- A homeowner was fined R100 per day for not painting fascia boards and R10 000 for unapproved building.
- The CSOS ruled the fines were imposed without a fair hearing and must be removed from his account.
- The homeowner must submit building plans for approval but gets to challenge how his rights were ignored.
Vuyo Noble Dlulane didn’t expect that owning a home in a secure estate in Bridgemead, Gqeberha, would land him in a costly and emotionally draining dispute. But that’s exactly what happened when fines started piling up on his account; fines he says he never saw coming.
It began, he explained, when he discovered that hundreds of rands were being added to his monthly levy bill. He later realised this was due to a daily fine of R100 being charged to him for failing to paint his fascia boards, something he says he was never informed about.
“I was never notified. My email was down. I wasn’t hiding,” Dlulane told the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS). “But they kept charging me every day like I was refusing to comply.”
Then came an even more alarming blow: a R10 000 fine for building an entertainment and braai area, along with extensions to his boundary wall, all allegedly without prior written consent from the homeowners’ association. According to Dlulane, he had attempted to address the issue with the managing agents but received no help. The penalties, however, kept rolling in.
The homeowners’ association defends its actions
The Chade Manor Homeowners’ Association, the body that governs the estate, stood firm. It argued that the rules of the estate were clear; property owners were required to maintain their homes and seek prior approval before making any structural alterations.
The association said it had issued notices to Dlulane as far back as July 2022, repeating them in September and October. When no action was taken, the fines were applied according to its constitution and conduct rules.
The association further claimed that a meeting had been arranged for 24 April 2023 to discuss the matter, but that Dlulane did not confirm his attendance.
It pointed out that the estate consisted of over 226 residential units and that uniformity, maintenance, and compliance were crucial to maintaining order and property values in the community.
The ombud weighs in, and finds serious flaws
But CSOS adjudicator, Advocate AS du Toit, took a different view. The adjudicator acknowledged that while the association’s rules were valid and binding on all residents, they must still be applied fairly and in line with the principles of natural justice.
In particular, the adjudicator found that the penalties, especially the R10 000 fine and the cumulative daily charges, had been imposed without properly hearing Dlulane’s side of the story. Although one meeting was proposed, it was not enough to satisfy the requirement for procedural fairness.
The lack of a meaningful opportunity for Dlulane to respond before the imposition of the penalties meant that the process was fundamentally flawed.
As Advocate Du Toit noted in the judgment: “The rules of natural justice (audi alteram partem, or the right to be heard) were not adhered to prior to the imposition of the fines in question, rendering the fines procedurally unfair.”
He found the imposition of the fines unreasonable, irregular, and inconsistent with the obligations placed on bodies managing community schemes.
What the adjudicator ordered
In the final order, CSOS instructed the homeowners’ association to reverse all fines related to both the fascia board issue and the unapproved building work. However, Dlulane was not entirely off the hook.
The adjudicator also ordered him to submit proper building plans to the Executive Committee for all the alterations he had made. This, the adjudicator said, was necessary and appropriate given the current state of the property. No order was made in respect of legal costs, meaning each party must bear their own.
The homeowners’ association had also requested a demolition order, arguing that Dlulane’s alterations violated scheme rules. But the adjudicator dismissed this part of the claim, noting that CSOS does not have jurisdiction to grant demolition orders and that such matters should be pursued in the appropriate court.
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
