Referring levy disputes to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) is a common course of action for resolving conflicts within sectional title schemes in South Africa. While CSOS provides a structured framework for dispute resolution, it’s essential for managing agents, trustees, and property owners to weigh the pros and cons before initiating the process. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the advantages and disadvantages of referring levy disputes to CSOS.

Pros of Referring Levy Disputes to CSOS:

1. Specialized Expertise:

CSOS offers expertise in community scheme disputes, including arrear levy matters. Their mediators and adjudicators are trained in relevant legal frameworks and have experience in resolving disputes within sectional title schemes.

2. Structured Resolution Process:

CSOS provides a structured and formalized process for resolving disputes, which includes mediation and adjudication stages. This structured approach helps streamline the resolution process and ensures that all parties are heard and considered.

3. Cost-Effective Option:

Compared to traditional litigation, referring a levy dispute to CSOS can be a more cost-effective option. CSOS charges nominal fees for their services, making it accessible to managing agents, trustees, and property owners regardless of their financial resources.

4. Time efficient:

For disputed matters, CSOS is often a much faster way to have a matter heard and finalised compared to the conventional court process. It can take on average 1 to 2 years to have a dispute of such matter resolved at court. CSOS however is generally much quicker process – most of the time.

5. Legally Binding Orders:

CSOS has the authority to issue legally binding orders to resolve disputes, including orders related to arrear levies. This provides certainty and enforceability to the resolution process, ensuring that the outcome is respected and complied with by all parties.

Cons of Referring Levy Disputes to CSOS:

1. Paperwork:

As matters currently stand, the application approach involves a detailed paperwork process from Applicants to comply with, giving little chance for others to amend later.

2. Limited Jurisdiction:

CSOS has jurisdictional limitations on certain types of disputes, particularly those involving complex legal issues or matters outside the scope of community schemes. In such cases, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms or litigation may be necessary.

3. Still need to approach the court:

The CSOS order is binding however a defiant and non-cooperative owner may not necessarily comply with the order. Meaning that the Applicant will still need to approach the court and have the order made an order of court. From this stage onwards the need for an attorney to take over and enforce the order is inevitable.

4. Lack of oral evidence:

CSOS disputes are resolved currently by, means of written submission. There is an apparent lack of opportunity to have disputes resolved by means of oral evidence thus cutting out evidence in chief and cross examination. This can have a constitutional headache as it may not necessarily be aligned with a “fair hearing” especially where there is a dispute of fact.

5. Appeal Process:

CSOS decisions are final and binding, with limited options for appeal. If a party disagrees with the outcome of the adjudication process, they may have limited recourse to challenge the decision, potentially leading to dissatisfaction with the resolution.

Conclusion:

Referring levy disputes to CSOS offers a structured and cost-effective approach to resolving conflicts within sectional title schemes. While CSOS provides numerous benefits, including specialized expertise, a structured resolution process, and legally binding orders, it’s essential to consider potential drawbacks such as time constraints, jurisdictional limitations, and dependence on cooperation. By carefully weighing the pros and cons, managing agents, trustees, and property owners can make informed decisions about the most appropriate course of action for resolving levy disputes within their sectional title scheme.