Bindha and Another v Jacana Estate Body Corporate

The applicants, Shalendra Bindha and Sagashini Bindha, are the registered co-owners of unit 183 in Jacana Estate, a community scheme in Kyalami, Midrand. They took transfer on 8 February 2022 and paid levies and water charges billed to their account. In February 2023, the owner of unit 184 informed them of longstanding erratic water billing. On 25 May 2023, the managing agent, CSI Property Group, emailed the applicants stating that unit 183's water meter and that of unit 184 had allegedly been swapped since the development phase, and that an amount of R11 862.77 was due for historical cold and hot water consumption. The applicants disputed the correctness of this charge, contending that no qualified plumber's report confirmed the alleged meter swap and raising concerns that the problem might involve broader incorrect meter allocation or faulty meters. They sought relief under section 39(1)(c) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, including a plumber's report, reconciliation and removal of the additional charge, calibration certificates, accountability for the body corporate's inaction, and replacement of any faulty meter. The respondent body corporate filed no opposing submissions despite being invited to do so. The papers included a report from Bodacious Energy (Pty) Ltd indicating that the real issue was not meter accuracy but the allocation of meters to units by the developer.

• Whether the water contributions levied against unit 183 were incorrectly determined or unreasonable within the meaning of section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the body corporate should be ordered to investigate and rectify the alleged incorrect installation or allocation/swapping of water meters affecting units 183, 184 and 103.
• Whether the applicants were entitled to reconciliation, removal or reversal of the disputed additional water charges.
• Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction under section 39 of the CSOS Act to grant relief relating to trustee accountability, allegations of fraud, and broad orders for calibration certificates or other relief falling outside the listed statutory remedies.

The application succeeded in part. The respondent body corporate was ordered within 30 days to appoint a qualified plumber to investigate and rectify any incorrect installation or swapping of the water meters for units 183, 184 and 103 or any nearby meter; to notify the applicants of the outcome and provide the expert report; and, within 30 days of receiving the plumber's report or rectification, to reconcile, remove or reverse the incorrectly determined water charges on unit 183. The remainder of the applicants' requested relief was refused for want of jurisdiction under section 39 of the CSOS Act. No order as to costs was made.

Where utility charges in a community scheme are incorrectly or unreasonably determined because water meters have been incorrectly allocated or swapped between units, an adjudicator may grant relief under section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act directing the body corporate to investigate, rectify the meter allocation, and reconcile or reverse the resulting charges. However, a CSOS adjudicator has no jurisdiction to grant relief outside the specific remedies contemplated in section 39, including orders concerning alleged fraud or general accountability of trustees where those do not fit the statutory categories.

The adjudicator observed that the trustees and body corporate depend on owners' contributions to perform their functions and that all owners are generally liable for levies. The adjudicator also noted, relying on Bodacious Energy, that testing or calibration of meters would not resolve the present dispute if the real problem was incorrect allocation of meters by the developer. These remarks were ancillary to the core determination under section 39(1)(c).

This adjudication is significant in community schemes law because it illustrates how section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act can be used to correct unreasonable or incorrectly determined utility charges in a sectional title or similar scheme. It also underscores the limits of CSOS adjudicators' remedial powers: they may grant only remedies that fall within the categories expressly listed in section 39. The decision further shows that where a billing dispute is caused by incorrect meter allocation rather than faulty meter accuracy, the proper remedy is investigation, rectification and reconciliation of charges, not necessarily calibration testing alone.