No doubt some of you will have received a letter from Magnum Credit Consultants, little Christmas present which took the form of a letter of demand for arrear subscriptions for the Marina da Gama Association and some of you have asked me what to do. I cannot tell you what to do, but I will not pay them.
In all the years of my fighting with the Marina da Gama Association, they have not been able to establish their legitimacy as a compulsory home-owners’ association. They may have called themselves the Eastlake Association in days of lore, but that does not mean to say that they were the Eastlake Association referred to in my title deed. You see, even if I was called Mary, that does not make me the Virgin Mary. I have looked for this proof everywhere, at their offices, at Council’s offices, at Provincial Government level, at the Deeds Office and even at the Master of the Supreme Court’s offices. It is simply not there.
These people are asking us for our hard-earned money. They must prove that they are entitled thereto. They have not done so, and indeed, all the “evidence” they have given me points directly to the fact that they are not the association referred to in my title deed.
If they sue me, I will ask them for (amongst others):
- The approved minutes of the meeting where the original constitution was adopted by its members.
- proof that Cape Town City Council and/or Provincial Government ratified a copy of the Marina Da Gama Association’s constitution and
- a copy of such approved and ratified constitution and
- any other documentation whatsoever proving that this Association is indeed the Association referred to in my title deed.
I find it quite underhanded that the Association is likening themselves to the San Marina Recreational Club. It is not the same thing. San Marina Recreational Club has common property on which rates and taxes have to be paid. Marina Da Gama Association does not. Indeed, ExCom are bold enough to put in their Letter of Demand that they are going to use the monies distorted from us in order to install irrigation systems on Council property and to paint walls which belong to private home-owners. Since when am I responsible for painting my neighbours’ walls, or irrigating Council property?
No, they must do what they like. If they sue me, I will defend myself and they will have to prove to a Court that they are the Association referred to in my title deed. If they have not been able to do so up till now, I don’t see how they will be able to establish their claim.
Anita
17 users commented in " Threatened again "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI find it both amusing and petty to read some of the comments, you have spent a lot of time and resources to try and justify non payment of your subs and in yur own mind and you may feel justified, However all this time and effort to try and prove a point when payment versus what the assosiation does sems to be more relevant issue
Ok, what do they do for us?
newby, i agree with you. not only is it what they DO that’s relevant but also what the association IS. it is described variously as a homeowners association (recent excom publications), a ratepayers association (old minutes) and civic association (ward cllr in the latest Marina News). as for what they do well it could be anything and everything – whatever grabs the fancy of the excom of the day.
i have no problem contributing towards an honourable association and R170pa is well within my means, but i won’t tacitly endorse what recent excoms have tried to do to cement an excessive authority over my property and person through underhanded means and distorted facts, not to mention “dismissive approach” adopted in response to my and other residents’ legitimate queries.
you must do what you feel is right for you – to my knowledge nobody has ever complained or harassed residents who have paid their subs -and please pop in here for a giggle from time to time. only requirement is a sense of humour.
Though I personally don’t live in the Marina I have followed these blogs and would like to comment from a “3rd person’s perspective”… The Marina, with its great lifestyle (yes I have visited) has the opportunity to lift itself in line with other much “posher” suburbs such as Tokai, Bergvlie, Meadowridge t etc and I would have thought that all resident having the privilege to live there would be more than happy to get involved through a small annual contribution of R170pa. The Marina has the the luxury that 90% of suburbs don’t have in that there is a formal association that holds AGMs, has standards committees etc. dedicated to ensuring that the standards don’t slip at the expense of their own personal/family time. The geographical layout of Marina da Gama also makes this possible to implement standards controls in a way which only gated developments have these days, don’t underestimate the value of this!!…Sure the association may make some mistakes (don’t we all!!) and need to improve in someways (i sure do!), but each resident should have the foresight to see that if everyone does there bit (pays subs and contributes a small amount of personal time to improve the Marina) that it will have an overall benefit on everyone. A self-centred, “what’s in it for me” approach is always the easy route to take, whereas putting a community, with the desire to see it improve and flourish, over and above your personal needs is the more difficult but ultimately most fulfilling and beneficial for all. I would encourage those living in the Marina da Gama who are investing money, time, energy into improving it to keep doing so, despite the negativity that some people seem to have…To those who are so negative, maybe its time to realise that there is more to the Marina than just your household and that your energy would be best spent in doing something constructive to improve it rather than berating those who do….
I look forward to seeing the “Rise of the Marina da Gama” headline in a weekend paper in the not to distant future…
God Bless
DC, what exactly do you mean by the “Rise of the Marina da Gama”? As a God fearing person you come across as decidedly elitist.
You miss the point. The issue has less to do with a small contribution of R170pa than it has to do with a title deed restriction and the potentially onerous implications thereof if the MDGA has its way.
How would you like to find yourself unemployed one day and having to fork out thousands of rands each month courtesy of a title deed restriction and a bunch of idiots who can’t budget?
Hail Mary
Dear DC
My fight with the Association started because the Executive Committee wanted to raise the small R170.00 annual contribution (capped at a maximum 10% increase per annum) to a staggering R2 640.00 per annum (uncapped) at the whim of as little as 40 of the +- 1 300 homeowners. This lead to an investigation into their actual power to do so, which in turn lead to the ultimate conclusion that the Association, as it stands, is not the compulsory association they claim to be. Compulsory Associations just seem to attract bullies anyway.
Elitism was definitely not my intention and I think you miss my point JT, “The Rise of the Marina” has nothing to do with who lives their or their income levels but more to do with a community that is an example to others of how one should be and that others can learn…I.e a community, rather than a collection of self-centred homes..Trust that makes sense. This would in all likelihood increase demand and lead to a “Rise” in property prices, but surely that is still beneficial to all who live there and is a desired outcome? Elitism occurs when only a few benefit, a tightly knit community where all benefit from higher prices is not elitism, merely the consequence of working together to improve a community..
Thanks Anita for updating me on the proposed amount change, which is substantially more than my impressions of the R170 per annum!! I too would also be rather inclined to voice my concerns about this amount ESPECIALLY the “uncapped” bit… Should the Association not put together a manifesto explaining where these contributions would go and how the additional amounts would be budgeted and spent as well as the pros of this?? Then this could be sent to home owners in the Marina and then a survey had? Would seem to be the most “democratic solution” in my opinion.. Hopefuly everyone would take an honest look at the pros and cons and make a informed decision then even if it means accepting they were wrong, then it is up to the MDGA to accept “the will of the people” so to speak…
I look forward to following this post and seeing the outcome which I trust will benefit the majority and not the minority, whatever the outcome may be..
DC, Council also recommended that an independent survey be held. Sadly, the MDGA refuses to conduct surveys or entertain open discussion forums (with the necessary expertise in attendance) to address concerns such as uncapped levies. The concept of an open forum or public debate is anathema to the MDGA. This has forced concerned property owners to go to extraordinary lengths to protect their rights. And instead of respecting their right to do so, the MDGA resorted to mudslinging, intimidation and derision of those residents who expressed concerns – this when 100+ residents stuck their necks out to lodge written objections with Council. It is a very real probability that the MDGA is not the association referred to in our title deeds and until that little matter has been cleared up the MDGA can look to its fan club for financial support.
Hi DC
We did call for a public participation process, as did Council. Council even offered to help and get the Independent Electoral Commission involved (who do this kind of thing free of charge), but the Chairman of the Marina Da Gama Association declined, saying: “Talk of a ‘Public Participation Process’ is misplaced; the Council itself accepts that changes to our constitution are a private matter between members, so there is no public to be consulted. There will be no referendum, and we don’t need any further interference from Council in our internal affairs.” Peter Harrison – Chairman: September 2007 Security Bulletin
I agree. If the majority of the homeowners agree to something, then democracy should rule, but the Association has overstepped its bounds, did not follow their own rules and as a consequence now have to prove to us that they have the power over us they claim they have. They have not been able to do so.
It is this very same abuse of power which leads me to believe that an association, in order to be effective in the community, must be a voluntary body. Most communities have very effective ratepayers’ associations, and I believe that their effectiveness stems from the very fact that they are voluntary. The people who belong and serve on these committees are passionate about what they do, but in order to survive, they have to do what the community wants, otherwise they will not have the membership or the funding to keep going.
I know that the people of the Marina are passionate and proud of our surroundings and our beautiful suburb. Why not give us a little credit that we can look after our own standards, without a “Big Daddy” watching over us. Kirstenhoff does it, Meadowridge does it, – and they don’t have a compulsory association. If you have pride in your property and pride in your area, it comes naturally that you would want look after it. Now you get silly little letters from the Association telling you that you should paint your house, when you have already bought the paint and was about to start painting anyway. And the letters are just about rude enough to get your back up, leave the planned painting job and tell them to get lost. Most counter-productive, if you ask me.
Anita and JT ,very interesting indeed and thought provoking!! Even more so considering myself and my wife will be moving into the Marina in the next couple of months!! Both of us extremely excited to become an active part of the community, which from our first impressions is a wonderful place to live in spite of this ongoing debate/conflict around the MDGA and whether it is adds value or not…I think I will need to experience first hand before I can comment from an unbiased perspective, which I may have at times already done, for which I apologise. I am also interested to hear from the “other” side as to why they support the MDGA ?? As its always good to hear both sides of the story before drawing conclusions…I do find it extremely dissapointing and in fact immature and childish that the MDGA is not even willing to enquire as to what the “voice of the people” is? Surely if they are confident that they are providing a valuable service that people would support them? At the same time I am aware that we tend to want to avoid paying any additional money where possible, so that sometimes such a rate is justified (as per levies in a block of flats) to ensure that the basic maintenance and services are provided…Anyhow I will have to read through the MDGA constitution myself and “experience” the community at first before coming to a conclusion…Thanks for both your comments, really appreciate them..
DC, you will be welcome to the area and I am sure that, despite the controversy surrounding it at present, your stay will be tranquil and pleasant. The Marina has a lot to offer, and, as I have come to know a lot of the people in the last 3 years, I can vouch for the fact that there are many genuinely stunning people here.
You have inadvertently stumbled across the very essence of the problem. In a block of flats you have common property which needs to be maintained, rates and taxes need to be paid and basic services have to be delivered. You are also protected by the Sectional Titles Act which governs how these levies may be charged and administered and there is an ombudsman, should any problems arise.
In Marina Da Gama, we have no common property to be administered and the basic services are rendered by the municipality. Rates and taxes are paid individually. There is no law protecting us, bar the common law, and your recourse is to the High Court – a very expensive exercise, should you have to go that route. This is a very dangerous situation to be in, considering that home-owners’ associations are run by volunteers from the community. There is also nothing prescribing basic qualifications or managerial skills of these volunteers.
When reading your constitution, please take into account that the constitution calls for a quorum of 60 people to validate a meeting. Considering that there are about 1 300 homes in the Marina, this means that as little as 40 people can change this constitution to whatever they like on behalf of the rest of us. Because the Association is in fact a very unpopular body (some meetings have turned seriously ugly in the past), the average attendance at meetings is about 120 homeowners with the right to vote. As a rule, these people tend to follow whatever the Executive Committee of the day proposes.
Voting for the Executive Committee does not happen. There should be 12 such members, and on average it is very difficult to get together 12 volunteers to serve on the committee. So, whomever has their name put forward is automatically a Committee Member. Should there still be spaces vacant on the Committee, the standing Committee Members will co-opt someone of their choice. It is certainly not a community choice as to whom our “leaders” are.
Granted, it is your own fault if you do not attend the meetings, unless of course you were not notified of the meeting to start with. This is what happened at the meeting where the controversial changes happened in 2006 – over 500 people were not officially notified – and yet the meeting was declared “valid”. When I pointed out at the meeting that non-resident members did not receive notification and that my mother, a non-resident member, was one of them, I was told that “we will phone the old bat in the case of a hang-vote.” Charming.
And if you dare object to the obvious flaws, the derision, threats and lies fly about like bullets during a war.
I appreciate the fact that you are prepared to make an objective evaluation of the situation, and much has been written about the subject during the last 3 years. I would therefore suggest that you get copies of the past 3 years’ newsletters from the Association offices. Should you wish, I will forward you copies of my formal objections to Council and the Association and further information I have at hand. My e-mail address is: anotheranita@gmail.com
Hi Anita,
Thanks for the very comprehensive feedback…Phew, seems like we’ll be moving into a conflict zone. It makes total sense what you are saying but it also seems that if the majority of residents wanted to change things that they could. It would be a case of getting sufficient numbers to the relevant meeting and adopting relevant resolutions? I am correct in saying that this?…It is also strange to me that if the MDGA is so disliked that the majority of owners don’t turn up for these meetings to voice their concern and make changes to the constitution…So I guess I will have to see for myself firsthand..
Thanks again for your input, much appreciated
I agree if we want an assosiation that works for us we should take the effort to attend meetings and elect the right people. The assosiation if adminidistered correctly has the ability to benefit all residents
Thank you!
1. Marina needs a body representing the homeowners, – a residents’ association (whatever you choose to call it).
2. This body needs to have the power to enforce certain building codes so that there is some contol over what is built. The idea of leaving this to the good sense of the residents is nonsense. You will inevitably get someone who wants to build a face brick extension or paint their house pink. You need rules which are enforceable.
3. Because of this you need membership of such a body to be compulsory on all home owners. It is commonly accepted practice for developments like Marina to be subject to common building codes which preserve the “feel” of the place. One of the glories of Marina is the uniformity of the houses.
4. The residents’ association needs to be democratically elected. If people do not like what their elected reps are doing they have the right to vote them out of office. I am sure there is also provision to call emergency general meetings if enough people request it. If enough people were upset by what their reps are doing they will turn up at meetings and vote them out. That is how democracy works.
5. Representing a community on a residents’ association is a thankless task and we need to value those residents who are prepared to devote their time and energy to doing this for no pay. It is too easy to let others do the work and then criticize and snipe from the sidelines when you disagree. If you donlt like the way yourreps run things, then stand yourself next time.
6. Residents’ Associations need money for many things, including legal fees to prevent breaches of the building codes and other anti social behaviour. R160 a year is a joke and it is perfectyl reasonable for the association to increase this amount. How much, and how they do it is another matter. But the beed for higher annual fees is clear.
Hi Jonathan
This Association has never had, nor will it ever have the authority to enforce building codes and architectural guidelines. The only body with that authority is Council. This was proclaimed in the Provincial Gazette of the Cape of Good Hope on 2 October 1987 (page no.1048/9).
All the other developments you talk about have common property. This common property needs to be maintained and rates and taxes must be paid for it. The Marina Da Gama Association has none.
A ratepayers’ association cannot, by its very definition, have compulsory membership. Only a home-owners’ association can and a home-owners’ association must have common property to administer.
The home-owners’ association does not address anti-social behaviour, nor should they. It is not within their job-description.
So, my question to you is: Why should we belong to an Association with no teeth and nothing to spend our money on?
The best information i have found exactly here. Keep going Thank you
Leave A Reply