Trustees of Cartwrights Corner Body Corporate v Mareli Jordaan

The applicant, the Trustees of Cartwrights Corner Body Corporate, brought a dispute under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) against the respondent, Mareli Jordaan, the registered owner of unit 707 in the scheme. On 10 June 2022 the respondent requested permission to install an alarm system in her apartment. The trustees granted conditional approval, specifically on condition that no LED light from the alarm would be visible from the common property. Despite this condition, the respondent installed the alarm with an LED light visible from the common property. The body corporate wrote to her on three occasions requesting removal of the LED light, but received no reply. It also imposed a penalty fine on her levy account in terms of the conduct rules. The respondent did not file submissions in the adjudication despite being invited to do so. The matter proceeded on the papers after conciliation failed and a certificate of non-resolution was issued.

• Whether the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the Community Schemes Ombud Service under the CSOS Act.
• Whether the relief sought—removal of LED lights visible from the common property—was competent under section 39(2)(d) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the body corporate was entitled to enforce its conduct rules and the conditions attached to its approval of the alarm installation.
• Whether the respondent should be ordered to remove the LED light attached or placed contrary to the trustees' approval and conduct rules.
• Whether the applicant was entitled to penalty fees; although discussed in the reasons, no separate payment order was ultimately included in the final order.

The application was upheld. The adjudicator ordered that the respondent urgently remove the illegal LED lights visible on the common property in compliance with the applicant's conduct rules, within 14 days from the date of receipt of the order. No order as to costs was made.

A CSOS adjudicator may grant relief only if it falls within one of the categories in section 39 of the CSOS Act. Where a body corporate grants conditional consent for an installation in a section, and the owner installs a feature visible from the common property in breach of those conditions and the conduct rules, the body corporate is entitled to enforce the rules and obtain an order under section 39(2)(d) directing removal of the unlawful installation.

The adjudicator made additional observations about the payment of penalty fees under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act and referred to provisions of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act regarding contributions and levies. Those remarks were not necessary to the final operative order, because the actual order granted only directed removal of the LED lights and made no separate payment order. The references to the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act were likewise supportive background rather than essential to the final decision.

The decision illustrates the CSOS's statutory role in enforcing community scheme conduct rules and confirms that trustees may require removal of installations or fittings that are externally visible and were installed contrary to conditions of approval. It is also significant as an example of the limited, statute-bound nature of CSOS adjudicative powers: relief must fall within section 39 of the CSOS Act. The order reinforces that owners in sectional title and other community schemes are contractually and legally bound by scheme rules and trustee-imposed conditions when approval is required for alterations or fittings.