By The Paddocks Club Team
Below are examples of two questions on the Paddocks Club discussion forum. We want to show you what is available to our Community members!
We have been asked by a couple of body corporates recently if the trustees can operate a tuck shop in order to raise funds to augment the income of the complex. The shop would be on common property, and would sell items only to the residents.
We are of the view that firstly the complex is zoned residential and therefore no commercial enterprise can take place. Secondly we believe that the mandate of the trustees is to recover expenses from the owners, and not to run a commercial enterprise. Thirdly we believe that the Scheme is residential, and it would be against the Act in terms of change of usage.
There are other significant factors to consider also. Such as stock losses, possible additional wages of cleaners etc, separate bank accounts and the like.
I would appreciate other views on the matter.
We have a similar question about a coin-operated laundry.
I know that the body corporate can provide “amenities and services” for the residents, for example it is common for schemes for older people to provide meals.
If the service is owned by the body corporate and only serves the residents is it “commercial” in terms of city zoning?
Does it make a difference if it is intended to make a profit or break even?
Thanks and regards,
Opening a tuck shop in a scheme is not prohibited. It would have to make sense for that scheme though, for example where it is an old age home or there are no corner shops near to the scheme.
Section 38(i) the body corporate may enter into an agreement with any owner or occupier of a section for the provision of amenities or services by the body corporate. Furthermore the trustees can employ a shopkeeper in terms of section 38(i) and PMR 26(1)(a).
The trustees would have to weigh up the risks and rewards in opening up such a tuck shop.
Garage a used as living area
Some advice please on how to address the following;
I received a report that the garage (part of the section) adjacent to mine has a lounge suit arranged therein and a gentleman has been seen lounging thereon on occasion. I do not live in the complex but have now on two occasions this week end (in the evening) when driving past the complex observed a person seated therein.
The garages are situated on the ground floor in front of the building directly off the street. The doors are ’tilt’ doors and when open, public has full view of the interior of the garage.
We are aware of the fact that a garage (shown as such on the plan) is not permitted to be used for any other purpose. I am not at all brave enough to approach this garage. Only one Trustee resides in the building and she is also not prepared to approach. I intend addressing this matter with the absent owner but would like some advice on how to approach the matter as I cannot state for sure whether there is someone residing in the garage.
Do I just request owner to personally view and investigate with a report back date? He lives quite nearby. I am not sure whether or not to advise of the law etc at this stage due to the uncertainty of actual proof.
The tenant has been a problem (exceptionally noisy) for some years now and there have been numerous communications in this regard with the owner. However
we are of the opinion that owner is somehow afraid of the tenant as he has mentioned that her boyfriend is a magistrate and all previous complaints have been
brushed aside as racist.
Look forward to some advice.
Section 44(1)(e) deals with nuisance and section 44(1)(g) and PMR 68(1)(v) deal with use restrictions. Additionally, the part of a section designed and built as a garage is not a habitable space in terms of the town planning regulations. There are ventilation, damp proofing and fire protection issues. Section 37(1)(n) requires the body corporate to ensure compliance with any law relating to the common property and improvements to the land.
I agree the correct route to follow in this instance is to write to the owner concerned, alerting him to the use and local authority contraventions and requiring him to put a stop to it.
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 10, Issue 3, Page 6.
Professor Graham Paddock, Anton Kelly, Carryn Durham and Zerlinda van der Merwe are available to answer questions on the Paddocks Club discussion forum for Community members. Get all your questions answered by joining Paddocks Club.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Back to Paddocks Press – July 2015 Edition.