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!
Should the pool area be seen as public or common area
I have a question regarding the number of toilets at the pool area of a complex. At the moment it only has one unisex toilet.
According to two of the trustees it must have two toilets as it is a “public space”, they base their argument on building regulations.
The rest of the trustees maintain that it is common property and exclusive use by the owners and therefore does not need two toilets, as the pool area of the complex is locked at all times and only owners have keys to the pool.
Can you please provide input into this dispute between trustees
The pool at a sectional title scheme that is available to all owners is highly unlikely to be subject to exclusive use rights. If it were, there would be some owners not entitled to use it.
All the space in an ordinary residential sectional title scheme is private, not public, so provisions in building regulations that apply to public spaces are not applicable. There may well be some municipal or building regulation governing toilet facilities at swimming pools, just as there are regarding parking in sectional title schemes.
I suggest asking a local architect who has experience with sectional title schemes. That person would be aware of the national building regulations as well as the local municipal bylaws and regulations.
Exclusive Use Area reallocation
The parking bays in particular scheme have been allocated initially by the developer in terms of S27A.
I understand that the reallocation of these parking bays can be subsequently reallocated via the amendment of rules at a special resolution at an special general meeting.
However, should the reallocation result in an owner being prejudiced (in that the parking bay which is subsequently reallocated is inferior to the one originally sold to and allocated to him) surely the owner has a claim against the body corporate in that he is suffering a material loss?
What recourse does the affected owner have to ensure that he has a bay which is of similar quality to the one which he initially purchased?
The situation you describe would be most unusual. As a generalisation, as these are rule based rights, the requirement that all rules be reasonable would apply.
Any owner who suffers this prejudice would be able to declare a dispute with the body corporate, and take the matter to arbitration if necessary. They should seek proper legal advice as a first step.
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 11, Issue 01, Page 4.
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.