By Anton Kelly

Prescribed management rule 68 prohibits owners from making alterations that impair the use of the common property and prescribed conduct rule 4 prohibits owners from damaging the common property by putting in nails, screws and the like. However, the rule goes on to say that this must not be done without the written consent of the trustees, implying that under certain circumstances, the trustees may consent to owners making small additions or attachments to the common property. The usual example is attaching a DSTV dish to the common property wall outside a section but owners also seek permission to build walls between garden areas, erect carports over parking bays and so on.
One has to remember that most schemes are residential and it is their homes that such owners seek to make more comfortable and convenient by making these additions. Ta
king into consideration their duty to look after the long term good of the scheme, the trustees should accommodate such reasonable requests where they are able.

But what should trustees do when owners make small – or not so small – additions or attachments to the common property without first getting the trustees’ consent?
The first thing the trustees should do is attempt to separate the real issue – what has been added or attached and its effect on the scheme – from the cheek of the owner daring to make the alteration without asking first. There is no room for taking personal offense; it just muddies the waters.
If the addition is, in the considered, objective opinion of the trustees, reasonable and acceptable the owner concerned should be encouraged to make the relevant application for its proper authorisation. If not, the trustees must act quickly to get the addition removed. They may not themselves remove or knock down the addition unless they do so – avoiding a physical confrontation – when the owner is just beginning the work, but they may do everything reasonable, including seeking help from the court, to get it removed as soon as possible.
Here are three factors trustees must consider in deciding whether the addition is reasonable and acceptable:
1. It must be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules in force at that scheme.2. The trustees must consider the long term effects on the scheme and its members.
3. The trustees must consider what the effect of the addition would be if all owners in the scheme were to make it.
This is a very sensitive area of scheme management and if the trustees are at all unsure about consenting to an application for an addition or alteration to the common property they should refuse but place the issue on the agenda for the next general meeting. The owners can then make a guided and informed decision and, if it is approved, make a conduct rule laying out general specifications for the addition or alteration.
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 7, Issue 6, Page 1
Anton Kelly is one of the course conveners of the University of Cape Town (Law@Work) Sectional Title Scheme Management course. For more information please contact Emma on emma@paddocks.co.za or 021 447 4130.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Graham Paddock on Body Corporate Functions: Insurance
- Graham Paddock on Spending body corporate funds
- Graham Paddock on The Levy Clearance Certificate: The Body Corporate’s Cheap & Effective Weapon
- Graham Paddock on The benefits of online sectional title meetings
- Heinz Wiesner on The benefits of online sectional title meetings
Archives
- 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
6 Comments.
I am a recently elected trustee that has inherited a number of unauthorized additions, large and small, but one in particular is a carport area of a section (on the common property) that has been enclosed to make a room. And I have some questions relating to rectifying this:
1) Are we required to pass a resolution at an AGM or special meeting to act against the owner to remove the addition and restore this to its original state?
2) What would be the operational procedure to initiate the process? (A letter detailing the breach, with a time requirement to rectify it before the body corporate affects the changes and invoices the owner / takes legal action? Is there a template for such a notice in writing?)
3) Will the owner be responsible for the cost to restore the area to its original state?
Some additional info:
The approval of the addition retrospectively is not an option as it has been done in such away that it would not receive BRA approval from a municipality as it encloses sewage pipes, meters, and does not have adequate ventilation. It is also not structurally sound with regard to the walls supporting the roof and risks collapsing.
Please help?
Regards
Hi there,
As it seems impossible to authorise the carport retrospectively, the body corporate must take whatever steps are reasonably necessary to rectify the situation. The body corporate is obliged to ensure compliance with any law affecting the common property or improvements to the land. A properly worded and referenced letter is the obvious first step. Please contact consulting@paddocks.co.za for help.
Thanks,
Paddocks
Good Day
I have a problem, where the previous owner of my ground floor flat (sectional title) had built an illegal wall in the exclusive use garden/courtyard area, this is now become my problem and the trustees have issued me with a letter instructing me to demolish it at my own cost.
What are my rights in this instance?
Thanks
Rgds/Graeme
Hi Graeme,
Thank you for your comment. We would love to help but unfortunately do not give free advice. Here’s how we can help:
– We offer a Free Basics of Sectional Title 1-week short course. You’ll be able to ask your course instructor any related questions. Find out more here.
– We offer consulting via telephone for R390 for 10 minutes. Please call us on +27 21 686 3950.
– We have Paddocks Club, an exclusive online club, to help you get answers to your questions about community schemes. Find out more here.
Kind regards
Paddocks
Good Day,
I am a section owner and the managing agent of the estate has suddenly removed the communal dish and required all unit owners to install their own dstv dishes. After such installation the agent subsequently advised that the dishes will be removed with no notice as no permission was granted to install same.
Is there anything we can do as without the dishes we have on access to tv at all as ordinary cable does not work with the standard wall fittings (dstv plug and play).
good day, after 9 years of permanent residence in a complex in a unit which i own, the body corporate has decided to tear down my garden walls as they say its communal property. my question is this, they have granted me permission in writting to keep my small dog which now is an issue as the walls are needed so my dog wont run away. i cant keep the dog indoors the entire day. the walls were already erected when i bought the unit. please help? can i fight this?