Sectional Titles

MCS Courier - August 2017

Issue No 55 August 2017

In this issue the following topics are covered:

Playing by the rules
Tertius Maree considers the implications of how the introduction of the Ombud service will detract from the continued development of sectional title law in light of the fact that decisions by adjudicators have no value as precedents. Another issue is the fact that ‘policies’ of the Ombud service in their assessment of rules are unknown, making it difficult for trustees, managing agents and their legal representatives to evaluate beforehand if particular rules will be found acceptable or not. As a solution he suggests the Ombud service publish regular bulletins.

He also shares his first impressions based on personal experience of the standard of adjudication of the Ombud service – excellent, while he is worried about how its assessment of rules are to be conducted in future.

Unanimous resolutions
A submission that the changed wording of the definition of a ‘unanimous Resolution’ in s 1 of the Sectional Titles act means the same as the ‘old’ definition and will result in confusion.

Ombud levies
An analysis of section 59 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act, No 9 of 2011 in which it is submitted for amendments to be made to the Regulations to avoid disputes arising as to whether Ombud levies must be assigned according to participation quotas or according to the prescribed tariffs (the correct interpretation).

Spot the slip
A discrepancy between Management Rule 5(2) and 5(3) creates a dilemma for bodies corporate with exactly four members when coming to the appointment of trustees.

What does ‘in addition to’ in Section 6(4) of the Sectional Titles Act mean when read with Section 6(3)?

MCS Courier August 2017

Leave a comment:

Security Picture (click to change)
Word shown in picture:
menu close

Search Articles