#17902
g
Flatchatter

    Scotlandx, This isn’t to do with bylaws affecting new owners, I think this has much more to do with bylaws not being able to overrule state law.

     

    There was a time when wheelclamping on private property was common. Property owners would put up a sign, or have some other mechanism of implied consent allowing them to put clamps on. There were all sorts of problems with difficulties in getting the clamps removed, with extortionate fees being demanded and unreasonable delays. This resulted in numerous complaints, some resulting in violence and other escalation, and many episodes of trashy current affairs shows were dedicated to the issue. Eventually the government legislated against these practices (in 1998 for NSW, I think).

     

    My understanding is that the reference to “with consent” was included to allow people to use wheel clamps to secure their own vehicles against theft (eg, caravans, boat trailers, etc).

     

    It doesn’t surprise me that you have this response from Fair Trading when trying to interpret “with consent” in order to do precisely what the law was designed to prevent.

     

    Obviously nobody is questioning that they shouldn’t be parking there. The issue here is that State law essentially prohibits using wheel clamping as a punishment and a strata bylaw is unable to override it (one would assume that offenders would not consent to being punished).

     

    Interestingly, my employer still uses wheel clamps. They justify it with a big sign at the entrances and only clamping after several warnings and only where they have no idea who the owner is. They also remove the clamps immediately when asked (24 hour on-site security, and the response is fast), and don’t charge for this, so nobody has bothered making a complaint. However, with strata parking… You only have to get one person who is inconvenienced and/or vindictive and you will end up with a complaint, and I believe the fine is $300 for clamping plus a further $300 for not releasing it immediately without charge.

     

    But then again, I’m not a lawyer so I could be completely wrong (although I won’t be the one to test it).