Villa Chante Body Corporate v N Ungen

The applicant, Villa Chante Body Corporate, is the body corporate of a residential sectional title scheme in Ravenswood, Boksburg, Gauteng. The respondent, N Ungen, is the registered owner of unit 50 and therefore a member of the scheme. The body corporate alleged that the respondent failed over a period of time to pay levy contributions due in respect of his unit. As at September 2023, the arrear levies amounted to R20 868. The applicant stated that requests for payment had been made, internal remedies had been exhausted, and the trustees had resolved to pursue recovery through the Community Schemes Ombud Service. The matter went to conciliation, a certificate of non-resolution was issued on 27 November 2023, and the dispute was referred for adjudication. The respondent did not properly dispute the indebtedness, although he requested a payment arrangement.

• Whether the CSOS had jurisdiction under sections 38 and 39(1)(e) of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 to determine the levy dispute.
• Whether the body corporate proved on a balance of probabilities that the respondent owed arrear levy contributions of R20 868.
• Whether, in the absence of a substantive response disputing the debt, the adjudicator should order payment of the arrear levies in full.
• Whether a costs order should be made in the circumstances.

The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to pay arrear levy contributions of R20 868 to the applicant in full on or before 30 April 2024. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate may obtain relief under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act for payment of arrear levy contributions where it establishes, on a balance of probabilities, the existence and amount of the debt arising from validly raised levies. In the absence of a substantive dispute by the owner, documentary proof of the levy account and contribution statement is sufficient to justify an order for payment. A unit owner may not withhold levies merely because of dissatisfaction with the decision to impose them.

The adjudicator observed that non-payment of levies can seriously destabilise a scheme and negatively affect the collective interests and investments of all owners, because levies fund maintenance, repairs, insurance, security and other shared expenses. The adjudicator also noted, for completeness, that Management Rule 21(3)(c) permits interest on overdue amounts where authorised by written trustee resolution, although the order ultimately concerned only the arrear levy amount. The remarks on costs, including that cost orders are more readily made in matters dismissed as frivolous or vexatious under section 53, were also ancillary to the main decision.

This adjudication reaffirms the enforceability of body corporate levies through the CSOS dispute-resolution mechanism under section 39(1)(e) of the CSOS Act. It underscores that levy obligations are central to the viability of sectional title schemes and that owners cannot avoid payment simply by failing to respond or by seeking payment arrangements without disputing the underlying debt. The matter illustrates the practical role of CSOS as a recovery forum for community schemes and the evidential standard required for levy-recovery orders.