Pelican Lofts Body Corporate v Pamela Tshabalala

Pelican Lofts Body Corporate, a sectional title body corporate, brought an application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 for payment of arrear levy contributions. The respondent, Pamela Tshabalala, is the registered owner of Unit 15 in the scheme and therefore a member of the body corporate. The body corporate alleged that she had failed over time to make regular levy payments and that, as reflected in the October 2023 statement, she owed R52 670.40. The applicant stated that requests for payment had been made, internal remedies had been exhausted, and the trustees resolved to proceed through CSOS. A notice calling on the respondent to respond was issued, but she failed or neglected to file a response or dispute the indebtedness. A certificate of non-resolution was issued on 25 October 2023 and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act to determine the dispute concerning unpaid levy contributions.
• Whether the body corporate had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent was liable for arrear levies in the amount of R52 670.40.
• Whether the respondent's failure to respond or dispute the claim justified granting the relief sought on the papers.
• Whether any order as to costs should be made in the adjudication.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R52 670.40 in full on or before 30 April 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 levies where it proves, on a balance of probabilities, that levy contributions were due and unpaid. Owners are obliged to pay duly raised levies, and absent a substantive dispute or evidence to the contrary, documentary proof of the indebtedness is sufficient to justify an order for payment. The respondent's failure to answer the claim permits the adjudicator to accept the applicant's uncontested evidence.

The adjudicator observed that levies are the 'lifeblood' of shared living schemes because maintenance, insurance, security and related expenses depend on regular contributions from owners. The adjudicator also commented that costs orders are generally not made in section 54 adjudications and are more commonly associated with dismissals under section 53 in frivolous or non-compliant matters. The reference to a member not being entitled to withhold levies because of disagreement with the wisdom or necessity of the levy decision was supportive reasoning rather than essential to the outcome, since no such defence was actually advanced by the respondent.

The matter illustrates the CSOS's role as a statutory dispute-resolution forum for the recovery of unpaid levy contributions in sectional title schemes. It reinforces the principle that owners are obliged to pay duly raised levies and that non-payment threatens the functioning and financial stability of community schemes. The decision also shows that where a body corporate provides adequate documentary proof and the owner fails to respond, CSOS may grant payment relief on the papers.