How to ensure you have fair rules and regulations

Communal living is impossible to manage without regulations, but how do estate managers ensure their rules are fair, and can they be changed when deemed too harsh? 

Rules in place, but do they do their job? 

During a recent interview with the CEO of a Western Cape residential estate, our meeting was interrupted on three occasions: on her private line was the legal representative of one of the estate’s homeowners.  The caller felt it was apt to run his client’s case past the CEO directly, even though clear guidelines exist in the estate’s constitution about conflict resolution and the channels to deal with such issues. 

The case in point involved noisy dogs (albeit only yapping for a short while on week mornings) at an erf adjacent to the caller’s client; the matter had been addressed during preceding months in an attempt at an amicable resolution but to no avail.  The CEO explained that the matter had now turned into a legal fracas, albeit that the rule book should have facilitated an outcome preventing the involvement of the law and its related costs. 

So when is it time to relook your estate rules, and is it worth spending the time and energy to change a constitution, if some of its regulations are found to be unfair, impertinent, or impractical? 

First stop: the common good  

Renier Kriek is MD of Sentinel Homes, which provides finance on instalments and remains the registered owner of these properties until final payment is made. ‘Consequently, we often deal with violations and fines imposed by homeowners’ associations and bodies corporate,’ Kriek explains. 

‘From our experience, the most effective rules are those that aim to promote the common good. Such regulations should focus primarily on maintaining and enhancing property values.’ 

He says the purpose of these rules should not be to create a command-and-control environment where residents’ lives are excessively regulated, and the boundaries of common sense and good neighbourliness are disregarded. 

‘In any community, rules should serve to police the perimeter of neighbourliness. Matters should only be taken up when the usual constructs that allow us to function as a society fail to prevail.’ 

Don’t create chaos 

Some estate managers would have encountered situations where rules are deemed too harsh and pressure may mount to effect changes. But how does one ensure that such changes really are for the “common” good?  ‘It is crucial to bear in mind that in a community setup, balanced and moderate individuals make the least noise. Consequently, new rules and regulations may reflect the desires of only a vocal minority,’ says Kriek. 

‘A significant aspect of neighbourliness is based on morality and ethics. Attempting to codify moral imperatives with an associated financial penalty can result in the loss of the moral imperative – even after the rule has been revoked.   ‘This phenomenon, discovered by psychologist Uri Gneezy, is called crowding out of the internal drive or moral imperative. As a result, overly exacting, strict, or unnecessarily voluminous regulations may create chaos rather than control it. 

‘For instance, if I am fined R2,000 per month for parking my boat and caravan in my driveway, it may be cheaper than storage. Because we have agreed to an economic cost for my undesirable behavior, I may not regard my neighbor’s inconvenience as a relevant concern.   ‘In the absence of the penalty, ethical considerations related to my neighbor’s inconvenience may have been a pressing concern, which could have dissuaded me from my inconvenient conduct.’ 

Of kids and cuckoo neighbours 

In one complex where Sentinel Homes was involved, it was forbidden to make any noise from 2-6pm to allow for working from home. Unfortunately, this rule made it virtually impossible for families to reside in the complex, as those are the hours when children are typically at home and playing.   It is impractical and unhealthy for children to play silently, and significant fines were issued due to inevitable violations. But after much uproar, the rule was eventually revoked. 

‘In another case, a high-functioning but mentally-disturbed resident with paranoid tendencies used the strict regulations to torment her neighbours, whom she believed were attempting to poison her.   ‘Despite numerous calls to the police, the paranoid neighbour managed to persuade the estate manager to issue multiple fines for imagined or fabricated violations of estate rules.  

‘It took two years to convince the estate manager that the paranoid neighbour was the source of the problem. However, since she owned her property, there was no way to remove her.’  What’s more, says Kriek, the estate manager could not refuse to issue reams of fines, as he became the target of her paranoid delusions. Eventually, the only viable solution was to modify the rules drastically, resulting in the paranoid neighbour selling her property and relocating.  

‘As a result, everyone is now happier, and not just because the troublesome neighbour has moved away.’