Pretoria - A blind resident of a block of flats in Johannesburg turned to the high court after the body corporate refused him permission to install his washing machine and make other alterations to the communal washing area.
Melusi Ncala told the court that the Park Avenue Body Corporate was violating his constitutional rights, including his dignity as a blind person, as it ignored the fact that he was visually impaired with certain specific needs.
Ncala owns a ground floor unit in this sectional title block of flats. Shortly after he had moved in he made modifications to cater for an outside washing machine to accommodate his safety in light of his disability.
But this was erected on the common property, along with other modifications, such as a roof over the washing machine and a security door, leading to the communal washing area.
The body corporate said it had on several occasions told Ncala to take down these alterations because the washing area was not only his, but communal property.
The body corporate eventually turned to the Community Schemes Ombud Service to try to resolve the issue. The adjudicator mostly found in favour of the body corporate and ordered Ncala to remove the washing machine and fittings.
Unhappy with this finding, Ncala appealed against this ruling in the high court. He accepted that the area where he had erected his washing machine and made alterations was common property, but said as he was blind, the body corporate should have allowed this. He argued that the body corporate, in insisting he remove his appliances, was vexatious.
Ncala said when he bought the flat, the estate agent assured him the washing line area formed part of his section and that he could thus make alterations to it. He explained that he could not erect his washing machine inside his unit, as he could not see if water was spilt on to the floor, which would render it dangerous for him.
It could also not be expected from him, Ncala said, to walk outside to the washing line, while holding a bundle of wet washing. He said if the washing machine was installed outside, the danger of him slipping on a wet surface would greatly be reduced.
But the body corporate maintained that it was a sectional title scheme and rules and regulations had to be followed for common areas. It suggested Ncala familiarise himself with the rules. He, in turn, said the rules should be handed to him in braille.
He also objected to the manner he claimed the caretaker spoke to him, which he had perceived as being racist.
Ncala said she shouted at him to take down the alterations he had made to the washing line area. She also told him he was not allowed in the swimming pool area and shouted at him when one of his blind friends brought his guide dog along to the complex.
Ncala said a complaint was laid against him for allowing pets, while he explained to her it was a guide dog.
Acting Judge T Ossin, in dismissing the appeal, found the body corporate did act according to the rules of a sectional title scheme and that it did not discriminate against Ncala.
But the judge remarked that while he did not exactly know the context in which the caretaker apparently shouted
at Ncala, this was regrettable, as there were rules to follow to try to resolve issues. He said the conduct of the caretaker did not contribute to a peaceful co-existence. A body corporate must act professionally at all times.
On the issue of the guide dog, the judge said it was an example of able-bodied people not having been exposed to the challenges faced by people with disabilities. “Education is required.”
But, he added, in the context of complex living, responsibility also falls on the person with a disability. He said Ncala could not expect everyone with whom he came into contact, to be aware of his visual impairment and what it meant for him.
Pretoria News