A body corporate must maintain its common property. That is not a policy choice; it is section 3(1)(l) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act, and the trustees carry it on behalf of every owner in the scheme. What the Act does not tell you is how to find the people to do the work, how to compare the prices they give you, or what to check before one of them starts. This is that piece, written for the trustee or managing agent who has a roof, a wall, a geyser or a gate in front of them and three quotes that do not match.
What "maintenance" covers in a scheme
Common property is everything that is not a section: the structure, the roof, the boundary walls, the reticulation up to the point it enters a unit, the driveways, the gates, the pool and the plant that runs it. Maintenance of all of it sits with the body corporate, and since 2016 the regulations have required a written ten-year maintenance, repair and replacement plan and a reserve fund to pay for it.
The distinction that matters at quote stage is between maintenance and improvement. Repairing a precast wall is maintenance and the trustees may approve it within the budget. Replacing it with a higher brick wall is an improvement, and improvements need a resolution of the owners, special or unanimous depending on whether the regulations would call it luxurious. The contractor's quote should make the line visible, because the wrong classification is how a job gets stopped after it has started. Who approves what, and at which threshold, is set out in who approves the quote in a sectional title scheme.
Where the three-quote habit goes wrong
Most schemes ask for three quotes. It is a sound instinct and it produces a bad comparison, for one reason: the three contractors are pricing three different scopes. One has included the reinstatement, one has not. One has priced the certificate, one assumes you have it. One has walked the site and one has priced from a photograph on WhatsApp.
The fix is not more quotes. It is one scope, written before anyone prices it, that says what is to be done, to what standard, with what certificate at the end, and who reinstates what. A scope like that can be priced by three contractors and compared in a minute. Without it the trustees are comparing three guesses and choosing the lowest.
The second failure is memory. A quote goes out, the trustees meet monthly, the contractor moves on, and the job is re-quoted six months later at a higher price. Whoever manages the process needs to hold the follow-up, not the trustees' agenda.
Five checks before anyone starts
Every contractor who works on common property should pass five checks, and four of them are free. They are set out in full in how to vet a contractor in South Africa; the short version for a scheme is this.
- cidb registration, live and in the right class of works, looked up by number on the cidb's own register rather than read off a certificate. The grading levels tell you how large a contract the firm may take on; for most scheme work grade 1 to 3 is enough, and the class matters more than the grade.
- The cidb removals notices, read against your whole vendor list, not just the contractor in front of you.
- National Treasury's restricted suppliers database, because a firm barred from public work should not be doing yours either, and the restriction follows the director to the next company.
- The trade registration for the work: a Department of Employment and Labour registered person for anything electrical, PIRB for plumbing, SAQCC Gas for gas. The registration is personal, and the certificate at the end of the job is issued against it.
- Insurance and COIDA: public liability in force, and a letter of good standing from the Compensation Fund that is valid for the duration of the job, not just on the day of award. A worker injured on your roof without one is the body corporate's problem.
Certificates are the deliverable
On common property the certificate is not paperwork; it is the thing the scheme actually bought. An electrical certificate of compliance for the gate motor and common lighting, a PIRB certificate for the geyser and the reticulation, a certificate of conformity for the gas installation, the engineer's sign-off on a structural repair. Insurers ask for them after a loss, conveyancers ask for them at transfer, and the trustees are the ones who have to produce them.
So the quote should name the certificate, the contract should make it a condition of the final payment, and the handover should put it in the scheme's file. A contractor who cannot say who will sign the certificate before the job starts should not be on the shortlist.
Payment terms that protect the scheme
The trustees are spending other people's money, and the terms should reflect it. A deposit before the contractor starts is normal and reasonable on scheme work, because materials are bought up front. What protects the scheme is the balance: it should be paid on completion and sign-off, with the certificate in hand, and never before. Retention on small maintenance work is rare and often not worth the administration; the certificate condition does the same job. On larger contracts, how long retention may be held is a question with a legal answer.
Whatever the split, put it in writing before the deposit is paid, and make the trigger for the final payment an event the scheme controls: sign-off by the trustees or the managing agent, not the contractor's invoice.
What a panel changes
A vetted contractor panel does the five checks once and keeps them current, so the scheme is not repeating them for every job. It writes the scope before the pricing, which is what makes the prices comparable. And it holds the memory: the quote that went out, the follow-up that is due, the certificate that has not yet been filed.
That is what Arabella does for the schemes it works with. The trustees see one quote from one company for the scope they set, with the contractor already checked against every register above, the certificate named, and the payment terms fixed at 85% on award and 15% on completion. What it costs a client is set out on the page for clients. What it does not change is the trustees' duty: the body corporate still decides, and still approves the spend. The panel just makes the decision one that can be taken on evidence.
