Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Refusing to pay Levies

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Umkomaas
    Posts
    23
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Refusing to pay Levies

    Not sure if this is the right form to post in....

    We stay in a sectional title complex and have a company as a body corporate. Problem is they don't do anything, we haven't had a AGM in the three years we have lived there, units need to be painted and they are not responding to my enquiries about this, the gate is always broken, the cctv cameras have not been repaired, the intercom system is still faulty and so the list goes on....

    Can I refuse to pay my levies based on the fact that they are not doing their job?

  2. #2
    Email problem Phil Cooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Midrand
    Posts
    644
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 170 Times in 118 Posts
    No - if you do, you are legally in the wrong.

    HOWEVER - in terms of the Sectional Title Act they MUST hold an annual AGM, present accounts, etc., and committee voted for.

    Contact the Managing Agents and advise them you will lay Charges in terms of the Companies Act if no AGM is called inside a rweasonable period - say 30 days....

    Point out that in terms of the Act the Trustees can be held liable IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES if there is anything untoward.

  3. Thanks given for this post:

    tec0 (01-Jul-15)

  4. #3
    Platinum Member sterne.law@gmail.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durban
    Posts
    1,328
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 561 Times in 410 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7
    And call for the financials.
    By company as a body corporate are you referring to a management agent?
    Anthony Sterne

    www.acumenholdings.co.za
    DISCLAIMER The above is merely a comment in discussion form and an open public arena. It does not constitute a legal opinion or professional advice in any manner or form.

  5. #4
    Diamond Member Vanash Naick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    lenasia
    Posts
    3,281
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 693 Times in 607 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Not wise, as they will initiate legal proceedings.

    The problematic statutory provision is section 37(1)(b) and section 37 (2) of the Sectional Titles Act which provides:

    A body corporate referred to in section 36 shall perform the functions entrusted to it by or under this Act or the rules, and such functions shall include -

    to require the owners, whenever necessary, to make contributions to such fund for the purposes of satisfying any claims against the body corporate: Provided that the body corporate shall require the owner or owners of a section or sections entitled to the right to the exclusive use of a part or parts of the common property, whether or not such right is registered or conferred by rules made under the Sectional Titles Act, 1971 (Act No. 66 of 1971), to make such additional contribution to the fund as is estimated necessary to defray the costs of rates and taxes, insurance and maintenance in respect of any such part or parts, including the provision of electricity and water, unless in terms of the rules the owners concerned are responsible for such costs;

    and

    Liability for contributions levied under any provision of subsection (1), save for special contributions contemplated by subsection (2A), accrues from the passing of a resolution to that effect by the trustees of the body corporate, and may be recovered by the body corporate by action in any court (including any magistrate’s court) of competent jurisdiction from the persons who were owners of units, holders of exclusive use areas and holders of real rights of extension at the time when such resolution was passed: Provided that upon the change of ownership of a unit, exclusive use areas and real rights of extension, the successor in title becomes liable for the pro rata payment of such contributions from the date of change of such ownership
    “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” Karl Marx
    vanash.naick@gmail.com
    TFSA Disclaimer
    Local Music with a grassroots touch


  6. Thanks given for this post:

    tec0 (01-Jul-15)

  7. #5
    Diamond Member tec0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    4,270
    Thanks
    1,656
    Thanked 439 Times in 386 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanash Naick View Post
    Not wise, as they will initiate legal proceedings.

    The problematic statutory provision is section 37(1)(b) and section 37 (2) of the Sectional Titles Act which provides:

    A body corporate referred to in section 36 shall perform the functions entrusted to it by or under this Act or the rules, and such functions shall include -

    to require the owners, whenever necessary, to make contributions to such fund for the purposes of satisfying any claims against the body corporate: Provided that the body corporate shall require the owner or owners of a section or sections entitled to the right to the exclusive use of a part or parts of the common property, whether or not such right is registered or conferred by rules made under the Sectional Titles Act, 1971 (Act No. 66 of 1971), to make such additional contribution to the fund as is estimated necessary to defray the costs of rates and taxes, insurance and maintenance in respect of any such part or parts, including the provision of electricity and water, unless in terms of the rules the owners concerned are responsible for such costs;

    and

    Liability for contributions levied under any provision of subsection (1), save for special contributions contemplated by subsection (2A), accrues from the passing of a resolution to that effect by the trustees of the body corporate, and may be recovered by the body corporate by action in any court (including any magistrate’s court) of competent jurisdiction from the persons who were owners of units, holders of exclusive use areas and holders of real rights of extension at the time when such resolution was passed: Provided that upon the change of ownership of a unit, exclusive use areas and real rights of extension, the successor in title becomes liable for the pro rata payment of such contributions from the date of change of such ownership
    and is why i am staying away from a such properties, you have very "limited" options. However speak to your lawyer about property devaluation due to neglect it is a whole other can of worms and can backfire mind you... So be aware of that. But if i am not mistaken if the request "basics" are already paid for by all parties and work is not being done then surly some responsibility must be taken by the responsible party. '

    dare i use the words "audit" to clarify where the money is going? It is not unreasonable request but i would strongly advise that you speak to a lawyer that knows her/his property laws. They will normally know what you can do within your rights.
    peace is a state of mind
    Disclaimer: everything written by me can be considered as fictional.

  8. #6
    Diamond Member Vanash Naick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    lenasia
    Posts
    3,281
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 693 Times in 607 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by tec0 View Post
    dare i use the words "audit" to clarify where the money is going? It is not unreasonable request but i would strongly advise that you speak to a lawyer that knows her/his property laws. They will normally know what you can do within your rights.
    Tec0, you are not wrong in what you state, what you state can be reconciled with section 37(3)

    (3) The body corporate shall, on the application of an owner or mortgagee of a unit, or any person authorized by such owner or mortgagee, certify in writing -

    (a) the amount determined as the contribution of that owner;

    (b) the manner in which such contribution is payable;

    (c) the extent to which such contribution has been paid by the owner; and

    (d) the amount of any rates and taxes paid by the body corporate in terms of section 51 and not recovered by it.





    “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” Karl Marx
    vanash.naick@gmail.com
    TFSA Disclaimer
    Local Music with a grassroots touch


Similar Threads

  1. [Question] Re. Pty Ltd / CIPC > Notice Refusing Name Reservation
    By Odd One Out in forum General Business Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-Jan-15, 10:26 AM
  2. Update on domestic worker refusing to return to work after Maternity Leave
    By MrsCK in forum Labour Relations and Legislation Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-Mar-12, 10:03 AM

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •