Charles A Neser v Department of Human Settlements

Charles A Neser, described as the managing agent of Presidenthof Body Corporate in Bloemfontein, lodged an application with the Community Schemes Ombud Service in terms of sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011. He sought an order compelling the Department of Human Settlements, as owner of unit 16 in the scheme, to pay arrear levies in the amount of R2 749.47. The application was supported by certain documents, including minutes of trustees' meetings dated 25 November 2021, but it did not include a body corporate resolution authorising the institution of the CSOS proceedings. The respondent did not respond to the section 43 notice and made no submissions, whereupon the matter was referred directly to adjudication and decided on the papers.

• Whether the managing agent had locus standi or was materially affected for purposes of section 38 of the CSOS Act to bring the application in his own or representative capacity.
• Whether the application complied with the CSOS Act and the CSOS Practice Directive requirements for applications brought on behalf of a community scheme.
• Whether a written resolution of the body corporate or executive committee authorising the lodging of the dispute was required.
• Whether, in the absence of proper authorisation, the adjudicator could grant relief for payment of arrear levies against the unit owner.

The application was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

An application to CSOS brought on behalf of a community scheme must comply with the CSOS Act, the applicable Practice Directives, and the authorisation requirements governing body corporate action. Where a managing agent lodges an application for recovery of levies without a proper body corporate resolution authorising the proceedings, and without establishing that he is personally materially affected under section 38 of the CSOS Act, the application is defective and must be dismissed.

The adjudicator made general observations on the standard of proof, relevance of evidence, and the balance of probabilities in evaluating disputes, but the matter ultimately turned on standing and procedural compliance rather than the merits of the levy claim. The order also recorded the parties' right of appeal to the High Court on a question of law under section 57 of the CSOS Act.

The matter underscores that CSOS adjudication is strictly statutory and that procedural compliance is essential. A managing agent cannot recover levies through CSOS without clear authority from the body corporate and compliance with the Practice Directives. The case is significant for community schemes because it emphasises the need for a formal resolution and proper standing before levy recovery claims can be entertained by the Ombud service.