The applicant, the Trustees of Mont Blanc Heights Body Corporate, brought a dispute-resolution application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011. The respondent, Orange Clove (Pty) Ltd, is the registered owner of unit 505 in the scheme. The body corporate alleged that, as at 11 November 2023, the respondent was in arrears with levy-related contributions in the amount of R214 588.27 and sought an order under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act compelling payment of the outstanding balance. The respondent did not file submissions despite notice. During adjudication, the adjudicator requested further information from the applicant under section 51, including an itemised levy statement showing how the amount of R214 588.27 was made up, trustee information, a signed trustees' resolution, authority to charge interest, the approved conduct rules, and the managing agent service level agreement. The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to respond adequately to the crucial request for an itemised levy statement and explanation of the amount claimed.
The application for payment of the alleged arrear contributions under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.
A body corporate seeking relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act must prove the indebtedness claimed with adequate supporting evidence, including proper quantification of the amount due. Where an adjudicator requests further information under section 51 and the applicant fails to comply, particularly in relation to material evidence necessary to establish the claim, the application may be dismissed under section 53(1)(b) of the CSOS Act.
The adjudicator observed that CSOS is the primary forum for adjudication of community-scheme disputes, referring to Wingate Body Corporate v Pamba & Another. The adjudicator also remarked that an itemised statement would have assisted in considering whether any part of the claim might be affected by prescription or included impermissible hidden charges such as collection or legal fees contrary to CSOS directives. In addition, the adjudicator noted the contractual nature of community-scheme rules and the general ability of a body corporate to charge interest on overdue amounts if duly authorised.
This decision underscores that even in an unopposed CSOS levy-recovery matter, a body corporate must place sufficient evidence before the adjudicator to prove both the existence and quantification of the debt. It highlights the importance of complying fully with section 51 requests and providing itemised statements, supporting resolutions, and lawful bases for interest or additional charges. The case illustrates CSOS's insistence on procedural and evidential rigour in community-scheme disputes and confirms that failure to comply with an adjudicator's investigative requirements can be fatal to the application.