Maximizing Your Chances of a Successful CSOS Application
By Prof. Graham Paddock
Working with Prof. CG van der Merwe, Graham has analyzed numerous Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) adjudicators’ orders in order to prepare the Paddocks CSOS Casebook series of ebooks. Drawing on this experience, in this article he provides advice to bodies corporate, owners, trustees, and tenants seeking a favorable outcome from their application to the CSOS for an adjudication order to resolve a dispute. By following these suggestions, applicants can enhance their chances of obtaining the best possible result.
Introduction
When seeking recourse through the CSOS, it is crucial to understand that adjudicators only have jurisdiction to conciliate and adjudicate disputes as defined by the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (the ‘CSOS Act’). This means that (a) applicants must be individuals with a material interest in the community scheme, (b) one of the parties to the dispute must be either the community scheme itself, an occupier, or an owner and, most importantly, (c) the dispute must pertain to some aspect of the scheme’s administration.
Choosing the Appropriate Relief Category
Applicants must ensure that the relief they seek falls within one of the categories outlined in section 39 of the CSOS Act. Section 39 provides for seven categories of orders classified under the headings: Financial Issues, Behavioural Issues, Scheme Governance Issues, Meeting Issues, Management Services Issues, Works Issues and General Issues. We recommend that applicants carefully read each possible order under each of the seven headings before determining the type or types of relief to pursue. Understanding the specific category that aligns with their dispute is essential for a successful application.
In addition, we suggest that applicants should not assume that the ‘general’ order under section 39(7)(b), for “any other order proposed by the chief ombud” can be applied to a type of relief that is outside the scope of the other orders set out in section 39. This order exists to allow the chief ombud to innovate, but only within the scope of the other orders and it is extremely unlikely that such an order will be granted except in truly unusual and deserving circumstances. The High Court has repeatedly confirmed that applications cannot be made to CSOS for relief that is not specifically mentioned in section 39 of the CSOS Act.
Avoid a “Catch-All” Approach
Applicants should focus on one or two crucial issues that form the crux of their dispute and ask only for orders that clearly cover the relief applied for. Simplifying the adjudication process allows for clearer communication of the key points to the adjudicator. It is important to note that adjudicators have limited time to dedicate to each dispute, so providing all relevant information while avoiding superfluous details is a sensible strategic approach. Including long chains of email exchanges and responses can needlessly burden adjudicators and hinder the efficiency of the process and the likelihood of a positive result.
Submission of Relevant Documents and Scheme Rules
Applicants should ensure they submit copies of all relevant documents that support their case. This includes any scheme governance documents and rules that are applicable to the dispute at hand. Providing the necessary evidence and supporting materials in a well-organized and comprehensive manner strengthens the applicant’s position and aids in the adjudicator’s understanding of the matter.
The Responsibility of Applicants and Respondents
The standards of CSOS adjudication orders are gradually improving. However, both applicants and respondents bear a heavy responsibility in providing adjudicators with the information and arguments they require to draft a well-reasoned order. By offering clear and concise submissions, supported by relevant documents and rules, the chances of a favorable outcome increase significantly.
Conclusion
Applying for an adjudication order through the CSOS can be a complex process. To optimize the chances of a successful outcome, applicants should adhere to specific guidelines. Focusing on essential issues, selecting appropriate relief categories, and providing relevant documents and scheme rules are key factors to consider. For the standard of CSOS adjudications to continue to rise, it is essential for applicants and respondents to fulfill their responsibility by equipping adjudicators with the necessary information and arguments to draft sound and fair orders. By doing so, the entire community benefits from a well-resolved dispute and improved harmonious living within the community scheme.
Graham Paddock
Graham Paddock is a specialist community schemes attorney, notary and conveyancer. He has been advising clients and teaching students for over 40 years, and was an adjunct professor at UCT for 10 years.
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 18, Issue 5.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Recent Posts
Archives
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- February 2008
- February 2007
Recent Comments