By the Paddocks Club team
Below are examples of two questions on the Paddocks Club discussion forum, to show you what is available to our Community members!
Can trustees change the levy instalments to ease the burden
Member’s question:
Good day Paddocks,
Please would you advise, as with the unprecedented situation with Covid-19 and lock down in South Africa, whether trustees can determine to provide owners with leniency on levy payments for a period and then recoup this in the remaining months to ensure the budgeted amount is still collected.
We would presume that to change the budget would require referral back again to a general meeting, but we are being overrun with queries relevant to a either a reduction in levies for a period or removal of levies for a period. We would appreciate your response.
Thank you.
Graham’s answer:
Dear member,
Let me first deal with what I see as the easy parts.
Trustees can, but are not obliged to charge interest on overdue payments. If they do, they can set the level of interest as long as it is under the rate determined to the National Credit Act. So trustees can meet and decide to waive or reduce the interest – not retrospecitively, but from the date of their resolution. That would give substantial relief, because compound interest increases the debt burden amazingly fast.
Trustees can, but are not obliged to start proceedings to recover outstanding levies. The substantial legal and other collection fees that are added to the capital amount of a debt mean that the total debt burden increases very fast. So trustees could decide to keep owners informed of their debts but suspend further legal action. And that makes a lot of sense, because courts and the Community Schemes Ombud Service are not working anyway, so not much can be done. Notifying owners of this decision, trustees can explain to the paying owners that they are avoiding fruitless expenditure, while at the same time reducing the stress on defaulters and their families.
Then onto something more difficult.
Can the owners direct the trustees to rescind their original contribution levying resolution so as to re-allocate the dates and amounts of the instalments? And could the trustees do this, so as to change their decision as to when the contribution installments are payable.
I think this is at least arguably possible, particularly in emergency circumstances.
Then let’s tackle the hardest one.
Reducing the current level of contributions levied (levies).
While there is no provision in the Act or rules for reducing a validly approved administrative budget or the contributions levied on that basis, I think there may be a workaround / hack that would work.
Note: What I suggest below should not be considered if the budget is already as lean as it could be, because this would be contrary to the owner’s obligation to approve a budget that covers the scheme’s operational expenses.
If there is any unnecessary expense in the budget, any cost that could be cut or reduced, then the owners can take an ordinary resolution to change the financial year end under Prescribed Management Rule 21(1), effectively cutting the current financial year short, and call an annual general meeting to approve a new reduced budget. The owner approval of the revised budget at the anticipated annual general meeting would create the legal basis for the trustees to levy contributions to meet a reduced income target.
And at the same time they could look a doing things differently, where this seems to make sense. e.g.
- provide for weighted or differently-calculated instalments, or
- offer a discount for owners who can afford to pay the full year’s levies in advance, thus very much reducing the costs of managing the scheme’s cash flow and increasing its income from investments. A good accountant can relatively easily advise on the adjustments needed to take account of this type of discount, which is specifically provided for in terms of Prescribed Management Rule 26(1)(e).
Regards,
Graham
Can the annual general meeting be delayed because of the COVID-19 lockdown?
Member’s question:
Good day Paddocks,
Is there any latitude in respect of the annual general meeting dates. Can annual general meetings be held later due to the lockdown?
Thank you.
Graham’s answer:
Dear member,
Yes, in practice I think there is latitude that should be applied where reasonably necessary.
Bear in mind that there is no specified penalty for holding the annual general meeting late, so where it is not practical or possible to hold it with remote attendance and the scheme does not really need an immediate increase in contributions, I think it makes sense to convene or re-convene the annual general meeting for after lockdown.
Regards,
Graham
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 15, Issue 04.
Graham Paddock is 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.
Recent Posts
Archives
- 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