- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by .
-
Topic
-
HI all
I am a tenant living in an estate where the OC has outsourced the policing of visitor parking to an outside company who apparently have the power to 'fine' residents for parking in visitor parking.
OK, I am guilty of parking in visitor parking as our garage only holds 2 cars and there are 3 cars in use. Albeit I have only parked in visitor parking a hand full of times when there has been no street parking (or I am feeling lazy!). For what it's worth I don't think of myself as a serial offender.
I am curious as to how legal this type of arrangement is particularly when the company don't advertise what the amount of the 'fine' is.
Cheers
-
Replies
-
Apart from the fact that you and other residents should not improperly utilise visitor parking, and in NSW you could be fined up to $550 for doing so should your Owners Corporation take you to the Consumer, Trader, and Tenancy Tribunal — whilst private organisations can indeed issue parking fines, they are totally unenforceable; it's a bluff!!
The Herald's website has gone totally nuts on this topic with yours truly copping loads of (mostly unwarranted) abuse, basically for suggesting that there is no easy answer. Worryingly, some correspondents are suggesting illegally parked cars can be clamped or towed. They can't, as this legislation (link provided by a reader) clearly states. You can join in the fun and games HERE.
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.
Did you know you were moving into a place with only 2 car parks? And did you know that you had 3 cars?
You are paying for a place with only 2 car parks. If it had 3 car parks, you would have to pay more (and that applies to whether you rent or buy).
We have someone here who has moved into a place with only one garage, but he has 3 cars (4 at one stage). He seems to believe that having more cars than garages means he has a right to use the visitors car spots for free. What a bargain! Paying for one car spot and yet getting another couple for free!
Whilst an OC can't fine a resident for abusing visitors car parks, I would be happy if residents paid for the extra parking they are using. This could boost the coffers a bit and that is never a bad thing.
As for me, I would only the garages that I have paid for and park in the street (which for us has ample parking) and walk the 20 metres inside!
In reference to Jimmy's first point:
“A person must not immobilise a vehicle owned by any other person by means of wheel clamps … except with the consent of that other person” I think this exception allows a mate to secure his friend's car and not be in breach of the law. That is to get over someone saying 'You can't clamp someone else's car. Only the owner can clamp it'. I don't think you can imply consent therefore I doubt if an Owners Corporation can introduce a clamping by-law for it would be 'inconsistent' with the higher local council law; therefore illegal in itself.
But there's another section of the law that seems to have been introduced to enable the removal of dumped vehicles on your premises by enabling you to take possession and move it. It clearly states “A person who takes possession of a vehicle that has been left on premises” so there are circumstances where you can legally take possession of someone else's car. It also says you can't be sued for any damages that you might have caused to the vehicle [s651C]. The only criteria the law seems to need is 'a vehicle that has been left on premises'.
I wonder if this would allow you to legally stick a fork lift under the parked car and dump it out on the street? Or whether there's some other law somewhere that stipulates more criteria before taking possession?
Just a thought.
That's the heart of the matter – is a bylaw that says effectively and literally, “we give you permission to clamp our cars” a true instrument of legal permission by the owner? If it is, then such a by-law is not in contravention of the law because the law allows for permission to be given.
Don't get me wrong – I'm not saying this is the case. I don't know. As I said in my column, this hasn't been tested and it may not be valid. We won't know for sure until someone challenges it and gets a ruling.
However, I can assure you this by-law has been adopted in a couple of buildings (to great effect on the parking problem – I hasten to add) and I don't know of any cases where it has been struck down either at the CTTT or in court.
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.
Would really like to see a clamp or tow by-law in this complex. The problem would be solved quick smart! We have tried the softly softly approach for too long I feel (polite reminders, notices to all about parking). Its the same people over and over again. They stop for a while, then think it is all just too hard and start parking there again.
I just wonder what gives people in this strata the sense of entitlement to extra parking spots. Especially those who have more cars than their unit has parking spots. I have visions of people coming to look at a unit, seeing inadequate parking and then deciding no problem we'll just use the visitors car spots! Premeditated parking I call it. There has been alot of that here!