Blue Saddle Ranches Homeowners Association v Cynthia Yvonne Mopeli and Brian Moshoeshoe Mopeli

The applicant, Blue Saddle Ranches Homeowners Association, is a community scheme under the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act). The first and second respondents are the registered joint owners of Portion 360 in the scheme. As owners, they were liable under the HOA's Memorandum of Incorporation to pay monthly levies and related charges. The HOA alleged that, despite written demands, the respondents failed to pay levies and ancillary amounts. It sought payment of R12 060.60, including levies and CSOS charges, together with future contributions and interest. The respondents acknowledged that the levy debt was outstanding but explained that both had been unemployed since 2021, had exhausted their reserve funds, and were supporting three young children and an elderly mother. They asked to be permitted to pay R500 per month toward the arrears. The adjudicator requested and received an updated levy statement from the applicant and decided the matter on the papers.

• Whether the respondents, as joint registered owners in the HOA scheme, were liable for the outstanding levies and ancillary charges claimed by the applicant.
• Whether the applicant had proved on a balance of probabilities the respondents' indebtedness in the amount of R12 060.60.
• Whether relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act should be granted for payment of contributions or other amounts due.
• Whether, despite the respondents' financial hardship, the adjudicator should structure payment by instalments and suspend interest for a period.

The application was partially granted. The adjudicator declared that the respondents, jointly and severally, owed the applicant R12 060.60 in respect of levies and ancillary charges including CSOS levies. The respondents were ordered to pay that amount in 12 monthly instalments of R1 005.05, the first payment being due within 30 days of receipt of the order and the remaining 11 instalments on the first day of each succeeding month. No interest would accrue on the outstanding amount during the 12-month payment period. The order did not affect the respondents' obligation to continue paying regular monthly levies and ancillary charges. If the respondents defaulted on any one payment, the full outstanding amount would become immediately due and payable. There was no order as to costs.

Registered owners in a homeowners association are obliged, under the governing documents of the association and the CSOS statutory framework, to pay levies and ancillary charges validly imposed by the association. Where the association proves indebtedness on a balance of probabilities by means of its governing instruments and account statements, relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act may be granted for payment of the arrears. A respondent's financial hardship is not a defence to levy liability, though it may be relevant to the manner in which payment is ordered.

The adjudicator observed that levies are the 'lifeblood' of a homeowners association and that the directors cannot perform their functions in the absence of funds from owners. The adjudicator also remarked that the respondents' failure to pay levies negatively impacts service delivery within the HOA. These comments explain the broader practical importance of levy collection but were not themselves the operative basis of liability.

The matter illustrates the CSOS's role in resolving levy disputes within community schemes and confirms that homeowners associations may use section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to recover arrear levies and related amounts from owners. It also shows that, while financial hardship does not extinguish levy liability, an adjudicator may fashion equitable payment terms, such as instalments and a temporary suspension of interest, to balance the scheme's financial needs with the owners' circumstances. The order reinforces the importance of levy compliance for the functioning of community schemes.