MD
Mary-Jane Darroll
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2016
12 May 2026, 19:53
DON'T TRUST PAM GOLDING PROPERTIES TO SELL YOU HOME!!!
I would give them a zero if one could! Don't sell you house with them they're interested in their commission only selling you the seller short with endless delay and no accountability - still taking their commission mind you! This is the second catastrophic house deal with them!
Helpful (0)
Replies (1)0
Replies (1)MD
Mary-Jane Darroll's updateReviewer Update
12 May 2026, 19:54I sold my property at 13 Roxburghe Avenue, Craighall Park, Johannesburg through Pam Golding Properties (Hyde Park branch) in November 2025 for R4,750,000. I paid PGP a commission of R142,500 plus VAT. This is an account of what that commission bought me.
The OTP — drafted, presented, and administered by PGP — contains Clause 9.3, which imposes an interest penalty on the purchaser at the prime rate on the full purchase price for every day the purchaser fails to comply with his transfer obligations. This is not an obscure clause. It is a standard Pam Golding Property contractual provision.
The purchaser (Matthew ** / Timmatt Property Investments CC) delayed the transfer by refusing to sign his bond documents. He admitted this refusal in writing on 24 February 2026. His stated reason — an electrical dispute — was subsequently confirmed in writing by both contractors to be without foundation. The bank completed its FICA process on 4 February 2026. Matthew did not sign for a further three weeks. By 3 March 2026, 39 days of delay had accrued at R1,333.90 per day — a total of R52,022.10 owed to me under PGP's own agreement.
I asked my agents, AGENT 1 and AGENT 2, to communicate this liability to the purchaser. I was told this was outside PGP's qualifications. I escalated to branch manager Alisha Dippenaar, who gave me the same answer. I then wrote directly to CEO Dr Andrew Golding with a detailed letter setting out the facts, the clause, and the accrued amount. PGP's response — from Group General Manager Richard Day — confirmed that PGP does not consider itself responsible for ensuring that buyers comply with the financial obligations of PGP's own sale agreement.
To add insult to injury, the "investigation" PGP launched was conducted by the Gauteng Regional Head, Mariël Burger — who operates from the same Hyde Park branch as the agents under complaint, at the same address and telephone number. I raised this conflict of interest in writing and requested an independent review. That request was dismissed.
Meanwhile, it was my own intervention — not PGP's — that resulted in the interest liability being formally noted on the conveyancing record. I had to fight for that outcome while my appointed agent stood aside. I vacated my home early, delivered all compliance certificates by 1 January 2026, accepted a below-market occupational rent, and borrowed R100,000 to cover my living expenses during the delay. I am now based in Cape Town and was entirely dependent on these sale proceeds.
PGP's position — that they are merely facilitators who bear no responsibility for buyer compliance with the agreement they draft, present, and are paid to administer — is not a legal limitation. It is a choice. A choice to collect full commission and then abandon the seller the moment enforcement becomes inconvenient.
If you are considering using Pam Golding Properties to sell your home, understand clearly: when the buyer breaches the agreement and money is owed to you, PGP will not stand in your corner. You will be told to seek independent legal advice — at your own cost — while PGP keeps its commission and moves on.
The Property Practitioners Act 22 of 2019 exists precisely to prevent this kind of conduct. I have been advised of my options in that regard.
Mary-Jane Darroll
The OTP — drafted, presented, and administered by PGP — contains Clause 9.3, which imposes an interest penalty on the purchaser at the prime rate on the full purchase price for every day the purchaser fails to comply with his transfer obligations. This is not an obscure clause. It is a standard Pam Golding Property contractual provision.
The purchaser (Matthew ** / Timmatt Property Investments CC) delayed the transfer by refusing to sign his bond documents. He admitted this refusal in writing on 24 February 2026. His stated reason — an electrical dispute — was subsequently confirmed in writing by both contractors to be without foundation. The bank completed its FICA process on 4 February 2026. Matthew did not sign for a further three weeks. By 3 March 2026, 39 days of delay had accrued at R1,333.90 per day — a total of R52,022.10 owed to me under PGP's own agreement.
I asked my agents, AGENT 1 and AGENT 2, to communicate this liability to the purchaser. I was told this was outside PGP's qualifications. I escalated to branch manager Alisha Dippenaar, who gave me the same answer. I then wrote directly to CEO Dr Andrew Golding with a detailed letter setting out the facts, the clause, and the accrued amount. PGP's response — from Group General Manager Richard Day — confirmed that PGP does not consider itself responsible for ensuring that buyers comply with the financial obligations of PGP's own sale agreement.
To add insult to injury, the "investigation" PGP launched was conducted by the Gauteng Regional Head, Mariël Burger — who operates from the same Hyde Park branch as the agents under complaint, at the same address and telephone number. I raised this conflict of interest in writing and requested an independent review. That request was dismissed.
Meanwhile, it was my own intervention — not PGP's — that resulted in the interest liability being formally noted on the conveyancing record. I had to fight for that outcome while my appointed agent stood aside. I vacated my home early, delivered all compliance certificates by 1 January 2026, accepted a below-market occupational rent, and borrowed R100,000 to cover my living expenses during the delay. I am now based in Cape Town and was entirely dependent on these sale proceeds.
PGP's position — that they are merely facilitators who bear no responsibility for buyer compliance with the agreement they draft, present, and are paid to administer — is not a legal limitation. It is a choice. A choice to collect full commission and then abandon the seller the moment enforcement becomes inconvenient.
If you are considering using Pam Golding Properties to sell your home, understand clearly: when the buyer breaches the agreement and money is owed to you, PGP will not stand in your corner. You will be told to seek independent legal advice — at your own cost — while PGP keeps its commission and moves on.
The Property Practitioners Act 22 of 2019 exists precisely to prevent this kind of conduct. I have been advised of my options in that regard.
Mary-Jane Darroll
MD
Mary-Jane Darroll's update12 May 2026, 19:54
Reviewer Update
I sold my property at 13 Roxburghe Avenue, Craighall Park, Johannesburg through Pam Golding Properties (Hyde Park branch) in November 2025 for R4,750,000. I paid PGP a commission of R142,500 plus VAT. This is an account of what that commission bought me.
The OTP — drafted, presented, and administered by PGP — contains Clause 9.3, which imposes an interest penalty on the purchaser at the prime rate on the full purchase price for every day the purchaser fails to comply with his transfer obligations. This is not an obscure clause. It is a standard Pam Golding Property contractual provision.
The purchaser (Matthew ** / Timmatt Property Investments CC) delayed the transfer by refusing to sign his bond documents. He admitted this refusal in writing on 24 February 2026. His stated reason — an electrical dispute — was subsequently confirmed in writing by both contractors to be without foundation. The bank completed its FICA process on 4 February 2026. Matthew did not sign for a further three weeks. By 3 March 2026, 39 days of delay had accrued at R1,333.90 per day — a total of R52,022.10 owed to me under PGP's own agreement.
I asked my agents, AGENT 1 and AGENT 2, to communicate this liability to the purchaser. I was told this was outside PGP's qualifications. I escalated to branch manager Alisha Dippenaar, who gave me the same answer. I then wrote directly to CEO Dr Andrew Golding with a detailed letter setting out the facts, the clause, and the accrued amount. PGP's response — from Group General Manager Richard Day — confirmed that PGP does not consider itself responsible for ensuring that buyers comply with the financial obligations of PGP's own sale agreement.
To add insult to injury, the "investigation" PGP launched was conducted by the Gauteng Regional Head, Mariël Burger — who operates from the same Hyde Park branch as the agents under complaint, at the same address and telephone number. I raised this conflict of interest in writing and requested an independent review. That request was dismissed.
Meanwhile, it was my own intervention — not PGP's — that resulted in the interest liability being formally noted on the conveyancing record. I had to fight for that outcome while my appointed agent stood aside. I vacated my home early, delivered all compliance certificates by 1 January 2026, accepted a below-market occupational rent, and borrowed R100,000 to cover my living expenses during the delay. I am now based in Cape Town and was entirely dependent on these sale proceeds.
PGP's position — that they are merely facilitators who bear no responsibility for buyer compliance with the agreement they draft, present, and are paid to administer — is not a legal limitation. It is a choice. A choice to collect full commission and then abandon the seller the moment enforcement becomes inconvenient.
If you are considering using Pam Golding Properties to sell your home, understand clearly: when the buyer breaches the agreement and money is owed to you, PGP will not stand in your corner. You will be told to seek independent legal advice — at your own cost — while PGP keeps its commission and moves on.
The Property Practitioners Act 22 of 2019 exists precisely to prevent this kind of conduct. I have been advised of my options in that regard.
Mary-Jane Darroll
The OTP — drafted, presented, and administered by PGP — contains Clause 9.3, which imposes an interest penalty on the purchaser at the prime rate on the full purchase price for every day the purchaser fails to comply with his transfer obligations. This is not an obscure clause. It is a standard Pam Golding Property contractual provision.
The purchaser (Matthew ** / Timmatt Property Investments CC) delayed the transfer by refusing to sign his bond documents. He admitted this refusal in writing on 24 February 2026. His stated reason — an electrical dispute — was subsequently confirmed in writing by both contractors to be without foundation. The bank completed its FICA process on 4 February 2026. Matthew did not sign for a further three weeks. By 3 March 2026, 39 days of delay had accrued at R1,333.90 per day — a total of R52,022.10 owed to me under PGP's own agreement.
I asked my agents, AGENT 1 and AGENT 2, to communicate this liability to the purchaser. I was told this was outside PGP's qualifications. I escalated to branch manager Alisha Dippenaar, who gave me the same answer. I then wrote directly to CEO Dr Andrew Golding with a detailed letter setting out the facts, the clause, and the accrued amount. PGP's response — from Group General Manager Richard Day — confirmed that PGP does not consider itself responsible for ensuring that buyers comply with the financial obligations of PGP's own sale agreement.
To add insult to injury, the "investigation" PGP launched was conducted by the Gauteng Regional Head, Mariël Burger — who operates from the same Hyde Park branch as the agents under complaint, at the same address and telephone number. I raised this conflict of interest in writing and requested an independent review. That request was dismissed.
Meanwhile, it was my own intervention — not PGP's — that resulted in the interest liability being formally noted on the conveyancing record. I had to fight for that outcome while my appointed agent stood aside. I vacated my home early, delivered all compliance certificates by 1 January 2026, accepted a below-market occupational rent, and borrowed R100,000 to cover my living expenses during the delay. I am now based in Cape Town and was entirely dependent on these sale proceeds.
PGP's position — that they are merely facilitators who bear no responsibility for buyer compliance with the agreement they draft, present, and are paid to administer — is not a legal limitation. It is a choice. A choice to collect full commission and then abandon the seller the moment enforcement becomes inconvenient.
If you are considering using Pam Golding Properties to sell your home, understand clearly: when the buyer breaches the agreement and money is owed to you, PGP will not stand in your corner. You will be told to seek independent legal advice — at your own cost — while PGP keeps its commission and moves on.
The Property Practitioners Act 22 of 2019 exists precisely to prevent this kind of conduct. I have been advised of my options in that regard.
Mary-Jane Darroll