Karens Place Body Corporate v Charmaine Burn

Karens Place Body Corporate, a registered sectional title scheme in Alberton North, brought an application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) against Charmaine Burn, the registered owner of unit 8 in the scheme. The body corporate alleged that the respondent had failed to pay levy contributions due to the scheme. The outstanding amount claimed was R8 271.79, inclusive of interest at 18% per annum and recoverable charges reflected in the contribution statement. The application was lodged on 28 August 2023 under section 38 read with section 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011. A section 43 notice was issued to the respondent on 15 September 2023 calling for submissions by 22 September 2023, but the respondent did not respond. After conciliation failed, a certificate of non-resolution was issued on 30 September 2023 and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under the CSOS Act to determine the dispute concerning unpaid levy contributions.
• Whether the applicant body corporate had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent was liable for arrear levy contributions in the amount of R8 271.79.
• Whether the evidence presented by the applicant was sufficient to justify an order under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether any costs order should be made in the adjudication.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R8 271.79 to the applicant in full on or before 31 March 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate in a sectional title scheme may obtain relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of arrear levy contributions where it proves, on a balance of probabilities, that levies were duly raised and remain unpaid by the unit owner. In the absence of any rebuttal by the owner, a properly supported contribution statement and related documentary evidence are sufficient to justify an adjudication order for payment.

The adjudicator remarked that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes and that non-payment can destabilise a scheme and prejudice all owners. The adjudicator also referred to The Body Corporate of Fish Eagle v Group Twelve Investments (Pty) Ltd for the proposition that a member cannot withhold levies merely because they dispute the necessity or financial wisdom of imposing them. These comments supported the reasoning but were not necessary beyond the finding that the debt had been proved.

The matter illustrates the CSOS's role as a statutory forum for the recovery of arrear levy contributions in sectional title schemes. It reaffirms that body corporates may recover duly raised levies from owners through CSOS adjudication and that an owner's failure to participate in the process does not prevent relief being granted where the documentary evidence establishes the debt. The adjudication also underscores the importance of levy compliance to the financial sustainability of community schemes.