Jose Snyders v Directors of Waterfall Country Village HOA

The applicant, Jose Snyders, is the registered owner of a unit in Waterfall Country Village Home Owners Association. The dispute arose after the HOA imposed a fine on the applicant’s levy account for an alleged security-rule breach. The incident occurred on 7 October 2023 when the applicant’s daughter, who resided at the property, entered the estate in her own vehicle while seated as a passenger and used the estate’s facial-recognition access system by leaning over the driver, her boyfriend, to trigger entry. The respondent treated this as the resident using her access rights to admit another person in breach of the estate’s access-control rules. The applicant argued that his daughter was herself a resident returning home in her own vehicle, that there was no meaningful security distinction between her entering as driver or passenger, and that the rule relied on was ambiguous or inconsistently applied. The respondent maintained that the conduct rules prohibited residents from using personal access rights to open for family members, guests or service providers, and that strict access-control enforcement was necessary for estate security. The adjudicator found that although the daughter’s conduct contravened the rule framework, the HOA had imposed a fine immediately without first giving written notice and an opportunity to desist, contrary to clause 6.3.4 of the conduct rules, which contemplated written notice first and fines only if transgressions continued.

• Whether the HOA acted unreasonably in enforcing its security/access-control rules by fining the applicant for the first alleged contravention.
• Whether the applicant’s daughter’s use of facial-recognition access while seated as a passenger constituted a breach of the applicable conduct rules.
• Whether clause 6.3.3 of the conduct rules clearly prohibited a resident from using personal access rights while entering as a passenger.
• Whether clause 6.3.4 required prior written notice of a transgression before a fine could be levied.
• Whether the applicant was entitled to repayment/credit of the fine and associated interest under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.

The application was upheld. The respondent was ordered to credit the applicant’s account with the full amount of the fine debited to his levy account, together with any interest raised as a result of non-payment of the fine, within 14 days of receipt of the adjudication order. No order as to costs was made.

Where an HOA’s conduct rules provide that residents must first be notified in writing of a transgression and that fines may be levied only if the transgression continues, the HOA may not validly impose a fine for a first alleged breach without proof of prior written notice and continued non-compliance. Rule enforcement in a community scheme must be reasonable and consistent with the scheme’s own governing instruments.

The adjudicator remarked that there was, to some extent, merit in the applicant’s contention that there was no discernible security difference between a resident gaining entry as driver or as passenger when returning to her own home. The adjudicator also observed that the newer rule 11.1.1.2 was clearer than rule 6.3.3 in prohibiting use of personal facial biometrics to open for another person. These comments informed the reasoning but were not the decisive basis of the order, which turned on the absence of prior written notice under clause 6.3.4.

This decision is significant in community-schemes adjudication because it emphasizes that a homeowners association must enforce its conduct rules in accordance with the wording of those rules and with procedural fairness. Even where a resident’s conduct may amount to a contravention, a sanction such as a fine may be invalid if the scheme’s own rules require prior written warning or progressive enforcement. The matter also illustrates the importance of clear drafting of security and biometric-access rules in HOAs and confirms that CSOS may set aside or reverse charges imposed unreasonably or contrary to scheme rules.