MAIN IMAGE: Dominique Marais – founder of Agent Aid, Adrian Harris – CEO of Charter Academy, Jan le Roux – Rebosa CEO, Thato Ramaili – PPRA CEO
Editor
For most of the past ten years, South Africa’s property practitioners have had only one option for completing their mandatory continuing professional development: the PPRA’s own programme. That changed in March 2025, when Charter Academy launched what was described as the first PPRA-approved CPD programme offered by an independent institution. Property Professional covered the launch at the time.
Now, Dominique Marais, founder of Agent Aid, alleges that the approval process that made the programme possible was never made available to the rest of the industry, and that the PPRA has since closed the door on new applicants.
She published a media statement on 1 April 2026, claiming that the PPRA approved an External CPD Provision Application and Approval Policy in April 2024, but that it was never published on its website, communicated in stakeholder sessions, or announced through any official channel. She says she obtained a copy only by asking for it in person at the PPRA offices in March 2025, after years of requests.
When she and her business partner attempted to submit their own external CPD programme application in March 2026, they were told applications were “on hold until further notice.” The Executive Manager of Education, Professionalism and CPD confirmed only that the policy is under review. Marais has escalated the matter to the Ministry of Human Settlements, which she says has indicated its intention to launch an inquiry.
Several dimensions to consider
There are several questions worth asking here, and they cut in more than one direction.
The first is whether the PPRA’s handling of the policy constitutes the kind of administrative failure Marais alleges. Regulation 33.5.4.3 of the Property Practitioners Act is clear that the authority shall not unreasonably withhold or delay approval of external CPD programmes. Whether keeping a policy document off public platforms for more than a year meets that threshold is a question the ministry’s inquiry may well need to answer.
The second is how Charter Academy became aware of the policy and successfully navigated a testing and pilot phase before the programme was publicly announced. Marais believes they received preferential access, though she acknowledges she has not approached Rebosa directly.
A third dimension, raised by Courtney McKenna, former CEO of PropAcademy, is whether the process was ever practically accessible, even to those who knew it existed. McKenna says her organisation never reached the point of applying. When the company conducted financial modelling on a potential accredited CPD programme, the projected input costs, development investment, and ongoing delivery expenses did not demonstrate a viable return on investment. The cost-to-revenue ratio rendered the programme commercially unviable, making it a non-starter. In that context, whether the process was technically open to all becomes somewhat beside the point if financial feasibility is prohibitive.
Charter Academy’s response
Adrian Harris, CEO of Charter Academy, says, “It must be borne in mind that Charter Academy has been an approved PPRA training provider for many years. When the Property Practitioners Act created provision for independent CPD providers, we simply took the opportunity afforded by the legislation and submitted an application in terms of that allowance. Following the required process, our programme was approved on 10 March.
Charter has been a registered SDP since 2006. We were well-positioned to proceed, as we already had a functioning LMIS platform and had been delivering soft skills and NQF courses to the banking and real estate industries for decades. In addition, Charter Academy is a Level 1 B-BBEE-accredited provider, which is an important consideration when engaging with public-sector environments. Our application, therefore, was built on existing capacity, experience, and infrastructure to deliver an accessible CPD solution to the industry.”
Rebosa’s position
Jan le Roux, Rebosa CEO, rejects the characterisation of preferential access. According to le Roux, Charter Academy independently piloted, tested, and refined its programme over an extended period, submitting proposals to the PPRA on multiple occasions before any public announcement in March 2025. Those submissions were initially either ignored or declined. “Charter Academy ultimately persisted in advancing its application under the provisions of the Property Practitioners Act,” he says. “Any other accredited provider was able to follow the same process.”
Rebosa’s involvement, le Roux clarifies, was limited to a letter of support. Rebosa provided it on the basis of two factors: Charter Academy’s status as a Level 1 B-BBEE contributor — the only such rating among external CPD providers — and its existing role as the implementation partner for Rebosa’s Business Leaders Programme, which trains aspirant PDI business owners. No other accredited skills development provider, Le Roux says, approached Rebosa for similar support.
The more pointed question remains directed at the regulator. If the policy was not publicly available, how did one applicant successfully apply under it while others were either unaware it existed or actively told it was not available?
The regulator’s account
Ramaili’s response, issued on behalf of the PPRA, offers the regulator’s account of events. The policy was formally approved in April 2024, she confirms, and Charter Academy was the first provider to formally approach the PPRA for accreditation. Given that this was a new regulatory framework, the PPRA decided to pilot the policy with a single provider before a broader industry rollout, to assess practical application, identify risks, and refine administrative and system processes.
The pilot exposed significant operational challenges. Although Charter Academy was accredited in March 2025, integration difficulties meant the PPRA was only able to successfully load and reflect the first batch of completed CPD records in December 2025 — a nine-month gap that Ramaili says highlighted system limitations requiring urgent intervention. Additional complications included payment-allocation discrepancies, practitioners completing external CPD while carrying forward outstanding credits from previous cycles, and practitioners undertaking CPD without meeting eligibility requirements for the relevant cycle.
On the temporary hold on new applications, Ramaili is direct: accrediting additional providers before resolving the system constraints identified during the pilot would have further disadvantaged practitioners, particularly where completed CPD modules could not be accurately recorded. The PPRA rejects any suggestion of intentional preferential treatment, describing the single-provider pilot as a reasonable administrative measure intended to protect system integrity. Once operational processes have been stabilised, she says, the authority will formally communicate the reopening of applications to all stakeholders.
Competition is inevitable and desirable
Where things stand now is broadly this: the PPRA says the hold on new applications is temporary and operationally justified; Marais says the harm is the monopoly itself and proposes “either ordering Rebosa and Charter Academy to immediately cease their CPD programme for 2026 until the Policy (amended or otherwise) has been published to allow other interested parties to apply without delay”; and at least one potential provider found the financial barriers prohibitive before the regulatory question even arose.
Le Roux says Rebosa’s position is consistent with the view that the process should be opened. The organisation has consistently advocated for accessible and affordable CPD, he notes, and was responsible through lobbying and engagement with policymakers for reducing CPD costs from R2,000 and R2,500 under the Estate Agency Affairs Act to R1,500 under the Property Practitioners Act. Rebosa’s proposals also meant that business property practitioners themselves could apply for programme approval.
“I believe that Agent Aid’s approach is disingenuous”, explains le Roux. “Ms Marais launched a very public attack on the PPRA and Rebosa without ever endeavouring to contact Rebosa directly. She also purports to do this on behalf of the industry, but in fact represents a business enterprise with a profit motive and is doing so only to promote her own interests.
Agent Aid should also possibly pay attention to regulation 33.5.1, which clearly states that ‘all continuing professional development modules will be developed at the instance of the leading representative bodies….’. Obviously, Rebosa, as the largest representative body in the industry, was and remains ideally qualified to do this”.
He continues, “Rebosa has supported Charter in this endeavour in the best interests of the entire industry, and with discounts offered to all property practitioners – not just to our members. I am not aware of any property practitioner, other than the few supporters of Agent Aid, who is not appreciative of the excellent program offered at a discount.
In this process, Charter and Rebosa do not limit competition in the supply of CPD courses but, in fact, have created the only competition that has existed over the past 10 years. Both institutions welcome more providers being given this opportunity. Competition has already benefitted the industry”.
What comes next?
The PPRA’s mandate includes consumer protection and the fair regulation of the industry it governs. If the ministry’s inquiry finds that the approval process was applied unevenly, that is a serious matter. If it finds that the process was handled appropriately and that other applicants simply did not pursue the available channels, it is equally important to establish that.
McKenna’s experience suggests a third possibility worth adding to that inquiry’s brief: that even a fairly administered process may present barriers significant enough to limit meaningful participation. Either way, the industry is entitled to clarity on how external CPD approval works, who can apply, what it costs, and what the timeline is.
