Simone Claire Stubbs v Trustees of Harbour View Body Corporate

The applicant, Simone Claire Stubbs, is the registered owner of unit A612 at Harbour View, Woodstock, Cape Town. She notified the scheme's managing agent in October 2022 of mould, damp, and water seepage entering her unit through a trap door when it rained. On 2 November 2022, a service provider sent by the scheme assessed the problem and reported that the roof waterproofing was worn out and needed to be redone, quoting approximately R70,000 for repairs. On 14 June 2023, the applicant was informed that her unit had been flooded; upon inspection she found extensive water intrusion and alleged that her tenant had to vacate the unit. She approached the Community Schemes Ombud Service for relief directing the body corporate to repair the roof, repair damage inside her unit, and reimburse her for loss of rental income from June 2023. The respondent body corporate did not file written submissions despite being requested to do so.

• Whether the body corporate was obliged under the CSOS Act and the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act to repair and maintain the roof/common property causing water ingress into the applicant's unit.
• Whether the applicant had made out a case on a balance of probabilities for an order under section 39(6)(a) and/or (b) of the CSOS Act requiring repairs.
• Whether the adjudicator could order the respondent to repair consequential damage inside the applicant's section where the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence or quantification of that damage.
• Whether the applicant's claim for reimbursement of lost rental income fell within the forms of relief competent under section 39 of the CSOS Act, or whether it was an impermissible damages/delictual claim outside CSOS jurisdiction.

The application succeeded in part. The adjudicator granted relief under section 39(6)(a) of the CSOS Act and directed the respondent to repair the roof causing water damage to the applicant's unit within 30 days of the order. The applicant's claims for repair of consequential internal damage and for reimbursement of loss of income were dismissed as misconceived/incompetent or insufficiently substantiated. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate is statutorily obliged to maintain and repair common property, and where a leaking roof on common property causes water ingress into a unit, a CSOS adjudicator may grant an order under section 39(6)(a) compelling the body corporate to effect the necessary repairs. However, relief under section 39 of the CSOS Act is limited to the categories of orders expressly provided for in the Act; claims amounting to delictual damages, including loss of rental income, fall outside CSOS jurisdiction. Further, an applicant seeking additional repair-related relief must place sufficient evidence before the adjudicator to substantiate that claim.

The adjudicator observed that it was 'odd and concerning' that the respondent failed to act on the recommendations of the service provider it had itself appointed and failed to respond to the dispute despite CSOS requests. The decision also referred generally to the duty of bodies corporate and trustees to maintain a written maintenance, repair and replacement plan under Management Rule 22, although that was not itself the basis of the operative order.

The decision illustrates the limits of CSOS adjudicative jurisdiction in sectional title and community scheme disputes. It confirms that a body corporate bears the duty to maintain common property, including a leaking roof, and that CSOS may compel such repairs under section 39(6)(a). At the same time, it underscores that applicants must properly prove consequential loss claims and that CSOS cannot award delictual damages such as lost rental income, which must be pursued in court if otherwise sustainable.