Barendse v Slabbert (of Solver Property Services) and Trustees of River Club Park Body Corporate

The applicant, Reva Barendse, was the registered owner of Unit 13 in River Club Park, a sectional title/community scheme. She brought a dispute-resolution application under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against the scheme's managing agent, Bart Slabbert of Solver Property Services, and the trustees of the River Club Park Body Corporate. She alleged that she had repeatedly requested a breakdown of maintenance costs per unit and related financial information, but had been wrongfully denied access to those documents. She also alleged that the managing agent had blocked her email address, resulting in her not receiving financial statements for August 2023. In addition, she sought an order compelling the body corporate to convene the annual general meeting (AGM), which she said had been postponed from April 2023 to September 2023. The respondents contended that the applicant had in fact been provided with the relevant financial information, although not reformatted in the exact manner she preferred; that any email problem lay with the applicant's own faulty email address rather than with any blocking by the managing agent; and that the AGM delay was due to a change in managing agents and had since been remedied because the AGM was held on 17 October 2023.

• Whether the applicant had been wrongfully denied access to information or documents for purposes of section 39(7)(a) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the body corporate or managing agent had failed in their duty under the Prescribed Management Rules to make financial records available to a scheme member.
• Whether the adjudicator should order that the applicant's email be unblocked, given the dispute about the cause of the communication problem.
• Whether an order should be granted under section 39(4)(a) compelling the body corporate to call an AGM when the AGM had already been held by the time of adjudication.
• Whether the applicant had established, on a balance of probabilities, entitlement to any of the relief sought.

The application was dismissed. The adjudicator ordered that the relief sought by the applicant under sections 39(4)(a) and 39(7)(a) of the CSOS Act was misconceived and was dismissed in terms of section 53(1)(a). No order as to costs was made.

A member of a body corporate is entitled under the Prescribed Management Rules to access and inspect the scheme's financial records on request, but relief under section 39(7)(a) of the CSOS Act requires proof that access was wrongfully denied. Where the records were in fact provided and the complaint is only that they were not arranged in the particular format preferred by the applicant, there is no wrongful denial of access and no basis for relief. Likewise, relief under section 39(4)(a) to compel the calling of a general meeting will not be granted once the meeting has already been convened and held, because the dispute has become moot.

The adjudicator made general observations about the evidentiary standard in CSOS proceedings, stating that the matter must be determined on relevant evidence and on a balance of probabilities, with regard to credibility and probabilities. The adjudicator also set out the statutory duties of a body corporate under Prescribed Management Rule 26 and Rule 27 to keep proper financial records and make them accessible to members, although those statements were broader than strictly necessary given the finding that the records had already been supplied.

The matter is a useful CSOS adjudication on the scope of a scheme member's right of access to body corporate records. It confirms that while members are entitled to inspect and obtain financial records under the Prescribed Management Rules, that entitlement does not necessarily extend to requiring the body corporate or managing agent to recreate or reformat records according to the member's preferred presentation. The decision also illustrates the CSOS approach to mootness: where the complained-of AGM has already been held, or where the factual basis for a communication complaint falls away, coercive relief will not be granted. The adjudication reflects the practical application of sections 39 and 53 of the CSOS Act in community scheme disputes.