Bradley Richards v Lime Property Management

The applicant, Bradley Richards, is the owner of section 201 in the Mirabel Skyways sectional title scheme and therefore a member of the body corporate. The respondent cited in the application was Lime Property Management, the managing agent of the scheme. Richards challenged the charging of collection commission to his account in relation to arrear levies under an informal payment arrangement. The amounts charged were R402.50 on 10 June 2023, R172.00 and R287.50 on 5 July 2023, R115.00 on 29 July 2023, and R460.00 on 4 August 2023, totalling R1 437.00. The respondent stated that ABMS had been appointed as authorised debt collector and that members had been informed on 29 May 2023 that collection commission of 10% of payments received, or a fixed amount of R585.35 including VAT for payments above R5 090.00, would be billed until the account was paid in full. The applicant sought relief under section 39(1)(c) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, contending that the contribution levied, namely the collection commission, or the manner in which it was payable, was incorrectly determined or unreasonable.

• Whether the collection commission charged to the applicant's account was incorrectly determined or unreasonable under section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the managing agent, rather than the body corporate, was properly cited as the respondent in a dispute concerning charges levied on an owner's account.
• Whether the adjudicator had power to entertain or cure a procedurally defective application after referral to adjudication.
• Whether the charges complied with Prescribed Management Rules 25(4) and 25(5), which regulate recovery of legal costs and prohibit debiting a member's account with unauthorised amounts without consent or lawful authority.

The application was dismissed as misconceived in terms of section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act. No cost order was made, and each party was directed to bear its own costs.

A CSOS application challenging charges debited to an owner's sectional title account is liable to be dismissed as misconceived where the applicant cites the managing agent instead of the body corporate, which is the legally responsible entity, and where the matter cannot be amended after referral to adjudication because the adjudicator's powers are confined by the CSOS Act. CSOS adjudicators may dismiss such procedurally defective applications under section 53(1)(a).

The adjudicator remarked that, despite the procedural flaw, PMR 25(4) and 25(5) appeared not to have been complied with and that the trustees should reverse the collection commission charges. This observation was not part of the binding order because the application was dismissed without substantive relief. The adjudicator also noted that the application was not frivolous or vexatious, only misconceived, which informed the decision not to award costs against the applicant.

This adjudication illustrates the importance in CSOS proceedings of citing the correct legal entity, particularly in sectional title disputes where the body corporate, not the managing agent, is generally the proper respondent for challenges to levies or charges. It also confirms that CSOS adjudicators have only statutory powers and cannot cure certain defects once a matter has been referred for adjudication. At the same time, the order is noteworthy for recognising that collection commission charged to an owner's account may contravene PMR 25(4) and 25(5) if imposed without consent, taxation, agreement, or lawful authority.