Normally I would agree with Whale that everyone should pay their share of levies related to common property expenses, regardless of whether they use them. However, that assumes that each lot’s Unit Entitlements have been calculated to roughly reflect the value of the lot, including facilities and shared access to usable common property (or not).
In this case, they haven’t. Everyone pays the same levies, regardless of whether or not they have a garage. So, while Whale is right to say that everybody should pay their share, the shares have been divided unfairly to begin with and I believe the lot owner is entitled to find a way to even up the burden (as the Act allows).
My suggestion that owners should make a Section 145 application to remove the financial burden of a special levy presumes that at least two of the three other owners agree. This would be my preferred option as a pragmatic response to this dilemma – the final arbiter on this would be an NCAT adjudicator who would at least be independent. If not, tiny could go it alone.
Everything Whale wrote about sorting out the sinking fund and other finances first, and the garage doors later, is spot on. But it sounds like none of the other three are interested in paying more in general levies so it could require a lot of horse-trading to get the scheme’s finances on an even keel.
Peter C’s comments have made me wonder if the garages are part of the lots or allocated common property. If it is the former, you might have an argument for saying the garage doors are the individual lot owners responsibility (although I’m not sure if that would stand up to a challenge in the Tribunal).