“…It’s not the parking so much, it’s the actions of the SC members. Can they continue to berate me in person and by notes for something they have no remit over…”
The only reason I can think of for an SC member to address you on this matter in their capacity as an SC member (rather than as a private citizen) would be if parking in this location outside the OC property somehow impeded access to the OC property or interfered in some other way with the use and enjoyment of the common property by residents.
In the absence of some justification along those lines, then, if they were in the ACT, they might be in breach of the Code of Conduct for executive committees. The general principles are reasonable to expect of a committee anywhere, even if they are not set out in statute. These include:
“An executive member must not—
(a) cause a nuisance on the land; and
(b) otherwise behave in a way that unreasonably affects a person’s lawful use or enjoyment of a unit or the common property.”
and
“An executive member must not engage in unconscionable conduct in exercising the member’s functions as an executive member.
<b>Examples</b>
1 improperly using the executive member’s position on the executive committee to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage personally or for someone else
2 exerting undue influence on, or using unfair tactics against, the owner of a unit in the units plan”
In the ACT’s default Rules, ‘owner of a unit’ is defined broadly to include tenants.
I suggest you could remain silent on the matter of the legality of parking and simply send a reply copied to both the SC and managing agent pointing out that the location where you sometimes park is not part of the common property and they should therefore desist from harassing you over a matter that is outside their area of responsibility. I would leave it very short and to the point.