Hendrik Hoffmann obo Shelly Vale Body Corporate v Mansfield Property Solutions

The applicant, Hendrik Hoffmann of Rise Property Solutions, brought a dispute-resolution application on behalf of Shelly Vale Body Corporate, a sectional title scheme in Boksburg, against Mansfield Property Solutions, the scheme's managing agent at the time the application was lodged on 20 June 2023. The applicant sought relief under section 39(5)(b) and section 39(7)(a) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act), asking for an order declaring that the body corporate was entitled to terminate the respondent's appointment and compelling the respondent to hand over scheme records, financial documents, digital files, levy roll, minutes, and other information. The applicant alleged poor service delivery and said the respondent had been placed in breach of the management agreement on 6 June 2023. It also alleged that the respondent had not responded to a section 43 notice issued on 5 July 2023. During the adjudicator's investigation, it emerged that the management agreement with Mansfield Property Solutions had already been terminated with effect from 31 July 2023, and that Rise Property Solutions had been appointed as the new managing agent from September 2023. A certificate of non-resolution had been issued after conciliation failed.

• Whether the CSOS should declare that the body corporate had the right to terminate the respondent's appointment as managing agent under section 39(5)(b) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the respondent should be compelled under section 39(7)(a) of the CSOS Act to provide access to and hand over the body corporate's records and documents.
• Whether the dispute remained justiciable within the CSOS framework after the management agreement had already been terminated, rendering the issue moot.
• Whether the application was misconceived or without substance and liable to dismissal under section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether a costs order should be made against the applicant under section 53(2) of the CSOS Act.

The application was dismissed in terms of section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act as being without substance. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

Where the management agreement that is the subject of a CSOS dispute has already been terminated, a claim for declaratory relief regarding the right to terminate that appointment becomes moot. CSOS, being a creature of statute, may grant only the remedies authorised by section 39 of the CSOS Act, and where the remaining dispute is essentially contractual and no longer falls within the statutory dispute-resolution framework, the application may be dismissed under section 53(1)(a) as without substance or misconceived.

The adjudicator observed that PMR 27(7) obliges a managing agent whose contract has been terminated to deliver the body corporate's records within 10 days. The adjudicator further recommended that the applicant seek any further relief from the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority. These observations were ancillary because the application was dismissed for lack of substance after the dispute became moot.

This decision is significant for community schemes jurisprudence because it underscores that CSOS adjudicators exercise only statutory powers and cannot grant relief once a dispute has become moot or falls outside the remedies contemplated by section 39 of the CSOS Act. It also highlights the boundary between CSOS jurisdiction and private contractual disputes involving managing agents, and points parties to alternative regulatory avenues, such as the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority, where appropriate.