#17895
Jimmy-T
Keymaster
Chat-starter

    I had a few strong words with a representative of Fair Trading today.  Their view is that the word “consent” has a very specific meaning in law and signing up to by-laws, even those that specifically give consent to clamp residents’ illegally parked  cars, doesn’t get round the ban on clamping unless the owners concerned have consented to it.

    Their view seems to be that only owners who voted for such a consenting by-law when it was first tabled can be bound by that by-law. At the risk of being accused of being ‘bleeding obvious”, am I right in thinking that rogue parkers are among  those most likely to be in the “no” column in that vote?

    In any case, if that’s true then the whole basis of abiding by strata by-laws and collective decision-making is undermined.

    Also, if this notion hasn’t properly been tested in court then it’s bloody well time it was. 

    They told me the reason for issuing the Press Release was to “help owners who may be confused”. Really?

    Why, of all things, stick your heads up and offer an opinion on parking  that favours the miscreants when there are so many things that Fair Trading just keeps quiet about?

    Who benefits from this? Those poor, misunderstood rogue parkers, that’s who?

    There is much more on this HERE.

    The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.