By Prof Graham Paddock
Below is an example of a question on the discussion forum on Paddocks Club. We want to show what is available to our Community Members!
Can Conduct Rules be amended without 75% explicit consent?
Question:
In amending the Conduct Rules for a Sectional Title complex, we need to do so by special resolution (75% agreement). We have now completed consultations with the body corporate on this. Our initial letter (with a deadline for submitting replies) met with a very poor response. In the follow-up letter, we said that if members of the body corporate didn’t respond by a second deadline, their non-response would be taken as a vote in favour of the amendments. The second deadline expired yesterday without obtaining the required 75%. May we now proceed to have the amended set of Conduct Rules lodged in the deeds office based on the notification sent advising that non revert would be understood as silent consent?
Answer:
No, you cannot proceed because the BC has not taken a special resolution. A failure to object cannot be taken as an affirmative vote for the purposes of taking a special resolution in terms of the Act. For the definition of a special resolution, please see section 1 of the Act.
Unauthorised picket fence on common property
Question:
An owner erected a wooden picket fence on common property without any authorisation. The Trustees demanded that the wooden picket fence be removed, as it is not an acceptable structure, and advised the owner on the types of fencing that are acceptable providing written approval be obtained. The Owner refused to remove the fence stating that the Conduct Rules do not state what type of fence is acceptable. The Trustees, however, feel that although the rules are silent on the type of fencing, the rules cannot include every single detail and that the owner should have obtained written approval prior to erecting any structure on common property. The Trustees subsequently removed the wooden picket fence and the owner approached an attorney who now demanded the fence be restored failing the attorney holds instruction to bring a spoliation application against the BC.
What are the Trustees options?
Answer:
The trustees would have been entitled to stop the building of the fence during its construction and immediately on its completion.
But once it is up and finished, the trustees were not entitled to remove it.
If the trustees suspect that this may just be a threat, they could wait for a summons. If they get one, they can decide whether to defend or to comply. If they choose to comply immediately, the legal costs will not be substantial. But they should not defend the matter unless they have advice from a local attorney who has all the facts and dates, telling them that they have a reasonable chance of success.
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 7, Issue 12, Page 5
Professor Graham Paddock is available to answer questions on the discussion forum for Community Members of Paddocks Club. Get all your questions answered by joining Paddocks Club at www.PaddocksClub.co.za.
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