VIEW FULL SIZE IMAGE

PREVIOUS NEXT

© Trellicor 2010

2008/07/17

Barrier Security in Communal Living Schemes

Looking in from the outside, it could easily appear as if the running of a communal living scheme, particularly one ruled by the Sectional Titles Act in South Africa, is something of a learning curve for trustees, co-owners and suppliers alike. The question of what is and isn't allowed in terms of improvements to an owner's section can lead to so much confusion and disagreement that the easiest course of action is avoidance of the issue altogether. This has been especially obvious to barrier security consultants called in to advise and quote homeowners that have experienced a security breach.

It is widely understood that one of the major selling points of cluster-style sectional title schemes is the fact that they offer a high level of security, the cost of which is shared by all the co-owners. To suggest that in addition to perimeter security and regular foot patrols homeowners may need additional security within their individual units could be seen as undermining one of the main attractions of the scheme and thereby affecting the value of the properties.

However much we try to pretend it doesn't happen, however, criminals do gain entry to secure complexes, either as casual workers or through a security breach (often due to the high turnover of security staff) or, in some bizarre cases, as residents. "One of our Group Directors found this out for himself when his wife was threatened by criminals that broke into his Durban townhouse in a complex with 'full' security," said Greg Roux, franchise owner of Trellidor Durban West. "Needless to say, he installed Trellidors on all his doors and windows thereafter."

"Our security consultants countrywide have been called in by distraught homeowners whose 'secure' properties have been broken into," said Roux. "They provide the owner with a security assessment and a quotation for physical barriers, only to be told that the Body Corporate would not approve the installation."
The reasons given, if one is given at all, range from 'the supplier is not on the preferred supplier list' to 'it will destroy the uniform aesthetic of our properties' to 'it doesn't fit in with the design of the scheme' or 'we've boosted our perimeter security so you don't need these barriers.'

Just as the Body Corporate trustees have a right to maintain the aesthetics of a scheme, so they also have a responsibility to maintain the safety of the residents. The owners, on the other hand, have a right to be safe within their own homes, with the corresponding responsibility to do so within the rules of the scheme.