The ************ CSOS

Ruling by Adjudicator passed in favour of Managing Agent.

In our Final Submission we stated the FACT of the Matter and that was a Fine was placed on our Account for R 250.00 for a ROW of Bricks in 2020.

We Disputed the FINE as the Home Owners Association sent out correspondence prior to the Notice of the Fine stating we may raise the Wall by 4 Rows of Bricks. All of our emails over 27 to the Home Owners Association c/o Managing Agent Selection Estates was simply ignored.

From day 5 after placing the FINE on our Account, Selection Estates Accounting Department, starting billing Debt Collection Fees, SMS, Arrear Letters, Letters of Demand and Interest from September 2020. The Managing Agent is not a Debt Collector as it is not registered with the Debt Collectors Council.

In September of 2022, the current Homeowners Association gave the Managing Agent authority to hand it over to CSOS for Dispute Resolution.

Over two and a half years later, our Account is over R5000.00.

Our LEVIES are paid each and every month timeously.

We are not a Sectional Title however the Managing Agent continued to make reference to the Sectional Title Schemes Management Act and that we are a Body Corporate.

4. One can clearly determine from the above references that a Home Owners Association is not governed by the STSMA (Sectional Title Scheme Management Act 2011) , and only falls under the requirements of the CSOSA. Thus all Legal Documentation presented by the Managing Agent making reference to a BODY CORPORATE, and in its Prayer for Relief making reference to clauses from the STSMA 3.2. and 3.3. and further FULL SETTLEMENT OF INTEREST CHARGES AS PER THE PRESCRIBED MANAGEMENT RULES CLAUSE 1 – 5 , RESOLUTION BY THE DIRECTORS AT A AGM ON THE 25 MAY 2022 WHICH IS RAISED AS A CHARGED LEVY IN TERMS OF THE SECTIONAL TITLE SCHEMES MANAGEMENT ACT in its argument is actually false and misleading.

We pointed this out to the Adjudicator in our Final Submission.

CSOS is currently still practicing COVID Protocol.

Is the current CSOS Dispute Resolution Process lawful?

On the 23rd of June 2020, during the early stages of the National COVID-19 Lockdown, the Community Schemes Ombud Service (“CSOS”) published an amendment to the Practice Directive on Dispute Resolution, 2019 which continues to apply to this day. The amendment boiled down to doing away with the requirement of face-to-face adjudication proceedings and introduced written motion proceedings as a replacement in terms of which disputes are to be decided on papers filed by the parties. Paragraph 8.1 and 8.2 of the abovementioned amended Practice Directive provides that:- “8.1 No face-to-face Adjudications will be conducted. 8.2 Adjudications will be conducted based on papers filed by the parties and further written submissions, documentation and information as requested by the appointment Adjudicator”. In essence, prior to June 2020 all disputes referred to adjudication were deemed action proceedings where the appointed Adjudicator in the presence of the applicant and respondent would have an opportunity to consider all the facts and evidence of the matter. This included, but was not limited to, written submissions, oral evidence and cross examination and if necessary an inspection in loco. Currently, as a result of the amendment to the Practice Directive, all matters referred to adjudication are now deemed application proceedings which are based on, but not limited to, written submissions, electronic correspondence and photographs but specifically excludes in-person hearings. The major concern with the current dispute resolution process lies within the difference between action and motion proceedings. Action proceedings are used when there is a real and substantial dispute of fact between the parties which needs to be presented and argued orally. In contrast thereto, motion proceedings are utilised where there is no material factual dispute and the only real issues to be decided are points of law and written submissions are deemed as sufficient evidence. The question to be asked is whether this amendment to the Practice Directive can be seen as lawful under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”) which underscores that all administrative action must be “lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair”. It is clear as day that when an applicant approaches the CSOS to assist with settling a dispute, such dispute will obviously involve a real and substantial dispute of fact that will typically require oral evidence to be led and site inspections to be held. By denying parties their right to present oral evidence in a face-to-face setting, the CSOS is arguably infringing on the parties fundamental right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair, as required by section 33(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, and as set out in the PAJA . The National COVID-19 Lockdown has been lifted as from 5 April 2022 and one would have logically expected a retraction of the amendment to the Practice Directive on Dispute Resolution to follow shortly thereafter, however the CSOS has not shown any signs of moving back to face-to-face adjudication hearings. Based on the above, a good argument can be made that the amendment to the Practice Directive on Dispute Resolution issued on the 23rd of June 2020 by CSOS is ******** and stands to be reviewed and set aside in terms of the PAJA and we call on all stakeholders in the community schemes industry to place pressure on the CSOS to reinstate face-to-face adjudication hearings. ________________________________________

The adjudicators do NOT adjudicate on the facts of the owner. CSOS adjudicates based on: ROLE OF CSOS IN THE APPEAL PROCESS 35.1 Once a final order is made by an adjudicator to determine a dispute resolution application, the file is closed by the CSOS. The Ombud and the Adjudicator, have no further legislative role in relation to the dispute after the order has been given to the parties... WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE APPLICANT !!! 35.3 The Ombud or Adjudicator cannot further explain or interpret an adjudicator’s order or the adjudicator’s reasoning or advise on how the order is to be app**** or comp**** with... WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE APPLICANT !!! 35.4 The Adjudicator has no capacity to review or amend a final order once it has been issued, other than if directed by a court in the event of a successful appeal... WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE APPLICANT !!! 35.5 Parties seeking legal advice about the terms, reasons for or effect of an order should direct their enquiries to an appropriately qualified person, such as an Attorney... WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE APPLICANT !!!

USELESS CSOS UNRELIABLE, WASTE OF TIME, USELESS PARASTATAL

There is definately a SYNDICATE running between CSOS, MANAGING AGENTS, THE PPR, THE DEBT COUNCELLORS BOARD, as the ADJUDICATOR did not read our FINAL SUBMISSION. He clearly supported the Managing Agent as we noted in our first meeting in 2018 when the Managing Agent attempted the same ******** collection of reward. This Adjudicator definately shows bias and is discriminatory.

With the collection of Debt an Individual is allowed to go to Court under S65 to disclose their Financial Status.

The Adjudicator may pass his Order in favor of the Managing Agent. Giving him his ******** Reward of R5000 + with no thought to our Financial Situation.

The CSOS needs to be held accountable for ********* ******* conduct.