Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
The tribunal just wrote in their ruling that one reason they elected not to impose a penalty was because the tenants in question had “stopped and said they would now comply with the by-law”.
The only avenue open to us was to start the process over again with another day at the tribunal (at our cost, of course)
You don’t live in my building by any chance do you? 🙂
We’ve had this issue for years. The commercial lots (that make up less than 10% of the total lots) would fill the visitor carpark daily with staff cars. When the carpark was full, they’d just double park across the residents garages (and then abuse the residents for asking them to move).
Finally a good committee comes in and tries to get it under control, but then the commercial tenants feel they are “victims” and start a crusade against the committee. Committee takes the commercial lots to NCAT, the commercial lots decide to stop parking the day before the hearing and “promise” the tribunal that they’ll stop. No fine is given, the day after, the cars are back again.
The committee gives up (who has time for being abused, just as you’ve alluded to) so the shop owners get elected to the committee, and run around putting up signs in the visitor carpark to allocate spaces to themselves. Of course, the only way to deal with it is for owners to waste days of their time going through the NCAT process.
God help a committee member if they put their car in the carpark to unload groceries for 2 minutes…. the commercial lots are running out within about 2 seconds to snap iphone photos.
Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible for residential and commercial lots to work together when it comes to this sort of thing. The weak resolution process doesn’t help either. I don’t envy you, and I feel lucky that I am in a position to move out and settle into a freestanding property.