr Phetola Makgathe, Chief Executive Officer, NHBRC, replied that the concerns
raised would be clarified by distinguishing between subsidy and non-subsidy
houses, as the NHBRC was a player in both. Mr Makgathe stated that the
visibility of inspection in the non-subsidy sector was considered to be a
technical and administrative matter and not a policy matter. He promised the
Committee that the Council would investigate the matter. He noted that in the
subsidy sector NHBRC had a full time person to inspect every 500 units.
Mr Makgathe continued to clarify the issue of material used for construction
and pointed out that in addition to the testing station of the Department, the
NHBRC had its own to assist in ensuring that quality material was used.
Mr Makgathe clarified the respective roles played by the municipalities,
provincial and national department and MECs. He said the NHBRC was involved in
the subsidy sector from 1994 up until 2002. It was only subsequent to 2002 that
provinces started to register with the Council,
and because of this gap the NHBRC was faced with many challenges, which
included the provinces registering their projects. Provinces had been slow to
register, and this applied to projects both in the rural and urban areas. In
explaining the role of the NHBRC at a provincial level, he noted that every
constructor, whether private with
sub-contactors, or municipality, must be
registered with the Council. This also assured the public that the builders
were aware of what NHBRC required.
He went on to explain the “happy letters” situation. The NHBRC, in the
non-subsidy sector for bonded houses,
undertook to take on the responsibility of the home builder should the
project fail and they also ensured that the project had been registered. If
there was dissent, then there would be a letter originating from the housing
consumer, and the Council would play its part by sending someone to attend to
the situation.
Mr Makgathe stated that to assure the public that the builder was competent
NHBRC had a strategy at the entry levels. A person would pay R750 for
administrative purposes, and would have to write a test. The Council also did
credit checks and when a builder had become a member, an annual fee of R600 was
requested by the NHBRC. In return for this that member would be offered free
training. However, this situation had been misunderstood, and some Home
builders were claiming that they are paying enrolment fees and the housing consumers
were receiving a warranty. NHBRC maintained that the R600 annual fee was low
compared to the R18 000 minimum cost that the Limpopo province had experienced.
In terms of deregistration, withdrawal and suspension, the Council had
suspended 118 000 home builders to date and was awaiting disciplinary hearings
chaired by an external member. If a registered member disappeared, legal action was taken against that person.
Full payment should not be given unless the task had been completed. The
procedure set out that builders should be remunerated on performance.
The Department of Housing elaborated further in respect of the subsidy sector
by stating that the letter evolved in the final stages of the handing over.
Transfer of the houses from government to home consumer took place only after
the occupant had signed and moved into the house. Other than that, inspection
would be done at every stage of the construction. After signing the letter the
consumer had his or her name placed on the title deed. In terms of the flow of
money from the government to the constructor, the process consisted of five
phases: Phase 1 being the contract for
services offered, phase 2 being the laying of the foundation, phase 3 including
the building of the walls, phase 4 being the placement of the roof and phase 5
being the final sign-off letter.
The Chairperson said that the permanent delegates would be meeting on 12
September to submit the final mandates.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.