We have been heard – Notable Changes to “Undesirable Rules” in the CSOS Consolidated Practice Directives 2025

By Ané de Klerk

18 July 2025 marked the signing into operation of the latest CSOS Consolidated Practice Directive. While the Draft document was already a hefty one, this final 218 page version is even bulkier. One part of the draft that has been expanded upon is the section dealing with “Undesirable Rules”. Those of our readers that have been students on my courses know that I have been very outspoken about the confusing nature of CSOS’s directives on this subject since the first Circular on the matter was published in May 2021. I have always advocated for that original version to be redrafted and was very disappointed when I noted that the Draft Consolidated Practice Directives published earlier this year did not address the obvious issues with the CSOS’s take on “Undesirable Rules”. My comments in this regard in the article published in our April 2025 newsletter were as follows:

“Unfortunately the highly problematic Practice Directive on Undesirable Rules has not been improved upon before being incorporated into this draft Consolidated Directive. This portion of the Directive still does not provide clarity to readers, with parts of prescribed legislation still listed as “Undesirable Rules”. For example, the following is listed as an Undesirable Rule that will not be accepted by the CSOS:

‘When the purpose for which a section or EUA is intended to be used is shown expressly or by implication on or by a registered sectional plan, not use nor permit such section or EUA to be used for any other purpose: provided that with the written consent of all owners such section or EUA may be used for that purpose as consented to.” when we know this echoes the content of section 13(1)(g) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act and it cannot therefore be ruled “undesirable” by CSOS. This part of the draft directive is clearly still in dire need of a redraft.’ ”

So naturally I was delighted to note that the final version of the Consolidated Practice Directives addressed the following issues:

1. The previously labelled “undesirable rule” relating to the use of a section or exclusive use area quoted above (which echoes section 13(1)(g) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act) is still quoted in the document, but the “undesirable rule” in this regard has now been clarified to be any rules that “allow owners to use a section for business activities or purposes it was not intended for.” In fact, the final version even clarifies that “Should a member wish to deviate from the purpose which a section or EUA is intended for, consent of all owners is required.”
   This amendment clarifies what exactly the undesirable rule is and that the content of section 13 is the explanation as to why such a rule would be deemed undesirable, rather than the undesirable rule itself.
2. Previously, the CSOS held that rules that oblige owners to advise trustees whether first mortgage bonds exist and the name of the Financial Institution or person who holds them were undesirable; however as this writer has pointed out in the past the content of such a rule is necessary for the body corporate to perform its duty to keep a list of registered bondholders with their names and addresses.
   Now, the CSOS have finally stipulated that “It is not an undesirable rule for owners or occupiers to advise the trustees whether first mortgage bonds exist and if so, the name of the financial institution/company which holds the bond.” See page 81 of the Consolidated Practice Directives.
3. The CSOS previously held that it was undesirable for a rule to stipulate that damage occurring to fittings, windows, carpets and the like are covered by the body corporate’s insurance policy subject to payment of an initial excess. It has never been clear why the CSOS deemed such a rule undesirable as Prescribed Management Rule 23(2)(b) specifically provides for the payment of an excess to the body corporate’s insurer.
   Now, the CSOS has stipulated that it is undesirable for a rule to state that the body corporate is liable for the excess payable in respect of an item which an owner is responsible to maintain. They have included the following as an example of such an undesirable rule: “The Body Corporate is responsible for all damage to the geyser. Should it be necessary to replace a geyser, the Body Corporate is liable for the excess payable.” This amendment addresses the obvious issues with their previous position, which was contrary to PMR 23(2)(b).
4. Generally, the inclusion of clear and practical examples of what the CSOS deems “undesirable rules” (such as the one mentioned in point 3 above) and the incorporation of relevant legislative provisions into the document to explain their opinion has greatly improved the quality of this part of the Consolidated Practice Directives. These elements assist to clear up some of the confusion the previous versions tended to cause.

It is worth noting that, while the “Undesirable Rules” portion of this final version of the CSOS Consolidated Practice Directives is a vast improvement on its predecessors, it is by no means perfect. In fact, in places it still clearly contradicts itself and is written in such a way that the reader cannot help but be left confused. For example, the following is listed as an “Undesirable Rule”: “A DSTV dish or solar panels, including solar geyser panels, may only be installed by an expert; – a DSTV or solar certified professional installer.” Yet the very next sentence reads as follows: “Therefore, it is not an undesirable rule to state that installations should be conducted by experts.” (See page 90 of the Consolidated Practice Directives).

All in all, we take the bad with the good and after more than four years of pleading for a redraft, we celebrate the inconsistencies that have been addressed in this version. In general, while not perfect, I believe it is an improvement on its predecessors and hope that it will lead to less confusion in practice.

If you are in the process of redrafting your scheme’s rules for consideration by members and feel you could use some help, contact us at info@theadvisory.co.za for an obligation-free quotation for our assistance.

Specialist Community Scheme Attorney (BA, LLB), Ané de Klerk, is a Director of The Advisory, a boutique consultancy specialising exclusively in community schemes law. Her focus is legal education, which includes presenting seminars and running online and in-person training programs and courses. You can reach out to her via email at info@theadvisory.co.za to request assistance with drafting scheme rules that satisfy CSOS’s requirements.