Reghardt Roux obo Danhauzer Estate Homeowners' Association v MPE Matlala

The applicant, Reghardt Roux acting on behalf of Danhauzer Estate Homeowners' Association (DEHOA) and representing the appointed managing agent Coleman Properties, brought a dispute-resolution application under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011. DEHOA is a residential community scheme situated in Pomona Extension 137, Kempton Park, Gauteng. The respondent, MPE Matlala, is the owner of unit 28 in the scheme and, by virtue of ownership, a compulsory member of the homeowners' association under its constitution. DEHOA alleged that the respondent had fallen into arrears with monthly levy contributions payable for the administration of the scheme. According to the applicant's records, the arrears amounted to R6 346.22, inclusive of interest at 9% per annum, as reflected in the June 2023 statement. The respondent did not respond to the section 43 notice issued by CSOS on 3 July 2023, nor to further opportunities to answer the claim. A certificate of non-resolution was issued on 13 July 2023 and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether DEHOA, as a community scheme association, was entitled under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to obtain an order for payment of arrear levy contributions from a member owner.
• Whether the respondent, as owner of unit 28 and member of the homeowners' association, was contractually and constitutionally obliged to pay levies determined by the association.
• Whether the evidence placed before the adjudicator, in the absence of any response from the respondent, was sufficient on a balance of probabilities to justify the relief sought.
• Whether any costs order should be made in the adjudication.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R6 346.22 to the applicant on or before 31 October 2023. No order as to costs was made.

An owner in a homeowners' association who becomes a compulsory member by virtue of ownership is contractually bound by the association's constitution and rules, including the obligation to pay levies. Where the association proves arrear levy indebtedness on a balance of probabilities and due process has been followed, and the owner provides no answering version, a CSOS adjudicator may grant an order under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act compelling payment of the arrears.

The adjudicator remarked that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes and that non-payment can seriously destabilise a scheme by undermining maintenance, repair, insurance and security, thereby affecting the collective interests and investments of all owners. The adjudicator also made general observations that parties in section 54 adjudications are ordinarily expected to bear their own costs, with costs orders being more common in dismissals under section 53 for frivolous, vexatious or non-compliant applications.

This adjudication reinforces the enforceability of levy obligations within homeowners' associations and other community schemes under the CSOS Act. It confirms that CSOS adjudicators may grant payment orders under section 39(1)(e) where an owner-member is in arrears and fails to dispute the claim. The matter is also significant for reaffirming, with reference to Supreme Court of Appeal authority, that a community scheme's constitution and rules create binding contractual obligations between the association and its members. It illustrates CSOS's role as an accessible statutory forum for the recovery of arrear levies necessary for the financial sustainability of community schemes.