#25846
Ray2U
Flatchatter

    To further my position on this matter;

    On page 22 of the Regulatory Impact Statement and in seeking feedback on the Regulations, Fair Trading posed the question “17. Does clause 34 provide a fair and reasonable process for dealing with abandoned vehicles on the common property?”. Clearly Fair Trading wrote clause 34 with the intent to address the problem of abandoned vehicles. Refer: here – page 22

    And in reply to Fair Trading’s question 17, the Law Society of NSW did make some comments but it did not question the inference or scope of the question; that is clause 34 is only dealing with abandoned vehicles. Refer: here

    I fully acknowledge clause 34 is ambiguous as it stands. I initially interpreted it as you have and was elated that there may a better way to address the problem of parking. But the more I read the Act + Regs, the more I concluded that using clause 34 for parking problems wouldn’t stand up. If clause 34 didn’t reference ‘section 125 of the Act’ in the heading, people might be able to get away with it.

    Anyway, a robust discussion is good.  Maybe via this forum, and with other input, we maybe able to get a clearer picture of what is the scope of clause 34.

    Cheers

    Ray