Fumigation at our house leads to our own Fukushima In April of last year, we bought our first home as a married

couple. We managed to find an old solid house in a great area that could be renovated over time. As with all property transactions, we received a beetle certificate from Inspecto(a reputable electrical and beetle inspection company) as required for the transfer of a property. The certificate indicated that the house was borer beetle free. This was particularly important to us, as although carpeted, the house had wooden flooring. We settled in to our home and towards the end of the year, decided to pull up the carpeting and refurbish the wooden flooring underneath. It was at this time that we discovered that we in fact had a borer beetle infestation. We followed up with Inspecto to establish if we had any recourse as they had given us a certificate to the contrary. They indicated that in the fine print of the certificate, it is stated that only visible areas are inspected i.e. carpeted wooden floors are not considered visible, and we therefore did not have a claim against them. We took it on the chin and in December 2010, organised for the house to be fumigated to get rid of the beetle infestation. My wife was 4 months pregnant at the time, so as a precaution, we decided to fumigate while we were on our Christmas vacation to allow for all the poisons to dissipate. On the 23rd December, Pestokil, fumigated our home using a chemical called CTX 108. We arrived back from leave on January 3 2011 and began to air out the house as directed. After a few days, the smell of poison was still prevalent, but we felt it would dissipate with time. We moved back into the house, but needed to sleep in our spare room as the smell in the main bedroom was still severe. After approximately 2 weeks the smell had not dissipated and we began to become concerned about the effect that the situation could have on our unborn child as both myself and my wife had uncharacteristically begun to suffer from headaches and sinus. We duly moved out of the house. It is now the end of July 2011, 7 months later, and we are still unable to move back into our house as the smell has not dissipated. Our little daughter was born on May 23rd. The following is an account of what has happened since December 23rd... I was present on the day that the fumigation took place at our house. Mr Aubrey Harris and his assistant of Pestokil applied 50l of a liquid product called Timberlife CTX 108 onto the floors which we had sanded in preparation for treatment. The product is supposed to be absorbed into the wood where it crystalizes. After Pestokil completed with the application, we closed up the house and went on holiday. On our return, we opened up the house to air as advised. We were advised by Pestokil that the smell would dissipate after a couple of hours and would be safe for both my pregnant wife and I. The smell was still quite severe after a few hours so we spent our first night home at my sisters house who fortunately lives nearby. One night turned into one week as the smell seemed to be lingering. After a week, we moved back into the house as we felt the smell had eased. Living in the house, however, it was clear that whenever the house was closed up, the smell would accumulate again. We attempted to live in the house for 2 weeks as we were assured that the smell would dissipate. After 2 weeks, however, we decided that the situation was not improving, and that for the sake of our health and our unborn babys health, we would need to move out. It was at this point that we contacted Pestokil to remedy the situation and insisted on obtaining a copy of the product data safety sheet of the poison to ensure that we were not at risk from a health perspective. After analysing the information, it became clear that based on the floor area in our house that required treatment, Pestokil had over applied the poison by 666%. When we raised the issue of over application with Pestokil, they admitted that this was the first time that they had used the product Timberlife CTX108, but had used the same application instructions as their previously applied products, which had led to the over application. It is interesting to note that the product has since

been removed by the supplier for residential application. Based on the extent of over application, we therefore began to suspect that the excess liquid poison had flowed through the gap between the floorboards and the skirting board and been absorbed by the sand underneath the house, and that this was leading to the lingering smell in the house. The Pest Control Association of South Africa regulates the pest control industry and we therefore contacted them regarding our situation to investigate any potential recourse, as based on the gross over application of the chemical, we felt there was gross negligence on the part of Pestokil which should be of concern to the association. Unfortunately in our case, the association was not independent. The owner of Pestokil is chairman of the Western Cape branch of the association, and Mr Mark Enslin of Coopers International who supplied the poison is also a member of the board. After complaining to the chairperson of the board, we received a visit from Mr Mark Enslin who handed me a Coopers International business card. The next day, we received a letter from the pest control association (SAPCA) to say that there was no problem with the application at our premises. The letter was signed by Mr Enslin. In fact the broader delegation who visited our house as representatives of the association were all in some way involved with the assessment or treatment of the borer beetle infestation on our premises. Mr Tony from Inspecto, who were the company that did the beetle inspection as part of our initial property transaction, was also present at the visit to our house. Subsequently, we were continually contacted by a representative from Inspecto wanting to obtain soil samples from our property. We indicated that this would only be possible under legal supervision. Inspecto never took us up on our offer and we never received clarity as to what the purpose of the soil sampling would be. It soon became clear to us that the situation would not be remedied quickly and that we would need to find short term accommodation. When we communicated this to Pestokil, they indicated that they would pay for our accommodation. We submitted quotes in this regard and asked for them to pay the necessary deposit. This was never forthcoming. We could not afford the cost ourselves of paying for accommodation and so were fortunate enough that my mother-in-law has a property in the vicinity. We were able to move in, and are still currently residing at the premises while we attempt to resolve our dispute. In order to attempt to remedy the situation, Pestokil first suggested that we install air bricks on the external walls to assist with ventilation and the dissipation of the smell from any potential sand that had absorbed the poison. This was done, and in addition, an ozone purifier was used under the floors for 3 days to assist with the process. The ozone machine helped temporarily while on, but the situation reverted as soon as the machine was stopped. After 2 more weeks of ventilation, it became clear that the situation was not improving. Our view point was that the only resolution for the situation would be to remove the contaminated sand from under the floorboards. This would be a costly exercise requiring the removal and replacement of the floorboards. Due to the anticipated costs of remedying the situation, we began to explore any potential claim we could make against our own insurance. In this regard we came up empty handed. Our short term insurance would not cover any claims in regard to household goods, and our bond insurance, which insures the structure of the house, would not cover any claims as the damage was not considered to be accidental. As part of the assessment by our short term insurance, it was suggested that we contact a forensic expert to assist with our claim against Pestokil. In particular, it was advised that we contact Dr David Kaltzow in this regard. As a requirement for operating a pest control business,

companies are required to have public liability insurance. Pestokil indicated that they did have cover and that their provider was Santam. We therefore organised a meeting between ourselves, our legal representative, Pestokil, Santam and David Klatzow. The meeting duly took place on 2 March 2011. At the meeting, the representative from Santam indicated that Santam would only process the claim if we could prove that the soil under our house was contaminated. It was agreed that the level of contamination was not the issue, but whether or not there was contamination. Dr David Klatzow indicated to Santam that soil testing was a costly process (approximately R50 000) that we were being ask to fund up front to which it was responded that if the soil was proved to be contaminated, that Santam would pay for the testing as part of the claims settlement. Based on the outcomes of this meeting, we duly embarked on obtaining forensic soil sampling. This process took approximately a month. As part of the testing we also received an analysis from an e-nose machine which is new technology that measures the extent of odour. Based on the contents of the poison that had been absorbed in the soil, we also contacted an environmental waste management company as the soil, if contaminated, would require treatment and dumping at a hazardous waste site. A representative from Wasteman duly took independent soil samples which indicated that the soil was contaminated and required removal and treatment with lime before being transported and dumped at the Vissershok hazardous waste site. In addition to the need to treat the soil and replace our floors, the fumes from the poison had also been absorbed by fabric. A number of household furnishings therefore also required replacement as part of the claim. Based on the extent of the testing and quoting that we required in order to formulate our claim, it took some time and significant man hours to complete. We finally submitted our claim to the Santams independent assessor represented by MVO Konsultante (Mrs Beatrix Keene) on 12 April 2011. Beatrix conducted a site visit to verify the contents of our claim and submitted her report to Santam during the week of 13 May 2011. We were subsequently contacted on 24 May 2011, the day after the birth of our daughter, by Santam with the news that our claim would not be processed as Pestokil did not have liability insurance cover. During the course of our debacle, we had been in contact on numerous occasions with representatives of Santam as well as the insurance brokers of Pestokill. During this time, it had been communicated to us that once contamination was established, our claim would be processed, it was just the amount that would need to be decided upon. Since first engaging directly with Santam in February, this was the first communication that we had received that Pestokil did not have liability insurance. We contacted the insurance obmudsman to explore whether we had any recourse to the situation. As we are a 3rd party in the claim, we are unable to use the ombudsman route. Our last resort was to seek legal advice. This has resulted in us submitting an urgent court interdict to liquidate Pestokil in order to obtain the amount required to repair our property. As can be anticipated, this is an ongoing and costly process, both financially and emotionally. Not being able to prepare our home for the arrival of our first child has been especially stressful for my wife. In addition, I started a new business in January and had prepared my office at home. I have had to make alternative arrangements which have been costly and unsettling. The time spent on trying to remedy our situation has taken significant man hours which has resulted in lost business. Perhaps most unsettling for us is that, after being in a cattery for 5 months, we have had to give our 2 cats up for adoption as it is not safe for them to be in the house.