PQ or equal pay per unit in sectional titles complex.

Started some 36 ago month, 3 rejected applications of the same dispute. The 4. I cancelled because the case officer requested additional information never asked before and I anticipating the next rejection, no understanding or advice from complaints, just follow request, The EDT Survey****** special electronic resolution vote was repeated at the AGM on 15.04.2024 as a special resolution vote. Both votes indicated PQ and not equal pay, managing agent refused to pass the results on to the members and equal pay per unit continued. ----- Send this letter some time ago explaining my experience, did not help. ----- I am sending you this mail with a healthy portion of disappointment and frustration because the receipt confirmation of my 4th dispute dealing with the same problems as the previous 3 rejected on a technicality and posted through PostNet on 19.02.2024 is still outstanding.

Some time ago I had a problem with my Bank and contacted the Ombudsman for banking matters. There investigator contacted the Bank themselves and reported back to me with a settlement proposal.

I am surprised that CSOS is expecting that the novice applicants must select from a long list the correct section and paragraph for the dispute or is rejected. Section 38(3)(a) of the CSOS Act specifically states that the application must include statements that set out the relief sought by the applicant. Additionally, the relief sought must fall within the scope of one or more of the prayers for relief contemplated in section 39 of the Act.

I do not have any additional statements other then stated in my attachments to the dispute application nor can I identify the correct section where this dispute fits in, but what I am very concerned about is that the very qualified managing agent is advising novice trustees by not respecting the Sectional Titles Act. "A managing agent should act honestly, in good faith, and in the best interests of the body corporate and the scheme." I do not believe that this is the case in my complex.

Why not let the applicants concentrate on correctly reporting the problem they are having in there complex against the managing agent who is advising Trustees and there supporters against the interest of the small units and by doing so ignoring the Sectional Titles Act.

I would propose that qualified CSOS staff should decide which paragraph the dispute complain falls under. It would streamline the process and reduce technicality rejections. It also cuts the workload in half because technicality rejections are a thing of the past and second dispute applications not necessary.

As a pensioner and a 1941 birth year I do admire the IT technology but must admit that to me and I believe many other of my age have some problems adjusting to this way of live. I pray that my comments are receiving consideration and will be helpful to everybody involved in this very important CSOS administration. I would very much appreciate your understanding and help in this matter. Thank you.

This are the 3 case rejection reasons in short. =============================================== Case 1.) CSOS5394GP22 CSOS cannot deal with complaints/dispute which originated prior to the commencement of the CSOS Act on the 7th of October 2016, in other words; it cannot find or adjudicate on a retrospective application. My responded: I did not mean to claim past wrong charges but where to go from here. My complain is that the body corporate members are charged incorrectly. =========== Case 2.) CSOS6****P23 3. The relief you are seeking is that the respondents are held accountable for not advising the members of the scheme correctly. 4. The above relief does not fall within the ambit if section 39 of the Act, hence your application is rejected in terms of the above-mentioned section.

My responds: I did not complain that the management advised incorrectly. My complain is that the body corporate members are charged incorrectly. Which falls within the ambit of section 39 of the Act, as I understand the STSMA Act 8 of 2011 ========= Case 3.) CSOS10679-GP-23 The Applicant owner failed to timeously provide the CSOS with the requested information.

My responds: With all due respect I cannot understand the thinking behind to dismiss this Case because the managing agent did not supply the requested documentations. I got no ways to force him to respond to my request

==================