[kiwipaul]

Thanks Whale that looks good.

I didn’t realise that Strata COULD impose fines for parking breaches, that could be another way to go.

[kiwipaul]

@struggler said:
The problem is not with a by law to vote out visitors parking spots but to get all to agree to a by law to tow cars parked in the visitors spots away at owners expense.

I totally agree with your sentiment but with half the owners ignoreing the parking bylaw you have no chance of getting a new bylaw passed to tow or clamp so you have to attack the problem from a different perspective.

My soloution is the only legal option open to you (as far as I know), you might be able to include multiple respondents or even the whole strata for ignoreing the parking bylaw. In QLD the Strata have a legal duty to enfore the bylaws and so you can take action against the strata but this is lacking in NSW.

[kiwipaul]

Residents parking in the Visitor Parking Bays leaves them open to action being taken against them via conciliation and adjudication by unhappy residents. Visitor parking bays are a requirement of the council before they will approve the development and the Strata CANNOT vote them out of existence even with a bylaw as the bylaw would conflict with council planning and so be invalid.

Nobody has gone to Adjudication in NSW using this argument but it is accepted in QLD and every ruling refuses to allow residents to use the visitor parking bays for ANYTHING other than for visitors. The same should apply in all states as the principle is the same.

The only way to use Visitor Parking bays for other purposes is to get the council to revoke their initial requirement for x no of visitor parking bays.

[kiwipaul]

So a bylaw would address 90% of the problem as most offenders are residents of the complexes (I know their are exceptions).

But how to word the bylaw. Can someone who lives in a building with a towaway or wheel clamping bylaw post a copy of that particular bylaw (I don’t mind which state it is from as it should apply the same anywhere) so we can see what it entalis.

[kiwipaul]

The area you have been given exclusive use of is YOUR now, I cannot see any advantage in adding it to the title. It cannot be transferred back to the common area unless you agree. When you sell the property the exclusive area remains with the lot and the new owners inherit this area.

Transferring it onto your title is all bad news especially from a cost perspective and would not increase the value of your lot 1 iota. Your lot might be asked to pay more into the sinking and admin funds as well as pay an increased insurance premium (this could have been a condition of being given exclusive use of the area and if it wasn’t you should quit while you are ahead).

Anything you construct in this area needs Strata approval whether it’s exclusive use or lot property if visible from outside the lot.

[kiwipaul]

MattB I accept I was party wrong but here is the default bylaw for NSW

2. Vehicles

An owner or occupier must not park or stand a vehicle on common property without the written permission of the owners corporation. That permission can be cancelled. Permission does not give an owner or occupier a permanent right over that part of common property.

So the OC (in QLD the EC can grant this permission also) can grant permission for residents to use the common property without the requirement of a SR or a bylaw.

I would suggest the resident who wants to take advantage of this is charged a comercial fee to prevent others doing the same thing. Granting permission to park without a good reason or a fee would enable all residents to park outside on the common areas otherwise they could claim discrimination if only certain resident were given this permission for free (owner occupiers being given permission but tennants denied).

In fact reading the standard bylaws most refer to without the written permission of the owners corporation and as the EC is the representive of the OC I feel they might have the authority to grant this permission anyway.

[kiwipaul]

I don’t believe the advise is wrong. The EC can grant permission for residents to park on the common property by just a simple majourity. The default bylaws state as much. The resident would not have exclusive use of the area just be able to use it, and permission could be removed at any time by another simple majourity vote. If the EC is enforceing the bylaws this would be sufficient.

You would be correct scotlandx IF the resident wanted exclusive use but if the resident just wanted somewhere to park just a simple vote is sufficient.

Exclusive use would be for ever and not eaisly removed and would pass on to future owners of said lot which might not require it. It would also increase the value of this lot and reduce the amount of common property which might be a bad thing.

[kiwipaul]

@tracer said:
I intend placing a motion on our AGM agenda to deal with conflict of interest issues but not sure how to phrase it.

I regret to say the NSW Strata act dosn’t address the confilict of interest issue and so you have to rely on the honesty of the individuals concerned as you cannot legally stop them voting for their own motions concerning anything.

You might be able to introduce a bylaw that addresses this issue but to get it approved you would need a 75% vote in favour of the new bylaw passed at the AGM and then registered with NSW gov.

[kiwipaul]

In most case calling a SM a manager is ridiculous, as in most situations they administer the Strata building on behalf of the owners and it is the owners that make all the decision. I agree the Owners can delegate authority to the SM but very few do.

A more accurate description would be Strata Administrator, so I tend to agree with what Yclept says.

[kiwipaul]

@PeterC said:
I don’t think you can charge people money to use property they already own!.

 

Their is always in any strata complex residents who find their lot is not big enough for them and so start appropriating the common area for their use.  Why should an owner who obeys the rules have to put up with these people but they generally turn a blind eye because they want a quiet life.

BUT if they realize these people can be asked to pay for their seizing of common property they might be inclined to support people who enforce the bylaws.

On another post regarding car parking one owner was prepared to pay to use a part of the common property (which I think is reasonable if the EC or OC agree).

If their is common property available why shouldn’t the residents be allowed to use it for a fee, rather than it being a free for all scramble which applies to most complexes.

How you implement it would vary depending on which state you are in, but I’ve not seen anything that says it’s illegal.

[kiwipaul]

You cannot issue a NTC as only the EC or OC can do that but their is nothing stopping you starting Adjudication proceeding against him (you have to go to conciliation first). Total cost is approx $130 for lodging both.

Just need to be organized and present your documentary evidence in a logical way.

OR

Submit a motion to be included at the next EC meeting or AGM to issue a NTC against him, if it passes get the secretary or Strata Manager to issue it against him. He doesn’t have any veto power or special privileges.

[kiwipaul]

Measure the size of your car park, and then measure the size of other car parks in the same complex. If your car park has dimensions for 3 standard size car parks I cannot see how they can object.

Also check what the council regulations are for car parking space (might be less than your neighbors size of car park), and if 3 council parking spaces fit within your parking area again they would have trouble objecting.

I don’t see how they can create a bylaw to discriminate against you if you are using the parking space for it’s intended purpose.

If you go to adjudication take photos of any items others are leaving in their parking spaces (rubbish bins, ladders, etc) to show that the EC are being unreasonable.

I don’t understand why you had disabled signs above your parking as this seems to indicate they were for disabled people and so common property. The developer hasn’t pulled a fast one has he and sold common property to residents against council regulations.

[kiwipaul]

It doesn’t require the EC to take action (although that is preferable). Take photos of the Chairpersons cars illegally parked and start proceeding against him yourself at CTTT. You cannot issue a NTC but you can go to arbitration and then adjudication if he persists in refusing to comply.

You cannot expect others to obey the rules if the chairperson himself ignores them.

If you can get a ruling against him he will soon start enforcing the ruling against others when he finds he cannot park in the visitor bays but others are doing.

[kiwipaul]

@caj said:
Water Woes.

The water leak came from under my kitchen sink.

The sink is within the lot (assuming it’s the pipe under the sink and in the lots airspace and not in the floor under the sink)  it’s NOT common property it’s lot property and so the onus is on the owner to cover the repairs via HIS contents policy and the Strata Building policy. Any excesses the owner himself would have to cover.

I don’t see the chairperson having any liability as it’s not their responsibility. All costs should be covered by insurance or the lot owner whose pipe broke and caused the damage.

[kiwipaul]

@ellamac said:
The cost  of a special bylaw is quite considerable for our ageing owners,  and I wonder are there some “generic” special bylaws out there which would cover owner’s installations>?

It’s only expensive if you employ someone to write them for you. Their is nothing to stop you composing ones yourself and then you only have the cost of registering them and that is only $102 as quoted.

EG

Owners fitting handrails, flyscreens, xxxxx, xxxx do so at their own cost and are responsible for the ongoing maintenance of said features. Fitting have to be approved by the OC (or EC) prior to fitting by a simple majority vote ( or if you like special resolution vote 75% in favor) and to be in keeping with the rest of the complex.

You just have to keep it simple.

As Struggler suggested if the OC does the install for all units no bylaw is required because maintenance will fall on the OC as it did the install and so accepts responsibility for it.

[Author]

Replies