Skip to content

Meridian vs. Kamstra Brand - PPRA & Legal Interpretations

Sebastiaan is not permanently employed by Meridian Realty. The nature of the relationship is where he signed a Service Level Agreement with Meridian Realty. Using the branding with Meridian needs deliberation and more detailed understanding - prior to embarking on positioning & branding.

A Summary of the 'judgement' by PPRA

The Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority (PPRA) strictly regulates how South African property practitioners operate regarding partnerships, shared branding, and the phrase "in association with" under the Property Practitioners Act 22 of 2019 (PPA). [1] The regulatory framework dictates specific guidelines on what is permissible under this terminology:

1. Prohibition on Unlawful Associations and Consumer Coercion

Under Section 58 of the PPA, property practitioners are strictly prohibited from practicing "in association with" any individual or entity that is disqualified by law or professional codes of conduct. Furthermore, the Act forbids any formal or informal arrangement where a consumer is coerced, incentivized, or heavily encouraged to use a specific service provider (such as a designated attorney or conveyancer). Doing so invalidates the practitioner's right to remuneration, and any commission earned under such an association can be reclaimed by the consumer. [1, 2]

2. The Kickback Crackdown (PPRA and LPC Joint Communiqué)

A major application of the "in association with" rule involves relationships between estate agencies and conveyancing firms. The PPRA, alongside the Legal Practice Council (LPC), issued a Joint Communiqué regarding the Prohibition of Unethical Conduct. [3, 4]

  • The Ruling: Attorneys are barred from offering "inducements" (e.g., discounted real estate training, monetary rewards, or paying out early commissions) to property practitioners in exchange for client referrals. [3, 4]
  • The Consequences: If an agent operates "in association with" an attorney through a scheme that locks in client mandates or relies on pre-printed offers to purchase, they face severe disciplinary action. The PPRA can issue fines of up to R200,000 and withdraw the practitioner's Fidelity Fund Certificate (FFC). [3]

3. Undesirable Business Practices with HOAs

According to Regulation 35 of the PPA, the PPRA strictly forbids arrangements in which a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) or Body Corporate receives money, "accreditation fees," or alternative rewards in exchange for granting preferential treatment to specific agents. [5, 6]

  • While historical cases allowed independent marketing partnerships, current PPRA directives target exclusive "in association with" setups that effectively block outside agents from executing services within an estate.
  • The PPRA actively issues R5,000 compliance fines to agents found violating these exclusivity rules. [6, 7, 8, 9]

4. Directives on Branding ("Powered By" vs. "In Association With")

The PPRA has clarified specific marketing disclosure guidelines. When an independent agent or smaller entity operates "in association with" or is "powered by" a larger digital infrastructure/back-office platform, they must remain individually compliant. Every practicing entity must prominently display the mandatory text "Registered with the PPRA" and hold their own valid, individual FFC to legally claim commission. [10, 11, 12, 13, 14]

Regulatory Sources & Documentation

If you would like to expand on this, please let me know if you are looking at co-branding rules between two real estate firms, or if you are checking the legality of a specific partnership agreement with an attorney or an HOA.

[1] https://www.saflii.org [2] https://www.schindlers.co.za [3] https://www.facebook.com [4] https://www.facebook.com [5] https://www.privateproperty.co.za [6] https://stbb.co.za [7] https://www.miltons.law.za [8] https://propertyprofessional.co.za [9] https://propertyprofessional.co.za [10] https://theppra.org.za [11] https://www.firzt.co.za [12] https://www.abgross.co.za [13] https://www.servamusproperties.co.za [14] https://www.facebook.com

PPRA judgement - A summary by a Meridian Realty Employee

  • By Amanda Botha - Facebook Reel:
  • The Transcript: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1802947574051561 posted in Oct'26.

I need to talk about the powered pie concept. If you're a South African property practitioner operating under your own brand, with your own logo, your own colours, your own fonts, and you're putting powered by another real estate company underneath it. You need to hear this. 
But PPRA has now formally clarified exposition on powered by, and it's something our industry needs to pay attention to. Let's make this really simple. Imagine I am Amanda both of properties. 
I have my own logo, my own colours, my own fonts, my own marketing identity. And underneath that, I say, amount of work of properties powered by dummy real estate. It might look professional, it might look completely legitimate, but here's the problem. 
What am I actually representing to the public? I'm creating the impression that I'm on a book with properties is a separate real estate business, while my property practitioner registration is actually under dummy real estate. And according to the PPRA's latest communication, that is not how it works. 
The PPRA has specifically addressed practitioners who hold themselves out as trading under a firm other than the firm with which they are registered. They specifically refer to terms such as powered by, supported by, and in partnership with. The PPRA's position is that if you are operating under a separate, unregistered firm, or trading identity in this way, it can constitute as a contravention of the property practitioners act. 
And this is where I think the bigger issues is often missed. This isn't really about a logo. It's about representation. 
If your marketing looks like a completely separate real estate business, your own name, your own branding, your own identity, the ordinary consumer can quite reasonably believe that they are dealing with that business. But legally, and from a regulatory perspective, you are operating under the firm with which you are registered. So, if you are registered with, let's say, dummy real estate, you operate as a practitioner of gummy real estate. 
You don't create a second real estate brand around yourself and simply put powered by dummy real estate underneath it. Now, if you want to operate under your own real estate firm and your own brand, there is a proper regulatory process for doing that. But powered by isn't a shortcut around that process. 
And this isn't only something agents need to think about. Principles and agencies need to look into this, too. The PPRA has made it clear that principle or principles have responsibilities around the supervision and control of practitioners operating under their firm. 
So if you are an agent currently doing this, go and look at your marketing, your website, your social media, your email signature, your property advertising, your boards, your profiles. Look at what the public sees, because the question isn't simply, does my agency allow me to use this branding? The question is, does this branding accurately represent the firm with which I am registered? 
The PRA has indicated that noncompliance can result in disciplinary action, with potentially serious regulatory consequences. So this isn't about creating fear. It's about making sure that what we are presenting to the public is actually aligned with our regulatory status. 
Because ultimately, your brand doesn't change who you are registered with. And the way you represent yourself to the public matters. So if you've been using, powered by, supported by, or in partnership with, as part of your real estate branding, this is the time to go back and review it. 
Because the PPRA has spoken, and I would hate for you to lose your FPC over it.