MAIN IMAGE: Thato Ramaili – CEO of the PPRA, Jan le Roux – CE of Rebosa, Louis Kruger – MD of Kruger Attorneys and Conveyancers Inc
Editor
We’ve followed the battle over HOA accreditation fees for several years. Last November we reported that the PPRA had put enforcement of Regulation 35 on hold while the Residential Communities Council (RCC) and the Association of Residential Communities (ARC) took the matter to court. The court has now decided that case.
On 20 October 2026, Acting Judge NS Krüger of the Gauteng Local Division of the High Court in Johannesburg dismissed the RCC’s application with costs. The RCC asked the court to declare that estates charging agents a fee to market or sell in their developments is not an undesirable business practice. The court refused.
What the estates wanted
The RCC represents 181 private estates. Its argument was that the Property Practitioners Act governs agents, not estates, and that the PPRA therefore has no say over what HOAs and body corporates charge. The estates have long maintained that the fee pays for training on estate rules, security on show days, website advertising and administration.
The PPRA opposed the application, and Rebosa supported the PPRA with an affidavit. According to the judgment, the PPRA told the court that annual fees range from about R5,000 to R50,000. It gave two examples involving RCC members. In one, it said, Copperleaf refused to issue levy clearance figures on sales by agents who had not paid its R5,000 fee. In the other, Woodlands charged a private seller a R10,000 “penalty” for not using an accredited agent.
Why the court said no
The judge found that the RCC had simply not proved its case. The court said whether an HOA or body corporate falls within the Act depends on its founding documents and whether it manages property for gain. The RCC admitted that fees differ from estate to estate, and no member estate filed a supporting affidavit. In the judge’s words, an application seeking blanket relief “is fraught with risk”.
The court went further, though. It found that, depending on the facts, these fees may limit buyers’ and sellers’ choice of agent, push up costs, and put “yet another hurdle” in front of emerging practitioners. That, the judge said, “is exactly the mischief” the authorities seek to curtail.
PPRA CEO Thato Ramaili says the judgment does not close the door on action against estates. In her view, the PPRA can now adjudicate the matter on a case-by-case basis.
“The adjudicator can decide, on the particular facts, whether there is jurisdiction over the entity, whether the respondent must be a property practitioner as defined and to what extent, and whether the activity is undesirable. These remain the three crisp issues,” says Ramaili.
The Minister welcomes the ruling
Minister of Human Settlements Thembi Simelane welcomed the judgment in a media statement issued on 21 October. “The dismissal of a declaratory order enables the Department, through its entity, the PPRA, to continue advancing a fair, transparent, and inclusive property sector in which property practitioners can operate within the law and consumers are afforded appropriate protection. The Authority will continue to exercise its regulatory responsibilities in accordance with the Property Practitioners Act and applicable regulations, with due regard to the facts and merits of individual matters, and drive initiatives aimed at transforming the sector,” said Simelane.
While the Minister’s statement indicates that the PPRA will continue to exercise its regulatory responsibilities, the PPRA’s November 2025 notice tied the suspension of enforcement to “a final, non-appealable court order”. The RCC still has time to apply for leave to appeal, and the PPRA had not confirmed by publication whether the suspension remains in effect.
The sting in the tail for agents
Louis Kruger, MD of Kruger Attorneys and Conveyancers Inc, believes the ruling is “narrower than the headlines may suggest”. In a legal note on the judgment, he points out that the court did not declare accreditation fees unlawful or find that HOAs are property practitioners. “What it did refuse was blanket immunity for every estate in the country,” he says.
For agents, though, his reading is less comforting. The judge noted that agents who pay these fees “may well fall foul” of the undesirable practice rules. If an estate sits outside the Act, the agent who paid may still be sanctioned.
“Regulation 35 prohibits an arrangement, and a practitioner who pays for preferential access is a party to it. The PPRA regulates practitioners beyond doubt. If it cannot reach the estate, it can still reach the agent, with consequences that include loss of the Fidelity Fund certificate,” Kruger explains.
He also warns that a so-called voluntary fee is not automatically safe. Read Kruger’s full commentary here.
“We supported PPRA in this case because we believe the charging of accreditation fees is unwarranted and simply an excuse to make money”, says Jan le Roux, RE of Rebosa.
“We welcome the positive result, and trust that the PPRA will now take decisive action against anyone acting in breach of the regulations. This is an undesirable practice, and it should be stopped. Some months ago, the PPRA suspended prosecutions having reached an understanding with the HOAs that agents would only have to provide surety for fees pending the outcome of the action. The HOAs have never implemented this, and I unfortunately predict many HOAs will ignore this ruling and keep charging fees regardless.
We trust PPRA will now act against all property practitioners who signed accreditation agreements and made or charged payments after this verdict. Action, however, should be decisive, as the previous half-hearted effort of the PPRA in prosecuting some agents and never acting against others benefited the lawbreakers and punished those who follow the rules,” he concludes.
The RCC had not responded to questions about a possible appeal by the time of publication.
