Having now seen the seven-page set of rules for this scheme’s fitness area and pool, and taking into account the feedback that there is no over-arching by-law to back it up, it occurs to me that the Community Association has decided that, by compelling residents to sign an agreement that restricts their actions (and access to the pool) before they are allowed access to the fitness area, they have been given approval for this.
I am not a lawyer, but I would say this would be worth challenging. If there is no by-law, then it has little legal standing. The rules include threats to remove residents from the complex and ban them for misbehaviour or not following the rules. The rules themselves are reasonable (apart from the ban on under-16s) but these sanctions go way beyond what is normally permitted in a strata scheme.
Now, if this was a commercial operation to which residents had privileged access, that would be different. But if, as it seems, this is a common property asset, then I believe the Community Association can’t restrict access to it without appropriate by-laws, agreed through the proper processes, in place. The problem for the CA is that any such by-law might well be challenged as “harsh, oppressive and discriminatory”.
It may be that the fitness centre has had an issue with kids being allowed to run free, unsupervised, in and around the pool. If so, there are legitimate ways of controlling this but a blanket ban isn’t one of them.
Also, there is the issue of the storage and security of biometric information (fingerprints) used to access the area. Given that many mobile phones and other devices can now be unlocked with fingerprints, the CA needs to address this for the benefit of all residents
Questiontime10 and other owners would do well to have a chat with an experienced strata lawyer.