Current Page

[Anonymous]

Hi,

 

I'm after information on any restrictions which may be imposed on lot owners who wish to rent out their unused car spaces to others who do not reside or work in the building by local government (City of Sydney Council) or the Strata Management Act.

 

We have a lot owner who is renting out a number of spaces to non-residents & we would like to know where we stand.

 

The building is a mix of mostly residential, some commercial units.

 

Thanks in advance!

Topic

[Simone]

Hi Tharra

Under s.49 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996, a by-law can not operate to prohibit or restrict the devolution of a lot or a transfer, lease, mortgage, or other dealing relating to a lot.

Therefore, no by-law is capable of operating to prohibit or restrict the leasing of a lot or part of a lot. An owner is legally able to lease his or her car space.

Kind regards,

Simone Balsara
Lawyer

---

TEYS Lawyers
The Strata Law Experts
02 9562 6500

simone@teyslawyers.com.au
https://www.teyslawyers.com.au 

 

Quote

[Jimmy-T]

I hate to contradict a lawyer but think there's a bit more to it than that. 

For instance, City of Sydney planning regulations appear to forbid the leasing of car spaces to non-residents.  There's also the question of security of buildings which can be hugely compromised by allowing non residents to come and go into parking spaces. 

The same section of the law has been used to try to allow short-term rentals in residential buildings and, as far as I know, has failed to do so when it has been challenged.

In my non-legal experience there are may other ways around Section 49 – otherwise we'd be saying that inner city apartment blocks can become parking stations for greedy owners.

For instance, a by-law that says owners may not operate their lot in contravention of the law – including planning law – would surely squash the parking scam. 

On this interpretation, Section 49 would allow sub-letting, overcrowding, unrestricted pets, holiday rentals, brothels … whatever, because it allows free rein to the lot owner to ignore by-laws that they don't like. 

Surely not? If this is the case then a lot of buildings in inner Sydney especially are going to have a lot of problems with opportunist parking space rentals.

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.

Quote

[Anonymous]

JimmyT said:

For instance, City of Sydney planning regulations appear to forbid the leasing of car spaces to non-residents. 

 

Do you know where I could find that planning regulation on-line? I've trawled the Council website without success. Otherwise I'll call them & ask. I do know of several other strata plans in the area that have the 'no leasing of car parks to non-residents' as a by-law – so unless they've all done the wrong thing by the strata act, I'm assuming you're correct. 😉

 

Thanks for the responses! If I find out anything definite from the Council I'll post about it here.

Quote

[Jimmy-T]

I just spoke to someone at City of Sydney and they said there is no universal law against this but any “recent” developments (say, newer than 8-10 years or so) would “probably” have had such a clause included.  You need to look at the planning consent issued for your building to see if it was prohibited under that document.  If it is, you have a very strong case.

Failing that, does anyone else have any cunning plans for dealing with rogue parkers?  How about keys can only be issued to residents and their resident guests?  Would that work?

 

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.

Quote

[Anonymous]

Thanks – I've had a look at the LEP 2005 (all these strange new acronyms):

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov…..N?tocnav=y

“(8)  Consent must not be granted for development that includes tenant car parking, unless conditions of the consent provide that the tenant car parking must not be used or occupied by any person, other than a person who resides or works in or visits a tenant of the building on a temporary basis, in the building or on the land in or on which the car park is located.”

 

Our building would have fallen under the previous LEP 1996 which has a similar clauses (Part 6 – 47 g): “to ensure that tenant car parks are not occupied by persons other than occupiers of the building or land on which the car park is situated.”

 

& this is clarified in Part 6 – 48 6.

 

Link to LEP 1996:

https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.go…..ne2005.pdf

 

So I think that gives me enough to go on for now. Thanks again – love the info available on this forum!

Quote

[Simone]

The terms of the planning consent of the building issued by the local authority can specify the activities that are prohibited within the scheme. 

However, from the perspective of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (the Act), such activities can not be restricted by the owners corporation. 

Restricting short-term letting is invalid under the Act. If short-term letting is permitted under the terms of the development consent and any instrument under the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979, then any by-law seeking to restrict this right is invalid under s.43 (4) of the Act.

Kind regards,

Simone Balsara
Lawyer
———————————-
TEYS Lawyers
The Strata Law Experts
02 9562 6500

simone@teyslawyers.com.au
https://www.teyslawyers.com.au 

Quote

[Author]

Replies