When Good Neighbours Clash: Conflict in Community Schemes

The Reality of Conflict in Community Schemes

Last week, I attended a webinar hosted by Trafalgar Property Management on navigating conflict in community schemes and managing challenging personalities. The presenter, Nicole Nel from TVDM Consultants, is a senior community schemes consultant and accredited mediator with a Master's in Law from Stellenbosch. Her dissertation focused specifically on improving dispute resolution in South African community schemes.

This wasn't a theoretical lecture. It covered practical strategies from the dispute resolution trenches — the situations that make trustees consider resigning, the conflicts that turn neighbours into adversaries, and the tools that actually work when tensions run high.

After seven years as a trustee, I was curious to see which strategies aligned with my experience and where I might find fresh perspectives. The session delivered on both counts.

Below are my reflections from the session. For in-depth coverage of all topics discussed, view the full webinar recording here: https://training.trafalgar.co.za/webinars/#challengeperson

When Your Dog Barks and Your Neighbour Breaks

A scenario that perfectly illustrates why managing conflict in community schemes is so complex.

You adopted a rescue dog three months ago. He's anxious when you leave for work and barks intermittently between 7am and 9am. You've hired a trainer, bought calming aids, adjusted your routine — you're genuinely trying. You know he barks, but you're doing everything you can whilst balancing a demanding job and limited time.

Your neighbour works night shifts. They arrive home at 6am, utterly exhausted, and desperately need to sleep. Your dog's barking makes sleep impossible. They've reached their limit and lodge a formal complaint with the trustees.

From your perspective, you're a responsible owner dealing with a rescue animal's trauma. You're trying your best. The complaint feels unfair and aggressive.

From their perspective, they can't function. Their health is suffering. The rules say pets can't create a nuisance, and they've been patient for months.

Both people are right. Both people are suffering. And the trustees are now caught in the middle, trying to enforce rules fairly whilst acknowledging that rehabilitation takes time and sleep deprivation is genuine hardship.

This captures the essence of community scheme conflict perfectly. Different lives, different needs, different capacities — all colliding in close proximity. The question isn't whether conflicts will arise. It's whether you have the tools to handle them when they do.

Early Intervention: The Strategy Most Trustees Miss

The webinar's emphasis on early intervention resonated strongly with my experience. Conflict in community schemes is normal, and trustees shouldn't aim to eliminate it. Instead, the focus should be on responding appropriately and quickly.

What often happens: trustees hear about minor tensions and adopt a "wait and see" approach, hoping issues will resolve naturally. Sometimes they do. More often, they fester into entrenched battles that consume trustee time and damage community relationships.

The solution isn't heavy-handed penalties at the first sign of trouble. It's proper internal dispute resolution processes deployed early. A phone call. A meeting. A written reminder of the rules. Small interventions that prevent irritations from becoming warfare.

Conflicts must be reported and addressed as soon as reasonably possible — not to be heavy-handed, but because trustees have a duty to enforce the rules, and early intervention is far more effective than waiting for breaches to compound.

Legislative Reference: STSMA Section 3(1) (Functions and duties of bodies corporate).

Communication Boundaries: Non-Negotiable for Effective Governance

One section of the webinar focused on communication boundaries, which I've long maintained are essential for trustee sanity and effective governance.

If an owner constantly WhatsApps you, stops you in the corridor, or rings your mobile about body corporate issues, the solution is clear: politely but firmly direct them to formal channels only.

Body corporate matters must be submitted in writing via email to the managing agent or trustees. This isn't bureaucracy — it's foundational to good governance. It creates a paper trail, forces clear articulation of issues, and protects trustees from being ambushed whilst doing their weekly shopping.

The key principle bears repeating: the body corporate's obligation extends only to matters affecting the scheme and compliance with the STSMA and code of conduct. Personal grievances between neighbours that don't breach any rules aren't the trustees' responsibility to solve.

Trustees aren't neighbourhood mediators for interpersonal disputes. When conflicts fall outside body corporate jurisdiction, direct people to appropriate resources — but don't take on problems you have no authority or obligation to resolve.

Legislative Reference: STSMA Section 3(1); PMR 27 (Record-keeping requirements).

When Trustees Become the Problem

The webinar covered what many owners don't realise: there is no CSOS mechanism for removing problematic trustees.

The power to remove trustees rests entirely with the members. Under PMR 17(4)(a), any 25% of owners holding 25% participation quota can call a special general meeting to remove trustees by ordinary resolution (requiring 14 days' notice).

The critical insight: if you remove trustees, someone needs to replace them. In schemes struggling to find volunteers, removal without a succession plan creates chaos rather than solutions.

This is where the executive managing agent option becomes vital. Under PMR 28, an executive managing agent can assume the full powers and duties of trustees — providing professional, impartial management when volunteer trustees can't be found or aren't performing.

Importantly, CSOS can facilitate this appointment. If 25% of owners want an executive managing agent appointed and trustees refuse, CSOS has jurisdiction under PMR 28 to order the appointment. This provides a mechanism when the trustee board has become dysfunctional but no volunteers are willing to step forward.

The results can be transformative. Schemes often see dramatic improvements in compliance, conflict resolution, and member confidence within months of appointing professional management.

Legislative Reference: PMR 17(4)(a) (Calling of Special General Meetings); PMR 28 (Appointment of Executive Managing Agent).

Meeting Management: The Chairperson's Authority

The webinar's section on handling disruptive meeting behaviour clarified how chairpersons can exercise their authority under PMR 18(3) to maintain order.

Under PMR 18(3), chairpersons have a duty to "maintain order, regulate the orderly expression of views and guide the members and other participants through the business of the meeting." They also have the power to "adjourn the meeting, when it is not able to complete or continue with its business" and to "settle disputes by giving rulings on points of order."

These powers provide the legal foundation for managing disruption practically:

For online meetings, the chairperson's duty to maintain order supports taking proportionate steps such as:

• Warning the disruptive person first
• Muting them if the behaviour continues
• Removing them from the virtual meeting if necessary

Once removed from a virtual meeting, they cannot rejoin. Critically, any such action must be recorded in the meeting minutes with reasons stated. If they later dispute their removal, written records provide your defence.

For in-person meetings, the chairperson can ask disruptive attendees to leave. If they refuse, the chairperson has explicit authority under PMR 18(3)(f) to adjourn the meeting. The principle is clear: don't let one person hold the entire body corporate hostage.

Having witnessed meetings derailed by aggressive behaviour that left other owners too intimidated to participate, I appreciate the confirmation that chairpersons have both the authority and the obligation to maintain order — and the practical tools to enforce it.

Legislative Reference: PMR 18(3)(a), (f), (g), (h) (Duties and powers of chairperson to maintain order and adjourn meetings).

Understanding CSOS Jurisdiction

A significant portion of the webinar addressed CSOS jurisdiction — critical knowledge since many disputes and conflict in community schemes stall because parties approach CSOS for relief outside their mandate.

CSOS can only act within seven categories defined in Section 39 of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act:

• Financial issues (Section 39(1)) — incorrect levies, insurance, audits
• Behavioural issues (Section 39(2)) — nuisance declarations, problematic pets
• Works and maintenance (Section 39(6)) — repair orders, improvement disputes
• Access to records (Section 39(7)(a)) — compelling disclosure
• Management services (Section 39(5)) — managing agent disputes
• Rule validity (Section 39(4)) — unenforceable rules
• Other orders proposed by the Chief Ombud (Section 39(7)(b))

CSOS cannot:

• Award damages (these go to civil courts)
• Remove trustees (only members can via SGM)
• Resolve disputes outside these categories

CSOS can require proof that internal dispute resolution failed before accepting applications (Section 40(c)). This means attempting resolution with trustees first — CSOS exists for disputes that can't be resolved internally, not as a first port of call for every grievance.

Time limits matter. Applications challenging body corporate decisions must be made within 60 days (Section 41), though late applications can be condoned on good cause shown.

When trustees can't help with a particular dispute, there's an obligation to refer the owner to the correct forum. Don't leave people in limbo — direct them specifically to CSOS, Small Claims Court, civil court, or private mediation depending on the issue. Clear guidance prevents frustration from turning into hostility.

Legislative Reference: CSOSA Section 39 (Jurisdiction); Section 40(c) (Evidence of failed internal resolution); Section 41 (Time limits); Section 42 (Rejection grounds).

Three Principles for Managing Conflict in Community Schemes

The webinar concluded with three core principles for managing conflict in community schemes:

1. Stay calm and impartial. Disputes escalate when people react from emotion. Pause, gather facts, and approach conflict with curiosity rather than defensiveness.

2. Have all the facts before acting. Many complaints collapse once full context emerges. A phone call often reveals information that changes everything. Don't impose penalties or lodge applications based on incomplete information.

3. Know when to refer and to whom. If trustees can't resolve a dispute within their mandate, direct people clearly to the appropriate forum — CSOS, Small Claims Court, civil court, or mediation. Leaving people without guidance breeds resentment.

These principles sound simple but prove remarkably difficult when you're managing multiple conflicts simultaneously, each with convinced parties and limited time to respond.

The Frameworks That Actually Work

The webinar opened with a joke about how convenient it would be if AI could handle difficult owners and trustees. Unfortunately, conflict remains deeply human. No algorithm can navigate the rescue dog scenario, the serial complainer, or the exhausted night-shift worker.

What the session reinforced is how conflict in community schemes escalates not because disputes are inherently unsolvable, but because:

• Trustees don't establish clear communication boundaries
• Owners don't understand they need evidence to support complaints
• No one explains what CSOS can and can't do
• Intervention comes too late, after positions have hardened

The frameworks discussed — early intervention, formal communication channels, clear CSOS jurisdiction, decisive meeting management — aren't complicated. But they require trustees to act with both authority and empathy, understanding the law whilst remembering there are people behind every complaint.

Conflict in community schemes is inevitable in community living. The tools to handle it fairly and efficiently exist. The challenge is knowing they're there and applying them consistently.

This is not a legal advisory blog post. Always check the relevant legislation or consult a sectional title legal specialist.