By now I think everyone knows that I am not impressed with the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act (STSMA).
To me, it is a badly written Act of good intentions but impractical, ineffective and inefficient.
For an Act that is supposed to be used and worked with by trustees that may not be well “uneducated” in issues to do with property, I think it is far too involved, prescriptive and full of red tape.
However, the Act does provide some protection to owners against trustees and developers who want to do harm.
A very interesting case was reported recently where owners in an equestrian complex decided that they wanted to make all the levies the same, despite the fact that there was a huge difference in the size of the units.
Interestingly, they resolved to keep the insurance payments related to the size of the units and the participation quota (PQ) of the original sectional title plans.
A new owner of a unit in the complex who obviously had a smaller than average unit was not happy with that situation and took the body corporate to court.
He claimed that proper procedure had not been followed and that the change was not legal.
The court found in his favour that proper procedure was not followed, especially that it is a requirement of the Act that any owner that is negatively affected must agree to the amendment.
Until that happens the levies must continue to be raised on the PQ basis as shown in the sectional title plans.
If the proper procedures are followed the sectional title plans must be changed to reflect the new situation before the change in the levy can be implemented.
I would suggest that trustees could be personally liable for costs that result from action taken to protect individual owners’ rights.
In this case the High Court awarded costs against the trustees.
- Mike Spencer is the founder of Platinum Global, a professional associated property valuer and consultant with work across the country as well as Eastern Europe and Australia. mike@platinumglobal.co.za