Cape Town - An elderly couple in their 70s and 80s who survived a horrific home invasion by drug addicts who were living in an abandoned home next door to them are at their wits’ end.
They say the developers and contractors of a new apartment building which is being erected on the site in Table View have removed their boundary wall and it has become an eyesore and problematic.
The couple, who asked not to be identified, are aged 76 and 88. In January last year, they were attacked inside their home by three men who tied them up inside the bathroom and demanded valuables from their safe, and tried to suffocate them.
The couple’s address is also being withheld for safety reasons.
The couple’s granddaughter said her grandfather’s bravery saved them.
“They tried to suffocate my grandmother with a black bag,” she said.
“They tied my grandfather’s hands with a cable tie but he managed to break it. They were locked inside the bathroom. My grandfather ripped the burglar bars out and climbed out through the window. They had to receive trauma counselling.”
The granddaughter said the home next door had been an abandoned building for a few years and had been reported to the City as being a problematic, overtaken by drug addicts who ripped out the infrastructure.
In April this year, she said, the couple’s nightmare became worse when the property was sold to a developer and the property owner was keen to develop the site into apartments.
The granddaughter said the couple were not notified about the construction and that the boundary wall would be removed. Later, they received threats on voicing their concerns.
“The site foreman approached the surrounding neighbours and told them that he would be removing their boundary walls, whether he had their permission or not, and that he was going to put the scaffolding inside their properties which also didn’t need permission from them,” she said.
“I went to the property with the SAPS to open a case of malicious damage to property but my grandparents and the surrounding neighbours were threatened so badly that they were all too scared to take it any further.
“They did not open a case. It was at this moment that I demanded to see the plans to the development, (but) the site foreman refused to (hand them over). The police on the site demanded that he present the plans.
“I asked the site foreman why he removed the boundary wall without any permission and he said he did not need permission or need to advise anyone as he had approved City plans.
“He advised he would put the boundary wall back up within the month. By August, four months later, the boundary wall has still not been put back up.”
The granddaughter said the construction affected the couple’s satellite connection and TV reception.
There were endless problems with rubble and poor workmanship which she had informed the City’s town planning officials about.
“My grandfather had to pay a company to move the satellite dish since the wall has been erected.
“There are no boards outside to advise of the construction going on or boards to advise who the developer or construction company is.
“The workers on site have no knowledge of how to build and you can see it from the workmanship. They are cleaning up cement in their properties daily from it messing up their surrounding properties.”
The granddaughter shared emails exchanged with City officials where they confirmed that the building was a legal apartment block building which had been approved, according to their plans.
They said in their emails that the owner would be served with a compliance notice and that a building inspector would conduct a site visit.
Sue van der Linde, the ward councillor for the area, said: “I have tried to assist by escalating to City officials but cannot comment at this stage.”
The Weekend Argus approached the owner of the property for comment about the matter and also asked for an email address to share information between officials and the elderly owners, to which they said they were protected by the Popia Act and that it was a breach of their personal information.
“Building inspectors and the National Home Building Regulation Council inspected the site on a regular basis which is part of the process of the building and all is in order,” the company said.
“I will reiterate again, all is in order with all regulatory bodies involved as we have great participation with them (City) on other projects.”
Eddie Andrews, Deputy Mayor and mayoral committee member for spatial planning and environment, said the apartment block was a legal building which was in the process of being constructed, according to an approved building plan.
“The building is being constructed in compliance with the zoning parameters applicable to the property, hence there was no public participation required in terms of the City Of Cape Town municipal planning by-law,” he said.
“The matter of the construction method relating to the scaffolding being erected on the neighbour’s property was referred to the Department of Labour.
“Furthermore, the City issued a notice in that regard and to date the scaffolding has been removed.”
Wayne Dyason, spokesperson for law enforcement, said they were aware of the complaints.
“The City’s Problem Building Unit is aware of the property and at the time of the complaints it was not in violation of the problem building by-law. Since then no further complaints were received.”