Andresha Balram v Trustees of Pebble Park 2 Body Corporate

The applicant, Andresha Balram, is the registered owner of unit 1 in Pebble Park 2, a sectional title/community scheme. A charge of R1 595.05 was levied to her account for repairs to a garden wall forming part of her exclusive use area. She challenged the charge under section 39(1)(c) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act), contending that the amount was unreasonably high, that she had not been properly informed by email of the proposed works and billing, that the contractor was allegedly not a registered builder, that the work done was minor and completed quickly, that she should have been allowed to appoint her own builder, and that the scheme's 10-year maintenance plan already covered such repairs. The body corporate opposed the application, stating that in the 2019 AGM the members resolved that garden walls were the responsibility of individual owners, that the applicant had been a trustee when that resolution was adopted, that 22 owners including the applicant were informed in November 2022 that repairs were required and would be billed to them, and that no objection was raised before the work was carried out. The matter was conciliated unsuccessfully and referred to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the contribution of R1 595.05 levied to the applicant for repair of her exclusive use area garden wall was incorrectly determined or unreasonable under section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether responsibility for repair and maintenance of the garden wall rested with the body corporate under the scheme's 10-year maintenance plan or with the individual owner as an exclusive use area responsibility.
• Whether the applicant's complaints about lack of notice, the cost of repairs, and the contractor used justified reversal or adjustment of the levy.

The application was dismissed. The adjudicator ordered that the relief sought by the applicant under section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act be refused. There was no order as to costs.

Where a levy is raised against an owner for repairs to an exclusive use area and there is a valid scheme resolution allocating responsibility for that area to individual owners, such a contribution is not 'incorrectly determined or unreasonable' under section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act merely because the owner later disputes the cost or manner of execution, particularly where the owner was aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, of the decision and failed to object before the work was completed. In terms of the STSMA and applicable management rules, owners bear maintenance obligations in relation to exclusive use areas, and trustees may implement AGM resolutions accordingly.

The adjudicator commented that the applicant's assertion that she had not been informed was 'baseless' because she had probably witnessed the work being done and did not object to the contractor, the materials, or the execution of the work before completion. These remarks were ancillary credibility observations rather than the core legal basis of the order.

The decision is significant in the community schemes context because it affirms that charges imposed for work relating to an owner's exclusive use area will not be set aside under section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act where the scheme has validly resolved that such maintenance is the owner's responsibility and the levy is imposed pursuant to that resolution. It also illustrates the CSOS adjudicative approach to disputes over levies, AGM resolutions, owner notice, and the relationship between exclusive use area obligations and maintenance planning under the sectional titles framework.