Bruce Campbell, an owner of a unit in Bengal Heights Home Owners Association in East London, lodged an application under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act). He alleged that there were ongoing and increasing levy arrears within the homeowners association and that the trustees had failed to act despite trustee meetings being held. He sought relief framed as a directive compelling the trustees or the association to implement debt collection procedures. The matter could not be resolved through conciliation, a certificate of non-resolution was issued, and it proceeded to adjudication on the papers. The respondent did not file substantive submissions before the adjudicator.
The applicant's prayer for a directive instructing trustees to implement debt collection procedures was refused. No order as to costs was made.
An adjudicator under the CSOS Act may grant only relief that falls within the remedies expressly provided in section 39. If an applicant seeks relief outside that statutory ambit, such as a directive compelling implementation of debt collection procedures, the application must be refused. In addition, the applicant bears the burden of proving the factual and legal basis for the relief sought.
The adjudicator observed that the applicant could pursue the requested relief in a court of law rather than through CSOS. The order also recorded the statutory right of appeal to the High Court on a question of law only under section 57 of the CSOS Act. No further substantive obiter appears from the judgment.
The decision underscores that CSOS adjudicators are creatures of statute and may grant only the remedies expressly authorised by section 39 of the CSOS Act. It highlights the importance of properly formulating relief within the statutory categories and of establishing a legal and evidentiary foundation for the order sought. The matter is significant for community scheme disputes because it confirms that complaints about governance or collection processes cannot be reframed into remedies that section 39 does not permit, and that some disputes must instead be pursued in the ordinary courts.