Felix Prigge v Trustees of Fleur De Lys Body Corporate

The applicant, Felix Prigge, is the registered owner of a unit in Fleur De Lys Body Corporate in Ashlea Gardens, Pretoria. Because of load shedding, he decided to install a gas geyser at his unit. He proceeded with the installation without first obtaining the trustees' written consent. He said he did so because other units in the complex allegedly had non-standard plumbing and air-conditioner installations. After being stopped by the respondent in early September 2022, he apologised and on 8 September 2022 submitted an application to the scheme's managing agent seeking approval. He later complained that the body corporate was not applying the conduct rules relating to aesthetics consistently and fairly, and sought an order directing the respondent to apply the rules consistently. The respondent filed no submissions despite being invited to do so by CSOS and later by the adjudicator.

• Whether the applicant had contravened Prescribed Conduct Rule 5(1) under the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act by changing the external appearance of his section or exclusive use area without the trustees' written consent.
• Whether the applicant had shown, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent applied the scheme rules inconsistently or unfairly against him.
• Whether relief under section 39(2)(a) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act was justified on the papers.

The applicant's application was dismissed in terms of section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act as being without substance. No order as to costs was made.

In a sectional titles scheme, prior written consent of the trustees is required under Prescribed Conduct Rule 5(1) before making non-minor alterations affecting the external appearance of a section or exclusive use area. An applicant seeking CSOS relief bears the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, both the factual basis for the complaint and any allegation of inconsistent or unfair rule enforcement. Unsupported assertions do not justify relief, and an application may be dismissed as without substance under section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act.

The adjudicator noted generally that the respondent's failure to file submissions does not prevent adjudication of the matter and that only relevant evidence should be considered, assessed according to the balance of probabilities. The adjudicator also recorded the parties' failure to provide the outcome of the applicant's later consent application, but this was not decisive given the admitted prior installation without approval.

The matter illustrates the operation of the CSOS dispute-resolution framework in sectional title disputes and confirms that an owner who alters the external appearance of a unit without prior written trustee approval acts in breach of Prescribed Conduct Rule 5(1). It also shows that allegations of selective or inconsistent enforcement must be supported by evidence; bare assertions are insufficient even where the respondent files no answering submissions.