- A property investor challenged Private Property’s Durbanville search results
- The complaint argued that listings for Uitzicht properties gave the impression that they were located in Durbanville.
- The ARB found that the platform’s suburb classification was simply a navigation tool and not a form of misleading advertising.
A dispute over where one suburb ends and another begins has put Private Property’s search system in the spotlight after a consumer accused the property portal of blurring the line between Uitzicht and Durbanville.
A property investor filed the complaint while looking for apartments in Durbanville. He said that properties in Uitzicht, which he describes as a suburb of Kraaifontein, were appearing in the Durbanville search results and giving buyers the impression that they were part of the more expensive Durbanville property market.
According to the complainant, estate agents were “falsely” listing these properties as part of Durbanville to justify higher asking prices, making the classification misleading for people comparing homes across different suburbs.
Private Property says it is about navigation
Private Property rejected the claim and told the Advertising Regulatory Board that its website uses a six-level geographic system to help users narrow their search from broad regions down to specific neighbourhoods.
The company explained that Uitzicht is grouped with the Durbanville area because it is “more commonly understood and searched for as forming part of the greater Durbanville area” than of greater Kraaifontein. They emphasised that the classification is “solely to facilitate navigation and property discovery” and is “not intended to represent a legal, cadastral or municipal boundary determination.”
Private Property also denied that its classifications affect property values at all, saying that asking prices are set by the owners and their estate agents.
ARB finds listings were not deceptive
The Directorate considered whether the listings broke the Code of Advertising Practice, which says that advertisements should not contain anything that, directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity, inaccuracy, exaggerated claim or otherwise, is likely to mislead the consumer.
In its decision, the ARB recognised that suburb boundaries are not always defined by municipal or legal lines. They found that Private Property’s geographic hierarchy gives people an accessible way to search for properties.
The ARB also noted that every listing clearly identified the suburb as “Uitzicht”, showing there was “no attempt” by the website, seller or estate agent to mislead buyers about the property’s true location.
The Directorate also pointed out that some mapping services place parts of Uitzicht within both Durbanville and Kraaifontein, which supports the idea that the suburb’s boundaries aren’t clear-cut. They also referenced local businesses, such as Curro Durbanville, as further evidence that the area is commonly associated with Durbanville.
The ARB ultimately found that Private Property was “not attempting to mislead the public by implication, omission, ambiguity, inaccuracy, exaggerated claim or otherwise” and dismissed the complaint.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
