The applicant, Shadrack Setiko, is the owner of Unit 04 in the Rose Heights sectional title scheme in Johannesburg. He purchased the property in May 2022. According to him, his monthly charges were initially reasonable, with totals of about R1 700 per month, but from around September 2022 his water and electricity charges escalated significantly to about R3 600 per month. He reported the increased water consumption to the scheme's chairperson and was told it may have been caused by a leaking geyser in his unit. A plumber repaired the geyser, at the applicant's expense, but the charges allegedly remained high thereafter. He also complained about high electricity charges and was told that an electrician would inspect the meter, again at his cost. The applicant contended that the account records showed inconsistencies and did not reconcile with payments made in prior months. He therefore sought relief from the Community Schemes Ombud Service, asking that the monthly bill be suspended and investigated/reconciled, and that he be given access to the body corporate's financial statements. He also stated that he had not received audited financial statements since 2022. The respondent trustees filed no submissions and the matter proceeded unopposed on the papers.
The application succeeded in part. The respondent was ordered, within 30 days of receipt of the order, to reconcile the applicant's water and electricity account after testing the water and electricity meters of his unit to determine the root cause of the escalation in consumption charges. The respondent was also ordered, within 14 days, to permit the applicant access to the audited financial statements for the period 2022 to 2023. The applicant's request that payment of the account be suspended pending reconciliation or investigation was refused because the adjudicator lacked competence to make such an order. No order as to costs was made.
A CSOS adjudicator may grant relief under section 39(1)(c) where an owner's utility-related contributions appear unreasonable or incorrectly determined, including ordering reconciliation of the account and testing of meters to establish the proper charges. A CSOS adjudicator may not order suspension of payment of contributions or accounts where such relief is not authorised by section 39 of the CSOS Act. An owner/member of a body corporate is entitled under section 39(7)(a) to access the scheme's audited financial statements, and such records are not, without more, exempt from disclosure under POPIA.
The adjudicator observed that access to financial statements includes inspection and making copies at the applicant's own cost. The adjudicator also remarked that there was nothing 'sinister' in the matter warranting a costs order. To the extent the adjudicator stated generally that payment of contributions is a statutory obligation which no adjudicator can suspend, that broader formulation goes beyond what was strictly necessary, the core point being that such relief was not available under section 39 in this case.
The decision is significant in community schemes jurisprudence because it underscores that CSOS adjudicators are confined to the remedies expressly provided in section 39 of the CSOS Act and may not craft relief outside that statutory framework, such as suspending payment obligations. At the same time, it confirms that owners in sectional title schemes are entitled to access the body corporate's financial records and that audited financial statements are generally not shielded from disclosure by POPIA. The matter also illustrates the practical use of section 39(1)(c) to resolve disputes about allegedly unreasonable or incorrectly determined utility-related contributions through reconciliation and meter testing.