Who foots the bill?

LAST UPDATED: 28 April 2026

Like most people living in a South African complex or estate, you’ve probably wondered who pays for what?

One of the main reasons people invest in community schemes is the convenience and cost-effectiveness of shared responsibilities. However, in 2026, as maintenance costs rise and infrastructure ages, the question of who pays for what remains one of the biggest sources of conflict in sectional title complexes, estates and flats (referred to as “schemes”).

As with any community, smooth living depends on clear rules and informed neighbours. Unit owners, trustees, and managing agents must understand the regulations and their respective responsibilities to ensure schemes remain financially stable and well-managed.

The key legislation governing schemes includes:

• The Sectional Titles Act (STA)
• The Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act (STSMA)
• The Prescribed Management and Conduct Rules,
• The Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) Act.

Sections, EUAs and common property
Schemes are made up of primary and utility sections, exclusive use areas (EUAs), and common property.

A section is a part of the development that is exclusively owned by a person and can be broken down into two categories:

• Primary section: a section designed to be used for human occupation as a place of residence, office, shop, factory, or any other type of use allowed in terms of local municipal by-laws.
• Utility section: a section designed to be used as an accessory to a primary section, such as a bathroom, toilet, storeroom, workshop, shed, staff quarters, parking garage, parking bay or another utility area.

A EUA is a defined portion of the common property set aside for exclusive use by a particular unit owner or a particular group of unit owners. You may buy and become the holder of exclusive use rights that allows you the sole rights to use, enjoy and occupy a specific part of the common property, such as a parking bay, carport, yard or garden area.

Common property consists of everything that is not in a section. In other words, all the land and parts of the property that do not form part of a section. The question of where the primary section starts and the common property ends is often the cause of much of the confusion about the responsibility for maintenance and repair costs.

To clarify the boundaries between a primary section, other primary sections and common property, Section 5(4) of the STA refers to a median line:

“The common boundary between any section and another section or common property shall be the median line of the dividing floor, wall or ceiling, as the case may be.”

In simple terms, think of a unit like a slice of cake:

• The sponge (inside the median line) = owner’s responsibility
• The icing (outside the median line) = body corporate’s responsibility
• The portion between the icing and the sponge = the median line

This means foundations, roofs, and outer walls fall under the body corporate, while the interior of a unit is the owner’s responsibility. While this principle provides a useful guideline, real-life scenarios are often more complex.

Although the STA clarifies the boundaries between sections and common property, what does this mean for windows, doors and other structures which may cross the median line, and may form part of the boundary between a section, other sections and/or common property?

Section 5(5)(a) of the STA was amended in 2011 so that the definition of the boundaries of a section included the following:

“by reference to the floors, walls and ceilings thereof, or as may be prescribed: Provided that any window, door or other structure which divides a section from another section or from common property, shall be considered to form part of such floor, wall or ceiling;”

In other words, half of the windows, doors and other structures on the inside of the median line forms part of the section, while the half outside will form part of the common property. Where windows, doors and other structures are shared between the primary section and common property, maintenance and repair costs are shared equally between the unit owner and the body corporate. Should these be shared between two sections, maintenance costs would be split equally between the two sections.

Water-related issues are increasingly common, especially with ageing infrastructure and extreme weather patterns. Responsibility depends on the source of the leak:

• Roof leaks = body corporate responsibility
• Internal plumbing issues = owner’s responsibility
• Leaks affecting another unit = the owner where the leak originates is liable

A slab separating a top and bottom unit is not common property, and the body corporate is therefore not responsible for the repair and maintenance thereof. The median line running through the middle of the slap separates the two sections with the area above the line being the responsibility of the owner of the top section, and the area below the line that of the owner of the bottom section. However, if a leak occurs because of a leaking bath, shower, pipes or some other reason in the top section, the owner of the top section would be liable for maintenance and repair costs for damages in the bottom section as the leak emanated from their section.

Pipes serving multiple sections or common property are generally the body corporate’s responsibility, while pipes serving individual units fall to the owner.

Foundations fall outside the median line and are therefore the responsibility of the body corporate. Faulty foundations can be due to sinking or settling of the ground underneath the foundation and can result in damaged and cracked concrete slab floors. This is the responsibility of the body corporate and should usually be covered by the subsidence cover in the body corporate’s insurance. If the problems with the foundations are causing damage within a section, the owner would most likely only be able to hold the body corporate responsible should they be able to prove that the body corporate was aware of the faults and neglected to repair it.

If defects are due to poor construction, developers or builders may still be held accountable.

Geysers (or any other hot water installation) continue to be one of the most misunderstood areas. While insurance may cover damage from a burst geyser, maintenance remains the owner’s responsibility. Failure to maintain a geyser or its components can result in the owner being liable for repair costs and insurance excesses.

The body corporate maintains shared security infrastructure such as electric fences, security gates, cameras and access control systems. However, owners are responsible for the damage they cause and for maintaining any security features they install within their section.

Security gates and doors on section boundaries are typically shared responsibilities, including any insurance excess.

Damage to Common Property is the subject of PCR 4 of the STSMA Regulations. PCRs 4(2) and (3) state the following concerning doors and the installation of security gates:

“(2) An owner or occupier of a section must be considered to have the trustees’ consent to install a locking or safety device to protect the section against intruders, or a screen to prevent entry of animals or insects, if the device or screen is soundly built and is consistent with a design, colour, style and materials approved in writing by the trustees.

(3) The owner or occupier of a section must keep a device installed under sub-rule (2) in good order and repair.”

In other words, the owner needs the body corporate’s consent to install a safety gate, and is responsible for the maintenance and repair thereof. Should there be an excess payable following damage to the gate as the result of a burglary, the owner would be responsible for the full amount of the excess.

Pest control responsibilities are split:

• Common property pests = body corporate responsibility
• Sections and EUAs pests = owner responsibility

If an owner fails to act, the body corporate can inspect, intervene and recover the costs.

According to the STSMA, the body corporate is obliged to maintain the common property in a complex. However, the STSMA only deals with responsibilities for the maintenance and repair of areas within the scheme, not with responsibility for damages resulting from a failure to keep an area maintained and in a state of good repair.

While the STSMA outlines maintenance responsibilities, it does not always cover damages resulting from neglect. In such cases, disputes can be referred to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS), which provides a formal resolution process.

In today’s complex and cost-sensitive environment, understanding who is responsible for what is more important than ever. While legislation provides a framework, each scheme’s specific rules may also influence outcomes.

If you need guidance navigating these complexities, professional support can help you protect your investment and simplify community scheme living.

Find out more about our legal advisory services or contact us if you need help to take the complexity out of community scheme living.