Throughout our lives, we deal with people we do not like. After school and work, you can leave those pesky people behind and not have to deal with them in your “down time”. Unfortunately, this is not the case in sectional title: these “pesky people” are often your neighbours or a trustee and you have no option but to deal with them.

Schemes are able to make their own conduct rules, by special resolution, which regulate the behaviour of their owners and occupiers.

The conduct of owners in sectional title schemes is regulated by the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 (the Act), and either the prescribed rules or other rules made in terms of the Act and applicable to the scheme in question. 

Schemes are able to make their own conduct rules, by special resolution, which regulate the behaviour of their owners and occupiers. These rules must be reasonable and apply equally to all owners of units put to substantially the same purpose. 

If an owner is in breach of the rules of the scheme, then, according to the prescribed rules, he or she will not be able to vote for general resolutions at any general meeting. However, the rule does not prevent the owner from voting in any special or unanimous resolutions. Also, if the owner’s bondholder has made its interest known, it can vote for the general resolutions at general meetings that the owner is not able to vote for. So this really is not much of a deterrent to bad behaviour.

It is advisable to be more considerate of your neighbours than you would be in freehold title, firstly because it is so much easier to annoy them, and secondly because you may well need their support in the future. 

While it is not unusual for people to think that making very extensive rules covering every conceivable eventuality will make scheme life better, long and complex sets of rules are often ignored. Short, clear and appropriate rules have the best chance of being effective. - Jennifer Paddock

Jennifer Paddock is a sectional title expert. Paddocks, a specialist sectional title and HOA training firm, has launched Paddocks Club – an online community where you can ask for advice and support on your sectional title issues. For more information, see   www.paddocksclub.co.za.

Readers' Comments Have a comment about this article? Email us now.

We are a small building of 12 units. 7 Live-In Owners, 5 sets of tenants, 5 Trustees of which I was appointed "Managing Trustee" mainly because I am the only male with sectional title knowledge while the other trustees are women and do not want to be bothered with administration, dealing with tenants, phoning the managing agent, liaising with repair contractors, doing the banking, and so on.
While the position of "Chairman" carries no executive powers and is only the chair-person for meetings, whenever a problem arises that requires trustee input, I am told "Whatever you think is best is fine with me"; every time! No matter what the problem, the trustees always tell me the same thing. Every year I am elected as a trustee, then elected the chairman of the trustees and consequently of the body corporate. For five years running now, no one questions my decisions. I don't make autocratic decisions, nor am I a dictator, although some owners would love to argue that point. However, the owners who do argue this point are non-resident owners who have no interest in the building or its management apart from their own financial interest. But they take great delight in trying to tell me that everything I am doing is always wrong. Whenever I say they can take over with the greatest of pleasure, I am told they are far too busy to take on more work. I generally tell them to keep their opinions to themselves or bring it up at the next AGM.
Since our building happened to be one caught up in the CSTM fraud and consequent freezing of our funds by the appointed curator, we suddenly have "creditors" appearing out of nowhere claiming their account was never paid by CSTM, but are highly slack when it comes to proving that we owe them money, with the exception, of course, of the City of Johannesburg. CSTM managed to obtain a High Court Interdict against the CoJ for disconnecting our services and taking legal action against us, but we still receive their regular FINAL DEMAND for FULL SETTLEMENT of the arrears etc. What a long an laborious process it is turning out to be. We cannot afford attorneys, and so we are kept waiting while the Curator does his work and wraps up the CSTM debacle. Then we have to prove the claim of some R23,000 that we had paid to CSTM and hope the EAAB's Fidelity Fund will have sufficient money to pay us out. Only then can we settle the arrears with CoJ. Interestingly, CoJ can afford to write off over R2-billion for unpaid arrears from SOWETO alone, but they refuse to do the same for us even though our building is occupied by 80% black people!
We have one owner who blatantly refuses to pay her accounts until the 6th of the month, and if the 6th falls on a Saturday, we do not receive the money until the 8th or the 9th. The DUE DATE on our electricity and water accounts at CoJ is the 7th of the month. She claims that's not her problem, she will not pay late payment penalties, and refuses point blank to pay any earlier.
Another resident owner is the building NAG! EVERYBODY is ALWAYS WRONG and she is ALWAYS RIGHT.
Difficult? We'll tell you all about "difficult people"! - Ian