{"id":834359,"date":"2025-08-07T17:13:02","date_gmt":"2025-08-07T15:13:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/?p=834359"},"modified":"2025-08-08T11:03:20","modified_gmt":"2025-08-08T09:03:20","slug":"big-rule-changes-for-complexes-and-estates-in-south-africa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/property\/834359\/big-rule-changes-for-complexes-and-estates-in-south-africa\/","title":{"rendered":"Big rule changes for complexes and estates in South Africa"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Trustees and managing agents of residential complexes and estates in South Africa are being warned to ensure compliance with a new legal directive that could carry serious consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Johlene Wasserman, Director of Community Schemes and Compliance at VDM Law, a new Practice Directive from the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) marks a significant shift in how community schemes will be governed and enforced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The directive was signed and published on 18 July 2025, and sets the standard for how these schemes address things like pets, fines and domestic workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe CSOS Practice Directive supersedes all previous documents and now serves as a single reference source for trustees, managing agents, and other stakeholders,\u201d Wasserman said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wasserman is a former employee of both CSOS and the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority (PPRA). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

She warned that non-compliance is no longer a matter of inconvenience or administrative backlog for trustees, and could lead to steep fines or even prison. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTrustees and managing agents who fail to meet their obligations could face penalties of up to 10 years in jail or significant fines,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Wasserman, one of the most critical changes is the identification of \u201cundesirable rules\u201d within community schemes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are rules that CSOS deems unconstitutional or discriminatory and therefore have no legal standing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf such rules are included in the governance documents of a scheme, they may be rejected during the quality assurance process or later struck down by CSOS adjudicators,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Examples of unacceptable rules include restrictions on domestic workers, such as forbidding them from having visitors, speaking to each other on common property, or requiring them to wear name tags or carry passes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Excessive fines are another major concern. \u201cTrustees cannot impose arbitrary penalties. Rules around fines must include written warnings, proper internal dispute resolution processes, and specific timeframes,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wasserman added that fines must also be less than the monthly levy charged to the unit involved. Summary fines or open-ended penalties are strictly prohibited. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTrustees do not have any power to decide on fines or take action against an owner or occupier on their own. They have to follow the CSOS rules.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Steep fines and even jail time <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Another common issue is rules that force owners to use a specific estate agency to rent or sell their units. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is an infringement of constitutional rights and cannot be upheld. In cases where such provisions exist, CSOS may order the rule to be removed, amended, restored to a previous version, or replaced entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The directive also introduces administrative penalties for schemes that fail to meet regulatory requirements. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These include failing to register their rules with CSOS, operating without a POPI (Protection of Personal Information) manual, or not having an information officer registered with the Information Regulator. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s important to remember that rules must also align with the Sectional Title Schemes Management (STSM) Act,\u201d added Wasserman.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two important case examples highlight how the new directive could play out. In one case, a rule banning cats but allowing dogs was challenged. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

CSOS ruled that the conduct rule was unfairly discriminatory and unreasonable and infringed on owners’ enjoyment of their property. It was set aside.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In another case, the HOA had revoked an owner\u2019s biometric access, forcing them to enter the estate as a visitor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

CSOS found that access to one\u2019s home is a core part of ownership and ruled that only a court, not an HOA, could restrict it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It dismissed the HOA\u2019s defence that the complaint was filed late and ordered biometric access to be fully restored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThese cases show how easily rules around pets, access, and even cultural practices can be found to be discriminatory or unconstitutional,\u201d said Wasserman. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTrustees and managing agents must be extremely cautious when drafting and enforcing scheme rules.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CSOS investigators are now conducting regular site visits to assess compliance, and Wasserman warned that schemes must get their affairs in order now. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPenalties for non-compliance are issued under Section 34(1) of the CSOS Act. While the Act doesn\u2019t specify exact amounts, enforcement actions will be proportionate to the seriousness of the contravention,\u201d she explained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFor first-time offences, jail time of up to five years may apply. For second or subsequent offences, that can increase to 10 years.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She urged trustees and managing agents, particularly those managing sectional title, share block, retirement, and similar community housing schemes, to ensure all documents and governance practices are fully compliant with CSOS standards. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The full directive can be read below:<\/p>\n\n\n\n