CSOS ALLEGEDLY UNDULY FAVOURING MANAGING AGENT

CSOS ALLEGEDLY UNDULY FAVOURING MANAGING AGENT ------------------------------------------------------------------ I refer to Grant's review relating to the CSOS allegedly being infiltrated by a NAMA Syndicate . In instances known to me , an applicant in 3 cases presented to Cape Town CSOS named ( additional to the Trustees and another owner ) the Managing Agent ( a National Company ) as a respondent When it came ( after allegedly incorrect procedural handlings and lengthy delay by the CSOS which absolutely favoured the respondents who by then had been able , because of the CSOS delays , to do things which the applicants wanted not done ) to the final adjudication notices being sent out ,the MA name had been removed from the respondent list .The applicant immediately brought this to notice and received an assurance in return but when it came to the actual adjudication the MA was still not on the respondent list and the Case Adjudicator rubberstamped this although it was blatantly obvious from the original documentation that the MA had been named as a respondent The Adjudicator then allowed the MA ( who is supposedly well up on ST Law ) to be present and actively assist the respondents even though the respondents already had enough representatives present and having legal representation is frowned upon Needless to say, the adjudication went in favour of the respondents on allegedly absolutely poor logic and incorrect presentations of matters displayed on very many points by the adjudicator A former Trustee of the block in question has advised that , prior to this , he was invited to a social function hosted by the MA at which were present senior officials of the Cape Town CSOS . How can the CSOS claim to have had an arms length relationship with the MA Company ? The abovestated matters , amongst other matters of complaint ,were brought to the attention of the W.Cape Provincial Ombud, the acting National Chief Ombud and the CSOS Board. The responses from the first two were allegedly grossly inadequate in the opinion of the complainant and the CSOS Board has not acknowledged or responded after two years