The Body Corporate and the Community Scheme Ombud Service

It is commonly accepted that the trustees appointed in a sectional title scheme have a fiduciary duty to manage the scheme in good faith and with its best interest in mind.  This is supported by the fact that all owners in a sectional title scheme have similar obligations toward other residents in the scheme and the common property. This is also underpinned by the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011.

The process to approval for extending a Sectional Title Unit

In the matter of The Body Corporate of The Sorronto Sectional Title Scheme v Koordom and others, attempts were made to access the unit of the respondents to conduct a leak detection test as damp marks appeared on an adjacent unit. 

Access was allowed and a leak detection test was attended to, however the problem persisted. Further efforts were undertaken to resolve the damp issue. A second request was made to the respondents for access to the unit to attend to a second leak detection test, but this request was denied. This formed the basis of their application to the Western Cape High Court Division.

Evidently the respondents had a change of mind and accepted the fact that the applicant is allowed reasonable access to their unit to assist in properly managing the common property of the Sectional Title Scheme.

As the respondent had permitted access to the unit, there was no longer any cause for the court to decide upon and the only matter left was the order pertaining to costs.  Although the High Court cannot refuse to hear a matter of this nature, the learned Judge commented on the fact that neither of the parties had considered approaching the Community Scheme Ombud Service (CSOS) for relief.

One of the key points for the establishment of the Ombud is to provide a dispute resolution mechanism to community schemes in a cheaper and more informal way.  Regarding disputes, the Community Scheme Ombud Service Act states in Sec 38(1) that any person, including juristic entities, may make an application if the person is a party to or affected by a dispute.

It can be noted that if a specific dispute is within the ambit of the CSOS Act, the Ombud should be approached as a forum of first instance. The adjudication process established by the Act should then be followed, save for circumstances where another appropriate forum can be approached.  

The use of the Ombud should be encouraged as this can curb unnecessary litigation and legal costs pertaining to minor disputes. Legal practitioners must therefore take heed of the availability of the Ombud, more specifically towards matters that can be resolved through a more conciliatory approach.

Recommended for you

My name has changed - what happens to my property’s title deed?
Sectional Title Governance

What it means to be a trustee[post_view before=""]

The creation of a family trust has always been a popular way to manage and safeguard assets. It provides for continuity when it involves, for instance, the preservation of immoveable property for family generations. 

Read More
Your Trusted Partner in Residential and Commercial Property Transfers
Sectional Title Governance

The Family Home – A customary law concept gets acknowledgement from the CC[post_view before=""]

This is an application that ended up in the Constitutional Court, by a partner (applicant) who lived with her late partner in, what was to them, their family home. Upon the death of her late partner, she (the applicant) was appointed the executrix of her deceased partner’s estate who died intestate. The applicant and deceased were not married but had lived together for years in the family home the applicant had inherited from her late grandfather as a “family home” intended to be for the benefit of the family.

Read More
Property Blog Articles | Advice | Contractual Matters | Market News
Sectional Title Governance

ULTRA – The CC once again confirms the importance of women’s rights in Rahube v Rahube and Others [2018] ZACC 42[post_view before=""]

This case involves the apartheid era, where not only rights of black people were oppressed but also rights of women. In this case, an entire family lived together in a property – that is, the applicant, her grandmother, uncle, three brothers (including the first respondent) and two children.

Read More
Property Blog Articles | Advice | Contractual Matters | Market News
Sectional Title Governance

SPLUMA in Mpumalanga: the saga continues[post_view before=""]

In this article, we take a closer look at an ongoing matter relating to SPLUMA in Mpumalanga. SPLUMA stands for the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, and all municipalities in the province have issued by-laws relating to SPLUMA certificates and the transfer of property.

Read More
Property Blog Articles | Advice | Contractual Matters | Market News
Sectional Title Governance

A closer look at two cases where HOA restrictions were dealt with[post_view before=""]

In 2014, a developer in Midstream estate in Midrand instituted legal action against two sets of owners/respondents in almost identical cases. Both cases dealt with clauses that imposed an obligation to build a dwelling within a prescribed time frame.  Here’s…

Read More

Need more Snymans content?

Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

The Body Corporate and the Community Scheme Ombud Service

It is commonly accepted that the trustees appointed in a sectional title scheme have a fiduciary duty to manage the scheme in good faith and with its best interest in mind.  This is supported by the fact that all owners in a sectional title scheme have similar obligations toward other residents in the scheme and the common property. This is also underpinned by the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011.

The process to approval for extending a Sectional Title Unit

In the matter of The Body Corporate of The Sorronto Sectional Title Scheme v Koordom and others, attempts were made to access the unit of the respondents to conduct a leak detection test as damp marks appeared on an adjacent unit. 

Access was allowed and a leak detection test was attended to, however the problem persisted. Further efforts were undertaken to resolve the damp issue. A second request was made to the respondents for access to the unit to attend to a second leak detection test, but this request was denied. This formed the basis of their application to the Western Cape High Court Division.

Evidently the respondents had a change of mind and accepted the fact that the applicant is allowed reasonable access to their unit to assist in properly managing the common property of the Sectional Title Scheme.

As the respondent had permitted access to the unit, there was no longer any cause for the court to decide upon and the only matter left was the order pertaining to costs.  Although the High Court cannot refuse to hear a matter of this nature, the learned Judge commented on the fact that neither of the parties had considered approaching the Community Scheme Ombud Service (CSOS) for relief.

One of the key points for the establishment of the Ombud is to provide a dispute resolution mechanism to community schemes in a cheaper and more informal way.  Regarding disputes, the Community Scheme Ombud Service Act states in Sec 38(1) that any person, including juristic entities, may make an application if the person is a party to or affected by a dispute.

It can be noted that if a specific dispute is within the ambit of the CSOS Act, the Ombud should be approached as a forum of first instance. The adjudication process established by the Act should then be followed, save for circumstances where another appropriate forum can be approached.  

The use of the Ombud should be encouraged as this can curb unnecessary litigation and legal costs pertaining to minor disputes. Legal practitioners must therefore take heed of the availability of the Ombud, more specifically towards matters that can be resolved through a more conciliatory approach.