Trustees of Waterfall Park Body Corporate v T Deen

The applicant, the Trustees of Waterfall Park Body Corporate, brought a dispute before the Community Schemes Ombud Service under section 38 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011. The respondent, T Deen, was a tenant in unit 8, an upstairs unit in the scheme. The body corporate alleged that the respondent was keeping a large dog in the scheme without approval and in contravention of the scheme’s conduct rules. Those rules required that all pets be registered and that an application form be submitted to the trustees for consideration and approval. The rules also limited dogs to one per unit and to animals up to 30 cm in height, due to the limited property size. The respondent did not dispute that no formal application had been submitted. Instead, she contended that she had informed the trustees of her intention to obtain a trained and certified service dog for security reasons because she was a whistle-blower and felt unsafe in the complex. She also alleged unequal enforcement of the rules, claiming that other residents, including white residents and trustees, were allowed to keep large or multiple dogs, including dogs in upstairs units. The applicant replied that the rules were applied equally, that past approvals complied with the rules in force at the time, and that the respondent’s dog would not qualify under the current rules. A certificate of non-resolution had been issued after conciliation failed, and the matter proceeded to adjudication on the papers.

• Whether the respondent was keeping an animal in the community scheme contrary to the scheme governance documentation within the meaning of section 39(2)(c) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether mere notification to trustees of an intention to keep a dog satisfied the scheme rule requiring a formal application for approval.
• Whether the respondent’s dog qualified as a guide, hearing, or assistance dog under rule 21.1, such that trustee consent would be deemed if written notice were given.
• Whether allegations of unequal or discriminatory enforcement of the scheme rules provided a defence to the body corporate’s enforcement application.
• Whether the body corporate was entitled to an order compelling removal of the dog from the scheme.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to remove the dog from the scheme within 30 days of receipt of the adjudication order. No order as to costs was made.

Where a community scheme’s conduct rules require a formal application and approval before a pet may be kept, an occupier who keeps a dog without submitting such an application acts contrary to the scheme governance documentation and may be ordered under section 39(2)(c) of the CSOS Act to remove the animal. Mere notification of an intention to keep a dog does not satisfy a rule requiring an application. A person seeking to rely on an exemption or deemed consent for a guide or assistance dog must show that the requirements of the relevant rule are met, including any disability-related qualification and written notice to trustees. Alleged inconsistent enforcement against others does not excuse the occupier’s own breach where the rules require each case to be considered individually.

The adjudicator’s references to Laguna Ridge Scheme No 152/1987 v Dorse and North Global Properties (Pty) Ltd v Body Corporate of Sunrise Beach Scheme and Others, and the observations that trustees’ decisions must be objectively reasonable, reviewable, and based on the individual circumstances of each case, were not strictly necessary to the outcome because the decisive fact was that the respondent had never applied for permission at all. The adjudicator’s comment that the respondent had denied the trustees the opportunity to apply their minds to her individual circumstances was likewise an ancillary observation supporting the result.

This adjudication is significant in community schemes law because it affirms that body corporates may enforce pet rules through the CSOS where an owner or occupier keeps an animal without complying with the scheme’s governance documentation. It underscores that informal notice to trustees is not a substitute for a formal application where the rules require one, and that allegations of inconsistent enforcement do not by themselves excuse non-compliance. The decision also illustrates the interaction between scheme rules, CSOS enforcement powers under section 39(2)(c), and administrative-law principles requiring trustee decisions to be reasonable and individually considered.