Belhar Views Body Corporate v ZV Adams

The applicant, Belhar Views Body Corporate, acting through its managing agent and on behalf of the trustees, brought a dispute-resolution application under section 38 read with section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act). The respondent, ZV Adams, is the registered owner of unit 302 in the sectional title scheme and therefore a member of the body corporate. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed over time to pay levy contributions due in respect of his unit. As at September 2023, the applicant claimed arrear amounts totalling R8 346.26. The matter was referred to conciliation, which failed, and a certificate of non-resolution was issued on 26 October 2023. The respondent did not file a substantive response to the allegations despite being given notice and an opportunity to do so. The applicant sought an order compelling payment of the arrear levies.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to determine the dispute concerning unpaid levy contributions.
• Whether the applicant body corporate had proved on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was liable for arrear levy contributions.
• Whether the full amount claimed by the applicant, including legal fees debited to the respondent's account, was recoverable.
• Whether legal fees charged between October 2021 and January 2023 could be included in the levy recovery claim absent proof of compliance with Prescribed Management Rule 25(4) and 25(5).
• Whether a costs order should be made.

The application was granted in part. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R4 692.71 in full on or before 31 May 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate is entitled under the CSOS Act and STSMA to recover duly raised arrear levy contributions from a unit owner through CSOS adjudication, provided it proves the indebtedness on a balance of probabilities. However, amounts debited to an owner's account that are not ordinary contributions, such as legal fees, are not recoverable unless there is proper proof that they were lawfully charged in compliance with the applicable management rules, including PMR 25(4) and 25(5).

The adjudicator observed that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes and that non-payment can seriously destabilise a scheme by undermining maintenance, repair, insurance, security, and the collective investment of owners. The adjudicator also remarked, for completeness, that members cannot withhold levy payments merely because they dispute the necessity or financial wisdom of the decision to impose them. In relation to costs, the adjudicator commented generally that parties before CSOS are usually expected to bear their own costs, with costs orders more commonly associated with dismissals under section 53 in frivolous or vexatious matters.

The decision illustrates the CSOS's role in enforcing levy obligations in sectional title and other community schemes. It confirms that levy contributions are enforceable through CSOS adjudication and underscores the principle that non-payment of levies threatens the financial viability of community schemes. Importantly, it also shows that while bodies corporate may recover arrear contributions, they must properly prove any additional charges such as legal fees and demonstrate compliance with the STSMA rules before such amounts will be allowed.