HelloPeter Review – Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS)

I have been involved in multiple disputes before CSOS over an extended period and, unfortunately, my experience has left me with little confidence that the dispute resolution process is being administered in the manner contemplated by the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act.

CSOS exists to provide homeowners with an accessible, affordable alternative to High Court litigation. In practice, however, I have found that many disputes are handled in a way that ultimately forces applicants back to the High Court to review defective adjudication orders, defeating the very purpose for which the Ombud Service was established.

My concerns are not with the legislation itself. The CSOS Act provides adjudicators with extensive investigative powers and is supported by comprehensive Practice Directives designed to ensure fair, efficient and properly reasoned dispute resolution. My concern is the consistent failure to utilise those powers and to follow those directives.

Some of the issues I have experienced include:

Adjudicators deciding matters without properly investigating disputed facts. Limited or no use of sections 50 and 51 of the CSOS Act to compel the production of documents or obtain evidence necessary to determine disputes correctly. Case managers and conciliators appearing to treat procedural requirements as administrative formalities rather than ensuring that disputes are properly prepared before adjudication. Practice Directives being inconsistently app**** or, in some cases, seemingly ignored altogether. Adjudication orders that do not adequately address the evidence before the adjudicator or fail to explain why relevant evidence was rejected. Orders that are impractical or impossible to implement in their current form. An apparent over-reliance on the concept of functus officio once an order has been issued, even where the order contains obvious procedural or evidential deficiencies, leaving parties with no realistic remedy other than costly High Court review proceedings.

As a homeowner, I expected CSOS to resolve disputes on their merits. Instead, I have spent significant time and money trying to correct decisions that could have been avoided had the available investigative powers been exercised properly in the first instance.

I am equally disappointed by the absence of accountability within the organisation. I escalated my concerns to the Department of Human Settlements and requested intervention, yet I have received no meaningful acknowledgement or feedback. Attempts to engage senior officials within CSOS, including the Office of the Chief Ombud, have similarly produced no substantive response.

This creates the perception that there is no effective internal quality assurance process for adjudication decisions, no mechanism for identifying recurring procedural failures, and no willingness to engage constructively when legitimate concerns are raised.

I fully appreciate that adjudicators must make difficult decisions and that not every party will agree with an outcome. My criticism is not that I have lost or disagreed with decisions; it is that many matters appear not to have been investigated using the tools Parliament specifically provided to CSOS, resulting in avoidable errors and unnecessary litigation.

I believe CSOS would better serve homeowners by:

Providing more comprehensive and continuous training for adjudicators. Making proper use of sections 50 and 51 to obtain evidence before determining disputes. Applying the Practice Directives consistently across all matters. Strengthening quality assurance and peer review of adjudication orders. Improving communication and accountability when complaints are raised about the adjudication process. Engaging directly with stakeholders who have identified systemic procedural concerns.

The current approach risks wasting both public resources and private funds. Applicants choose CSOS because it is intended to provide an efficient and specialised forum for resolving community scheme disputes. When those disputes ultimately require High Court intervention because of avoidable procedural shortcomings, confidence in the institution is undermined.

I hope this review encourages the Chief Ombud or another senior official to engage with these concerns. My objective is not simply to criticise the organisation, but to contribute towards improving a dispute resolution system that thousands of homeowners rely upon.