Newsletter

LATEST NEWSLETTERS

Community Scheme Insights: Cannabis, Short-Term Letting, and Nuisance

Solver Property Services recently hosted a complimentary training session for trustees, owners, and community scheme executives to unpack several complex and evolving issues affecting residential schemes earlier in the month.

The session proved to be both highly engaging and well attended, highlighting just how relevant these topics have become for modern community living. Because not everyone was able to attend, we have summarised the key insights and practical guidance from the evening below.

The Solver training was presented by community scheme legal specialist Dilen Heerschop of HP Attorneys, with support from the Solver Team. The discussion explored the legal framework around cannabis use, the realities of short-term letting platforms such as Airbnb, and the concept of nuisance within shared living environments.

Sessions like these form part of Solver’s ongoing commitment to supporting trustees and owners with practical knowledge and professional guidance.

Understanding Key Issues in Community Schemes – Opening Remarks

The session was introduced by Andre de Oliveira from Solver Property Services, who welcomed attendees and explained the purpose of the training.

Rather than debating personal opinions about certain activities, the focus of the discussion was on:

Understanding what current legislation allows
Helping trustees and managing agents navigate sensitive issues responsibly
Providing practical solutions for managing community schemes effectively

The event also included live support from the Solver team and legal professionals who assisted with questions throughout the session.

Cannabis Use in Community Schemes

The Legal Framework

Cannabis use in South Africa is primarily regulated by the Cannabis for Private Purposes Act (2024).

In terms of the Act, an adult person may use, possess, or cultivate cannabis in a private place for private purposes, provided certain requirements are met.

Three key elements must be present:

1. Adult Person – The individual must be 18 years or older.
2. Private Place – Cannabis must be used or cultivated in a private environment.
3. Private Purpose – Cannabis may not be sold or traded.

Important Restrictions

Although cannabis use has been legalised under specific conditions, several limitations still apply.

Cannabis may not be used:

In the presence of minor children
In the presence of non-consenting adults
In a way that is visible to the public
Close to windows, entrances, or ventilation points where smoke may affect neighbours

These limitations become particularly relevant in high-density living environments such as sectional title schemes.

Cannabis in Sectional Title Schemes

Community schemes introduce additional layers of regulation.
For example, areas such as:

Balconies
Gardens
Exclusive-use areas
may still legally form part of common property, even though they are allocated to a particular unit
owner.

Because of this, schemes may still regulate activities taking place in these areas through their conduct rules.

The Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) has indicated that rules attempting to completely ban cannabis inside private units are generally considered undesirable.

However, schemes may regulate certain aspects such as:

Use of cannabis on common property
Cultivation in exclusive-use areas
Behaviour that creates nuisance or disturbance

Trustees may also enforce conduct rule fines where applicable.

Enforcement Options

When cannabis use becomes problematic within a scheme, different remedies may apply depending on the circumstances.
Criminal Conduct

Certain activities may constitute criminal offences, such as:

Dealing in cannabis
Using cannabis in front of children

These matters may be referred to SAPS.

Conduct Rule Violations

Where the issue relates to scheme rules (for example, smoke affecting neighbouring units), trustees may implement:

Warnings
Conduct rule fines
Internal dispute procedures

Nuisance Complaints

If the behaviour becomes intolerable, owners may pursue legal remedies under nuisance law.

Short-Term Letting in Community Schemes

Short-term letting platforms such as Airbnb have become increasingly popular among property investors.

While they offer income opportunities for owners, they can also raise concerns for residents regarding:

Security risks
Noise and disturbances
High tenant turnover

This has created ongoing debate within many community schemes.

CSOS Guidance on Short-Term Letting

CSOS has identified certain rules as undesirable, including:

Rules forcing owners to use a specific rental platform
Rules requiring owners to use a specific estate agent

Owners remain free to choose how they market their property.

What Schemes Are Allowed to Regulate

Despite these restrictions, schemes may still implement reasonable management controls.

Minimum Lease Periods

Schemes may introduce minimum lease periods of up to three months.

This can help reduce:

Weekend party-type rentals
Constant turnover of unfamiliar occupants

Security and Registration

Trustees may also introduce administrative requirements such as:

Tenant registration processes
Access control procedures
Conduct rule compliance requirements

In terms of scheme management rules, the body corporate must keep records of tenants including:

Full names
Identity or passport numbers
Contact details
Residential addresses

These measures help maintain security and accountability within the scheme.

The Concept of Nuisance

Many disputes within community schemes ultimately fall under the concept of nuisance.

In simple terms, nuisance occurs when a person uses their property in a way that unreasonably interferes with the rights of others.

The guiding principle is often described as:

“Live and let live.”

However, determining what constitutes nuisance is not always straightforward.

The courts assess several factors when evaluating nuisance, including:

The proximity of neighbouring properties
The frequency of the disturbance
The time and duration of the interference
The nature and extent of the harm caused
The reasonableness of the conduct in the circumstances

In essence, the law weighs the gravity of the interference against the utility of the activity to determine whether it should be tolerated.

Practical Advice for Trustees

Where nuisance complaints arise, legal experts advise trustees to avoid immediately escalating matters to litigation.

Instead, schemes should first consider:

Engaging both parties in discussion
Exploring practical solutions
Gathering objective evidence if the problem persists

A structured and measured approach significantly improves the chances of resolving disputes successfully.

Key Takeaways

The training highlighted several important realities for modern community schemes:

Cannabis is legal — but regulated

Owners may use cannabis privately, provided they comply with the law, scheme rules, and nuisance principles.

Schemes cannot completely ban cannabis inside private units

However, behaviour that affects neighbours or common property may still be regulated.

Short-term letting cannot be entirely prohibited

But schemes may introduce reasonable rules such as minimum stay periods and tenant registration requirements.

Security and proper management remain essential

Clear rules, tenant records, and effective governance help maintain stability within schemes.

Final Thoughts

Community schemes operate on a delicate balance of shared living, individual rights, and mutual respect.

As legislation evolves and new challenges arise, informed trustees and proactive management remain essential to maintaining harmony within residential communities.

Solver Property Services remains committed to supporting trustees and owners through education, professional guidance, and practical management solutions — and we look forward to hosting more training sessions like this in the future.

One of the most common questions in sectional title is also one of the most difficult to answer with a simple “yes” or “no”:

Who is responsible for paying when something needs to be repaired or replaced?

A leaking geyser. A cracked window. A burst pipe. Damp on an internal wall. A damaged balcony. A leaking roof. A blocked drain.

The answer is not always obvious.

In a sectional title scheme, understanding who is responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of a particular item requires looking at whether the item forms part of the owner’s section or the common property (as well as whether any exclusive-use rights or scheme rules affect the position).

This is why disputes about maintenance can become complicated. The person who discovers the problem is not necessarily the person who is responsible for fixing it or paying for it.

The starting point: section or common property?

The first question should always be:

Is the item part of the section or part of the common property?

The Sectional Titles Act provides the framework for dividing a development into individually owned sections together with jointly owned common property. The Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 (STSMA) then governs the management and financial administration of the scheme.

Broadly speaking:

Owners are generally responsible for maintaining their sections.
The body corporate is responsible for maintaining the common property.

The distinction can become more complicated where an item sits on or forms part of a boundary between a section and common property (or where an area is subject to exclusive-use rights).

This is why simply saying “it’s outside my unit, so the body corporate must pay” is not always correct.

What is common property?

Common property generally includes the parts of the scheme that do not form part of an individual section.

Depending on the scheme, this may include areas such as:

roofs
external walls
foundations
staircases
passages
driveways
communal gardens
communal facilities
certain plumbing and electrical infrastructure
structural elements of the building

The exact position should always be checked against the registered sectional plan, applicable rules and the circumstances of the particular repair.

The STSMA places an obligation on the body corporate to maintain the common property and keep it in a state of good and serviceable repair.

What is the owner normally responsible for?

An owner is generally responsible for maintaining and repairing their own section.

For example, this may include items that form part of the interior of the section and are not common property.

However, there are important exceptions and grey areas.

A good example is a window or door.

It is tempting to assume that because a window is physically inside or immediately adjacent to a section, the owner must automatically pay for it. However, the legal position depends on how the boundaries of the section are defined and how the particular element is treated under the sectional plan and applicable law.

This is why a proper assessment is often required before a repair responsibility is allocated.

A practical guide to common maintenance questions

The table below provides a useful, very basic, starting point. It is not a substitute for reviewing the sectional plan, rules and circumstances of the specific scheme.

Item / problem	Typical starting point	Important consideration
Roof	Body corporate	Generally common property and part of the body’s maintenance obligations
External walls	Body corporate	Structural/common-property responsibility generally rests with the body corporate
Foundations	Body corporate	Normally common property
Communal driveway	Body corporate	Generally common property
Communal garden	Body corporate	Subject to the scheme’s rules and any exclusive-use arrangements
Internal finishes	Owner	Generally part of the owner’s section
Internal plumbing	Owner or body corporate	Depends on where the pipe is located and whether it serves the section or common property
Main/common water pipe	Body corporate	Usually common-property infrastructure
Geyser	Depends	The position should be established from the sectional plan, rules and applicable legislation
Window	Depends	The boundary and legal classification must be considered
Garage door	Depends	The sectional plan and relevant boundaries are important
Balcony	Depends	A balcony may involve both section and common-property considerations
Exclusive-use garden	Depends	Exclusive use does not necessarily turn common property into privately owned property
Exclusive-use parking	Depends	Responsibility for costs can be affected by the nature of the exclusive-use right and the applicable rules
Common-property leak	Body corporate	The body corporate generally has responsibility for common property
Damage caused by a common-property defect	Depends	Responsibility for the underlying defect and resultant damage should be considered separately

That last point is particularly important.

The difference between the cause of the problem and the resulting damage

Consider this example:

A common-property pipe develops a leak and water enters an owner’s unit.

There are potentially two separate questions:

Who is responsible for repairing the pipe?
Who is responsible for repairing the damage caused by the water?

The answer to the first question does not automatically determine the answer to the second.

Insurance may also become relevant.

For this reason, owners and trustees should avoid immediately deciding who is liable based purely on where the water appeared.

Find the source first. Determine the responsibility second.

What about geysers?

Geysers are one of the most common sources of confusion in sectional title schemes.

An owner may reasonably assume that the geyser inside their unit is automatically their responsibility. A body corporate may have a different view depending on the scheme’s documentation and the location and classification of the installation.

The correct approach is not to rely on assumptions.

The scheme should consider:

the sectional plan
the position of the geyser
the pipework serving the geyser
the scheme’s rules
applicable legislation
the insurance policy
whether the issue relates to maintenance, replacement or resultant damage

A good managing agent should be able to help trustees identify the relevant documents and establish the appropriate process.

What about exclusive-use areas?

This is another area where owners frequently misunderstand the position.

An exclusive-use area is not necessarily privately owned property.

An owner may have the exclusive right to use a particular portion of common property (for example, a parking bay or garden), while the underlying property remains common property.

The STSMA specifically provides for additional contributions relating to certain exclusive-use areas to cover costs such as rates, insurance and maintenance (subject to the applicable rules).

This means that the question is not simply:

“Who uses the area?”

Instead, trustees should establish:

What is the legal status of the area and what does the legislation and scheme documentation say about responsibility for its maintenance and costs?

Who should appoint the contractor?

Another common problem occurs when an owner experiences an urgent maintenance issue and decides to appoint a contractor themselves.

That can create complications where the work relates to common property.

If an owner believes that the body corporate should be responsible for a repair, it is generally better to report the problem to the managing agent or trustees first, particularly where the work could involve significant expenditure.

This allows the body corporate to:

investigate the problem
establish responsibility
obtain appropriate quotations
consider insurance
approve the expenditure where required
appoint an appropriate contractor
keep proper records

There may obviously be situations involving genuine emergencies where immediate action is necessary to prevent further damage. Even then, the body corporate should be notified as soon as possible.

What happens when an owner fails to maintain their section?

The responsibility does not simply disappear because an owner does not attend to a problem.

The sectional title legislation and regulations provide mechanisms for dealing with failures to maintain sections and certain exclusive-use areas.

The regulations provide that where an owner fails to repair or maintain their section (or adequately maintain certain exclusive-use areas) and the failure continues after written notice, the body corporate may in appropriate circumstances remedy the failure and recover the reasonable cost from the owner.

This is an important protection for the wider community.

One owner’s failure to maintain their property can sometimes cause damage, inconvenience or expense for other owners.

What about insurance?

Maintenance responsibility and insurance responsibility are not necessarily the same thing.

A body corporate is required to insure the building in accordance with the STSMA and applicable regulations.

However, the existence of insurance does not mean every repair will automatically be covered.

When damage occurs, trustees should consider:

What caused the damage?
Is the affected property common property or part of a section?
Is the item insured?
What does the policy cover?
Is there an excess?
Was there a maintenance failure?
Is the repair preventative maintenance rather than insured damage?
Is there resultant damage that should be treated separately?

Insurance should therefore be considered alongside the maintenance responsibility rather than instead of it.

The maintenance plan matters

A financially healthy sectional title scheme should not be relying entirely on emergency decisions when major maintenance becomes necessary.

The STSMA requires a body corporate to establish and maintain a reserve fund that is reasonably sufficient for the future maintenance and repair of common property.

The regulations also provide for a maintenance, repair and replacement plan and reserve-fund budgeting.

This is where good sectional title management makes a significant difference.

A roof that needs replacing should ideally not come as a complete surprise.

A major waterproofing project should ideally be anticipated.

A body corporate should be able to look ahead and understand which significant components will require attention (and how those projects are likely to be funded).

So, who pays?

The short answer is:

It depends.

And that is precisely why maintenance disputes can become complicated.

Before deciding who must pay, a body corporate or owner should consider:

Is the item part of the section or common property?
What does the registered sectional plan show?
Are there exclusive-use rights involved?
What do the scheme’s management and conduct rules say?
Is the issue maintenance, repair or replacement?
What caused the damage?
Is there an insurance claim?
Is there resultant damage?
Is there a maintenance or reserve-fund provision for the work?
Has the correct authority been obtained before appointing a contractor?

The golden rule

Don’t start with “Who is going to pay?”

Start with:

“What exactly is the problem, and who is legally responsible for that part of the property?”

Once that has been established, the question of funding becomes much easier to answer.

Disclaimer

This article is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Community Schemes should consult professional legal advisors to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

Solver Property Services has managed community schemes since 2005 and combines property administration, financial expertise, maintenance oversight and compliance support in one hands-on service. Contact Solver to discuss your scheme’s needs and request a tailored property management proposal.