Urgent Petition to Halt the Implementation of the PPRA's New Competency-Based Pathway
The Issue
Petition to the National Assembly of the Parliament of South Africa
To: The Speaker of the National Assembly
From: South African Citizens and Property Stakeholders
Contact Details: bronwyn@zaphub.co.za
Subject: Urgent Petition to Halt the Implementation of the PPRA's New Competency-Based Pathway and Restore Educational Standards for the Property Sector
1. Nature of Request
We, the undersigned members of the real estate industry, property professionals, and concerned citizens of South Africa, hereby submit this petition to the National Assembly.
We request that Parliament urgently intervene and call upon the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority (PPRA) to:
Immediately halt the implementation of the new competency-based pathway to the Professional Designation Examination (PDE 4), as announced on 19 July 2026.
Restore and enforce mandatory, formal NQF Level 4 and NQF Level 5 qualifications as the primary educational requirement for all non-principal and principal property practitioners, respectively.
Conduct a full and transparent review of the PPRA's current education and transformation framework, with specific and meaningful consultation with all stakeholders, to ensure that any changes enhance professional standards and protect consumers, rather than lowering educational standards for property practitioners.
2. Motivation for the Petition
This petition is prompted by a deeply concerning reform announced by the PPRA which introduces an alternative competency-based pathway to the PDE 4. The new pathway allows candidates with only a National Senior Certificate (Matric) to sit for the PDE 4 examination, bypassing the mandatory NQF Level 4 Further Education and Training Certificate: Real Estate and Occupational Certificate: Real Estate Agent. The new pathway allows candidates to become full-status practitioners with a Matric certificate, a competency letter signed by their principal with no oversight of modules completed, no verification by the PPRA, and no meaningful content for the six practical modules has been issued by the PPRA to ensure the modules are accurate. The consumer is then expected to know if a property practitioner has knowledge of the industry simply with an FFC issued.
The PPRA claims this reform expands access and provides flexibility, but we believe it is a grave and short-sighted decision that will have the following catastrophic consequences for our industry and the public it serves:
A dangerous lowering of professional standards: The new policy directly contradicts the PPRA's own statements of just two years ago where the Authority confirmed that after consultations, "the applicable qualification standards for the sector will remain as NQF4 & NQF5 Real Estate qualifications." This abrupt reversal undermines the progress made in professionalizing the sector.
Undermining the value of education: It devalues the years of hard work and financial investment made by thousands of existing, qualified practitioners who have obtained their NQF 4 and 5 qualifications. It creates a two-tier system where education is no longer a prerequisite, which is a fundamental breach of trust for the consumers who use the services of property practitioners and to the property practitioners who have already initiated their educational requirements under the old dispensation.
Creation of a two-tier industry and a "perpetual intern" problem: While the PPRA claims this change will solve the problem of "perpetual interns," it may instead institutionalize it. The new pathway risks creating a permanent underclass of practitioners who, without a formal qualification, will be ineligible for the PPRE professional designation and potentially face significant barriers to becoming principals. The promise of "greater flexibility" is a façade for a cheaper, less rigorous route.
A failure to protect the consumer: The South African property market handles the largest transaction most citizens will ever make. Allowing practitioners to operate with only a Matric certificate and a single examination removes the core educational foundation that ensures a thorough understanding of property law, ethics, fiduciary duties, and consumer protection. The PPRA's announcement aims to "protect consumers," but this policy will have the opposite effect.
Exemption of 10 categories without public notification: The PPRA has exempted 10 of the 12 categories under their mandate from education requirements and has not informed the public with any notices. They have yet to complete any educational requirements since the promulgation of the PPA in 2022. There has been no physical attempt to safeguard the consumer, and they have not announced any future education requirements. This means that all of the 10 categories have no requirement to have any knowledge of the industry they work in, and this leaves the consumer with no protection. This also leaves the Fidelity Fund very vulnerable from fraudsters who can obtain an FFC for any reason, and the consumer can now get compensation from the fund while estate agents contribute the most to this fund.
Misguided transformation: While transformation is a legitimate goal, removing educational requirements is the wrong solution. The real barrier to transformation is the cost of education, not the requirement itself. The "One Learner, One Property Practitioner" programme was a positive step to address this. This new pathway is a regressive step that will cheapen the profession.
3. Additional Concerns Regarding the Six Practical Modules
The PPRA has made no publically visible attempt to produce meaningful content and resources to business owners for the six practical modules. They have also not made meaningful attempts to verify if a practitioner has in fact completed in full the training requirements under the six practical modules, which is now the only content which will be required under the new avenue to ensure competency by property practitioners. This causes further risks to consumers, who will now have no guarantee that the practitioner they are working with is aware of consumer rights under the PPA or any other regulatory requirement. The lack of oversight, verification, and standardized content for these modules renders the entire competency pathway meaningless and leaves consumers dangerously exposed.
4. Relief Sought
We respectfully request that Parliament:
Initiates an urgent review of the PPRA's new competency-based pathway policy.
Directs the PPRA to immediately suspend the implementation of this new pathway until a full, transparent, and inclusive stakeholder consultation has been conducted.
Recommends that the PPRA focus on making education more accessible and affordable by reducing the cost of NQF qualifications, expanding learnerships, and providing financial support, rather than removing the qualification requirement itself.
Ensures a unified educational standard is maintained for all property practitioners to protect the integrity of the profession and the interests of the South African consumer.
Compels the PPRA to publish clear, transparent, and enforceable educational requirements for all 12 categories of property practitioners, with meaningful public consultation and consumer protection at the forefront.
5. Conclusion
Not only has the PPRA exempted 10 of the 12 categories under its mandate from meaningful educational requirements, but it has now also reduced the requirements needed for the two remaining categories—agents and attorney employees—by introducing an alternative competency-based pathway that bypasses formal NQF Level 4 and Level 5 qualifications. The real estate industry is at a critical juncture. For decades, we have worked tirelessly as agents and industry stakeholders to shed the negative public perception of being "useless" and to build a professional, ethical industry worthy of public trust. Yet, while we are working diligently to restore the stigma against our profession, the PPRA continues to be an obstacle to our progress. The Authority takes months to issue Fidelity Fund Certificates (FFCs) to those who have paid for their education and complied with all requirements, causing severe operational and reputational harm to our industry. Simultaneously, the PPRA consistently fails to target and prosecute the millions of unlicensed property practitioners operating illegally across the country, leaving law-abiding professionals to compete against those who flout the law with impunity. This new policy threatens to undo all of our hard-won progress in a single, misguided stroke.
The PPRA's decision to exempt ten of the twelve categories under its mandate from meaningful educational requirements is a staggering administrative failure that creates a profound and immediate risk to the reputation of every professional property practitioner. It creates a two-tier system where the vast majority of practitioners are not required to prove a foundational level of professional knowledge. How will the PPRA ever hope to regulate, control, or maintain integrity in a sector where education is essentially voluntary for most participants?
Furthermore, the PPRA's concurrent failure to ensure that Fidelity Fund Certificates (FFCs) are issued to those who have paid for their education, often after months of waiting, points to a systemic breakdown in governance. This new policy only compounds that failure by adding a layer of regulatory chaos. If this reform is implemented, the sector will be flooded with practitioners who lack formal training, making it impossible for the PPRA to gain control or enforce professional standards. The legitimate practitioners who have invested in their education will be forced to compete with those who have not, ultimately driving down standards and eroding public trust.
The PPRA's stated goal is to create "consumer protection," but this reform puts bureaucratic reform above the consumer. It replaces rigorous, structured education with a single examination, sacrificing the depth of knowledge required to safeguard the public in their most significant financial transactions. This is not transformation; this is a dereliction of duty.
We urge Parliament to act decisively to protect the integrity of our profession, the livelihoods of our members, and the interests of the South African consumer. The PPRA must be held to its mandate to protect the consumer, not to create policies that endanger them.
Signed by:
877
The Issue
Petition to the National Assembly of the Parliament of South Africa
To: The Speaker of the National Assembly
From: South African Citizens and Property Stakeholders
Contact Details: bronwyn@zaphub.co.za
Subject: Urgent Petition to Halt the Implementation of the PPRA's New Competency-Based Pathway and Restore Educational Standards for the Property Sector
1. Nature of Request
We, the undersigned members of the real estate industry, property professionals, and concerned citizens of South Africa, hereby submit this petition to the National Assembly.
We request that Parliament urgently intervene and call upon the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority (PPRA) to:
Immediately halt the implementation of the new competency-based pathway to the Professional Designation Examination (PDE 4), as announced on 19 July 2026.
Restore and enforce mandatory, formal NQF Level 4 and NQF Level 5 qualifications as the primary educational requirement for all non-principal and principal property practitioners, respectively.
Conduct a full and transparent review of the PPRA's current education and transformation framework, with specific and meaningful consultation with all stakeholders, to ensure that any changes enhance professional standards and protect consumers, rather than lowering educational standards for property practitioners.
2. Motivation for the Petition
This petition is prompted by a deeply concerning reform announced by the PPRA which introduces an alternative competency-based pathway to the PDE 4. The new pathway allows candidates with only a National Senior Certificate (Matric) to sit for the PDE 4 examination, bypassing the mandatory NQF Level 4 Further Education and Training Certificate: Real Estate and Occupational Certificate: Real Estate Agent. The new pathway allows candidates to become full-status practitioners with a Matric certificate, a competency letter signed by their principal with no oversight of modules completed, no verification by the PPRA, and no meaningful content for the six practical modules has been issued by the PPRA to ensure the modules are accurate. The consumer is then expected to know if a property practitioner has knowledge of the industry simply with an FFC issued.
The PPRA claims this reform expands access and provides flexibility, but we believe it is a grave and short-sighted decision that will have the following catastrophic consequences for our industry and the public it serves:
A dangerous lowering of professional standards: The new policy directly contradicts the PPRA's own statements of just two years ago where the Authority confirmed that after consultations, "the applicable qualification standards for the sector will remain as NQF4 & NQF5 Real Estate qualifications." This abrupt reversal undermines the progress made in professionalizing the sector.
Undermining the value of education: It devalues the years of hard work and financial investment made by thousands of existing, qualified practitioners who have obtained their NQF 4 and 5 qualifications. It creates a two-tier system where education is no longer a prerequisite, which is a fundamental breach of trust for the consumers who use the services of property practitioners and to the property practitioners who have already initiated their educational requirements under the old dispensation.
Creation of a two-tier industry and a "perpetual intern" problem: While the PPRA claims this change will solve the problem of "perpetual interns," it may instead institutionalize it. The new pathway risks creating a permanent underclass of practitioners who, without a formal qualification, will be ineligible for the PPRE professional designation and potentially face significant barriers to becoming principals. The promise of "greater flexibility" is a façade for a cheaper, less rigorous route.
A failure to protect the consumer: The South African property market handles the largest transaction most citizens will ever make. Allowing practitioners to operate with only a Matric certificate and a single examination removes the core educational foundation that ensures a thorough understanding of property law, ethics, fiduciary duties, and consumer protection. The PPRA's announcement aims to "protect consumers," but this policy will have the opposite effect.
Exemption of 10 categories without public notification: The PPRA has exempted 10 of the 12 categories under their mandate from education requirements and has not informed the public with any notices. They have yet to complete any educational requirements since the promulgation of the PPA in 2022. There has been no physical attempt to safeguard the consumer, and they have not announced any future education requirements. This means that all of the 10 categories have no requirement to have any knowledge of the industry they work in, and this leaves the consumer with no protection. This also leaves the Fidelity Fund very vulnerable from fraudsters who can obtain an FFC for any reason, and the consumer can now get compensation from the fund while estate agents contribute the most to this fund.
Misguided transformation: While transformation is a legitimate goal, removing educational requirements is the wrong solution. The real barrier to transformation is the cost of education, not the requirement itself. The "One Learner, One Property Practitioner" programme was a positive step to address this. This new pathway is a regressive step that will cheapen the profession.
3. Additional Concerns Regarding the Six Practical Modules
The PPRA has made no publically visible attempt to produce meaningful content and resources to business owners for the six practical modules. They have also not made meaningful attempts to verify if a practitioner has in fact completed in full the training requirements under the six practical modules, which is now the only content which will be required under the new avenue to ensure competency by property practitioners. This causes further risks to consumers, who will now have no guarantee that the practitioner they are working with is aware of consumer rights under the PPA or any other regulatory requirement. The lack of oversight, verification, and standardized content for these modules renders the entire competency pathway meaningless and leaves consumers dangerously exposed.
4. Relief Sought
We respectfully request that Parliament:
Initiates an urgent review of the PPRA's new competency-based pathway policy.
Directs the PPRA to immediately suspend the implementation of this new pathway until a full, transparent, and inclusive stakeholder consultation has been conducted.
Recommends that the PPRA focus on making education more accessible and affordable by reducing the cost of NQF qualifications, expanding learnerships, and providing financial support, rather than removing the qualification requirement itself.
Ensures a unified educational standard is maintained for all property practitioners to protect the integrity of the profession and the interests of the South African consumer.
Compels the PPRA to publish clear, transparent, and enforceable educational requirements for all 12 categories of property practitioners, with meaningful public consultation and consumer protection at the forefront.
5. Conclusion
Not only has the PPRA exempted 10 of the 12 categories under its mandate from meaningful educational requirements, but it has now also reduced the requirements needed for the two remaining categories—agents and attorney employees—by introducing an alternative competency-based pathway that bypasses formal NQF Level 4 and Level 5 qualifications. The real estate industry is at a critical juncture. For decades, we have worked tirelessly as agents and industry stakeholders to shed the negative public perception of being "useless" and to build a professional, ethical industry worthy of public trust. Yet, while we are working diligently to restore the stigma against our profession, the PPRA continues to be an obstacle to our progress. The Authority takes months to issue Fidelity Fund Certificates (FFCs) to those who have paid for their education and complied with all requirements, causing severe operational and reputational harm to our industry. Simultaneously, the PPRA consistently fails to target and prosecute the millions of unlicensed property practitioners operating illegally across the country, leaving law-abiding professionals to compete against those who flout the law with impunity. This new policy threatens to undo all of our hard-won progress in a single, misguided stroke.
The PPRA's decision to exempt ten of the twelve categories under its mandate from meaningful educational requirements is a staggering administrative failure that creates a profound and immediate risk to the reputation of every professional property practitioner. It creates a two-tier system where the vast majority of practitioners are not required to prove a foundational level of professional knowledge. How will the PPRA ever hope to regulate, control, or maintain integrity in a sector where education is essentially voluntary for most participants?
Furthermore, the PPRA's concurrent failure to ensure that Fidelity Fund Certificates (FFCs) are issued to those who have paid for their education, often after months of waiting, points to a systemic breakdown in governance. This new policy only compounds that failure by adding a layer of regulatory chaos. If this reform is implemented, the sector will be flooded with practitioners who lack formal training, making it impossible for the PPRA to gain control or enforce professional standards. The legitimate practitioners who have invested in their education will be forced to compete with those who have not, ultimately driving down standards and eroding public trust.
The PPRA's stated goal is to create "consumer protection," but this reform puts bureaucratic reform above the consumer. It replaces rigorous, structured education with a single examination, sacrificing the depth of knowledge required to safeguard the public in their most significant financial transactions. This is not transformation; this is a dereliction of duty.
We urge Parliament to act decisively to protect the integrity of our profession, the livelihoods of our members, and the interests of the South African consumer. The PPRA must be held to its mandate to protect the consumer, not to create policies that endanger them.
Signed by:
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on July 20, 2026