Trustees of Homestead Villas Body Corporate v Rhesa Rene Chetty

The applicant, the Trustees of Homestead Villas Body Corporate, brought an application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, seeking relief under section 39(1)(e) for payment of alleged levy arrears and ancillary charges. The respondent, Rhesa Rene Chetty, is the registered owner of Unit 2 in the scheme. The applicant alleged that as at 4 September 2023 the respondent owed R13 246.93 in levies and related charges, including CSOS levies, and that reminders had been sent. It was also alleged that the respondent's father had undertaken to settle the account but that no payment or written payment arrangement followed. The respondent filed no submissions in opposition despite being invited to do so. During the adjudication, the adjudicator requested further documents from the applicant in terms of section 51 of the CSOS Act, including the scheme's conduct rules, a trustees' resolution on the applicable interest rate, and an updated levy statement. The applicant failed to provide these documents.

• Whether the applicant had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent was liable for the levy arrears and ancillary charges claimed.
• Whether an adjudicator can properly determine a levy-recovery dispute without the scheme rules, proof of the trustees' approved interest rate, and an updated levy statement.
• Whether the application should be dismissed under section 53(1)(b) of the CSOS Act for failure by the applicant to comply with a section 51 request for further information or documentation.

The application was dismissed in terms of section 53(1)(b) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 because the applicant failed to provide the scheme's conduct rules, the trustees' resolution on the applicable interest rate, and an updated levy statement when requested by the adjudicator under section 51. No order as to costs was made.

In a CSOS levy-recovery application, the applicant must provide sufficient documentary material to enable adjudication of the claim, including the relevant scheme rules, proof of any trustees' resolution authorising the applicable interest rate, and an updated levy statement. If the applicant fails to comply with an adjudicator's request for such information under section 51, the adjudicator may dismiss the application under section 53(1)(b).

The adjudicator observed that levies are the 'lifeblood' of a body corporate and that trustees cannot perform their functions without owners' contributions. These comments explain the practical importance of levy collection but were not the basis for the dismissal. The adjudicator also stated generally that evidence must be relevant and assessed on a balance of probabilities.

This decision illustrates the evidential and procedural requirements in CSOS levy-recovery proceedings. Even where a respondent does not oppose the matter, an applicant body corporate must still place sufficient documentary proof before the adjudicator to establish the debt claimed. The case underscores that CSOS adjudicators may dismiss applications for non-compliance with requests for further information under section 51, and that proof of governing rules, the legal basis for interest, and current account statements are central in levy disputes.