- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Topic
-
{This was originally part of another thread}
I’m a tenant with two bicycles locked up behind the staircase (an empty space with no thoroughfare) where they’ve been for about three years with no problems. There is also a store room, in which some other bicycles were stored, until we had a break in and one was stolen. Mine were left, because they were securely locked.
One flat owner paid to have a single bike lock anchor installed in the store room, to lock up his bike. He has been agitating for me to move my bikes into the store room, where I know they are not secure. He expects me to pay to have my own anchor installed, but I am not in the habit of paying for upgrades to buildings in which I am only a tenant.
He has threatened to take it to the owners committee (which is just him and two other lonely po-faced old whingers) and have them issue an order. I am interested in what by-laws could be employed in such an order.
Section 3 refers to obstruction of common property, which I don’t think would be compelling with the bikes having been in their exact position for three years and not blocking any thoroughfare.
Section 9 refers to “rubbish, dirt, dust or other material” which is a perfect example of ejusdem generis and definitely not applicable if the bikes are still in usable condition.
This only leaves Section 2 – vehicles. I have looked through previous cases at the NCAT and been unable to find a precedent for the tribunal’s interpretation for the meaning of ‘vehicle’ and whether it includes a bicycle.
I’d be perfectly happy to lock up my bikes in the store room if a locking anchor was provided, but this strata committee has always been far more interested in aggravating tenants than improving the building so I doubt it will happen. I could of course just crowd my bike lock onto his anchor (but that would only cause further argument), as he’s installed it on common property, so it’s a fixture and therefore no longer his private chattel.
Is anyone aware of any precedent on the application of Sections 2, 3 or 9 to bicycles locked on common property?
-
Replies
-
@Fgc said:
Section 3 refers to obstruction of common property, which I don’t think would be compelling with the bikes having been in their exact position for three years and not blocking any thoroughfare.I don’t think the definition of obstruction in this regard can be narrowly defined as physically impeding a passageway.
Otherwise, are you referring to your schemes’s specific by-laws?
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
@JimmyT said:
@Fgc said:
Section 3 refers to obstruction of common property, which I don’t think would be compelling with the bikes having been in their exact position for three years and not blocking any thoroughfare.I don’t think the definition of obstruction in this regard can be narrowly defined as physically impeding a passageway.
Otherwise, are you referring to your schemes’s specific by-laws?
The exact wording is “must not obstruct lawful use of common property”. I don’t think it needs to be a passageway per se, but if it were to get to the tribunal (it won’t), the first question they’re likely to ask is – if it’s causing an obstruction – why has there been no complaint for three years? And what is the lawful use of the common property that it is obstructing?
The by-laws to the best of my knowledge are the old 1996 SSM Act By-laws in Schedule 1. I think they’ve added one for e-voting but nothing relevant to this matter.
@Fgc said:
The exact wording is “must not obstruct lawful use of common property”. I don’t think it needs to be a passageway per se, but if it were to get to the tribunal (it won’t), the first question they’re likely to ask is – if it’s causing an obstruction – why has there been no complaint for three years? And what is the lawful use of the common property that it is obstructing?
I think any half-decent lawyer would argue that a lawful use of common property involves it being kept clear.
I think you may have to bite the bullet here and say that as soon as the strata committee provides a secure and easily accessible bike room, you will use it.
Then define what you mean by “secure” and ask that the bike room regularly reviews the usage and removes abandoned bikes so that it doesn’t become a bike dump. For that, by-laws will have to be written and passed and that will give you roughly another year of “informal” parking.
Be reasonable but determined at every stage. How’s that for a compromise?
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
@JimmyT said:
@Fgc said:
The exact wording is “must not obstruct lawful use of common property”. I don’t think it needs to be a passageway per se, but if it were to get to the tribunal (it won’t), the first question they’re likely to ask is – if it’s causing an obstruction – why has there been no complaint for three years? And what is the lawful use of the common property that it is obstructing?I think any half-decent lawyer would argue that a lawful use of common property involves it being kept clear.
I think you may have to bite the bullet here and say that as soon as the strata committee provides a secure and easily accessible bike room, you will use it.
Then define what you mean by “secure” and ask that the bike room regularly reviews the usage and removes abandoned bikes so that it doesn’t become a bike dump. For that, by-laws will have to be written and passed and that will give you roughly another year of “informal” parking.
Be reasonable but determined at every stage. How’s that for a compromise?
You’re probably right, but of course the argument wouldn’t be prosecuted by a half-decent lawyer, but by somebody from the Strata management company, who have shown themselves at every stage to be breathtakingly incompetent and completely ignorant of the law.
Anyway I’d be perfectly happy to lock my bikes up in the store room if there was anywhere to secure them.
The EC won’t do anything to provide secure storage, they’ll just threaten me with removing my bikes. What powers do they have to do so without a change to the by-laws?