- Legal expert Ashwini Singh revisits a 2021 CSOS adjudication order to highlight its lessons for residents.
- Trustees, not CSOS, hold the power to decide on pets in sectional title schemes.
- Residents must follow proper procedures and use the courts if trustees act unreasonably.
Legal expert and academic Ashwini Singh has drawn public attention to a 2021 adjudication order of the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS), saying it offers valuable lessons for anyone living in a community scheme.
Singh notes that the case of Wijne v Trustees of The Ridge Body Corporate shows what can go wrong when residents misunderstand the role of trustees and the limits of the Ombud’s powers.
The matter arose when Durban resident Alan William Wijne, who owned a unit at The Ridge sectional title scheme, acquired a Yorkshire Terrier to provide comfort while he was undergoing treatment for illness. Wijne acknowledged that the scheme’s rules prohibited pets but argued that exceptions existed for assistance animals, pointing to medical evidence from a psychiatrist who confirmed the emotional value of the dog in his recovery.
The trustees of The Ridge Body Corporate opposed his application, arguing that the pet did not qualify as an assistance animal under the scheme rules and, crucially, that Wijne had failed to apply for consent before bringing the dog into the community. According to the trustees, he was effectively asking for permission after the fact, which contravened both the rules and the proper procedures.
CSOS says trustees, not Ombud, hold the power
The case was brought before CSOS, where Advocate RT Reddy was tasked with adjudication. After reviewing the matter, the adjudicator dismissed Wijne’s application. The order emphasised that CSOS had no authority to grant consent for pets in sectional title schemes, as this power lies exclusively with trustees.
In terms of Section 39 of the CSOS Act, the Ombud may only resolve disputes that fall within its statutory mandate, and authorising pets is not one of them. Allowing CSOS to override trustees, the adjudicator noted, would create an unreasonable precedent that undermines community governance structures.
Singh’s lessons: Procedure must come first
Singh, reflecting on the ruling, said the outcome was the correct one: “In terms of Section 39 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act, it is not within the ambit of the CSOS to provide consent for pets on behalf of the trustees of a sectional title scheme,” she explained. “If it were allowed, it would create an unreasonable precedent that the CSOS can perform a statutory function in lieu of a scheme’s trustees.”
She stressed that trustees remain the only authority empowered to grant such permission under the Prescribed Conduct Rules of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Regulations. “If an owner or occupier believes that consent for an application to keep pets is unreasonably being withheld, the affected party must approach a court for relief, not the Ombud,” Singh said.
In her view, the case also illustrates a common mistake made by residents. “To bring a pet into a scheme without the permission of the trustees, then apply to CSOS afterwards, is a gross deviation from the procedure,” Singh warned. “It undermines the functions of both a body corporate and its trustees, who are specifically tasked with ensuring fair management of the scheme.”
Why the case still matters
Although the order was handed down in 2021, Singh believes its lessons remain as relevant today as they were then. Life in a community scheme, she emphasised, is built on cooperation, adherence to rules, and respect for governance structures.
The Ombud can mediate and adjudicate disputes, but only within the legal limits set by its founding Act. For residents, the message is simple and practical: apply for permission first, respect the authority of trustees, and if your rights are unfairly restricted, use the courts rather than the Ombud to challenge such decisions.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
2 Comments
In my complex theres a doctor who has her sister bring in small dog every weekend.
It wont stop barking and runs everywhere.
The trustees dont do anything.
I wouldnt be suprised if someone drives over it one day.
CSOS hates pets. This woman in the place iim at brought a shepherd dog in and then applied to CSOS for permission after saying that she has a psychologist letter
She had to move out