Is this legal?

Our OC asks for a deposit, albeit a lesser amount, in case of damage to lifts and walls during removals.  But I've never heard of owners or renters being charged for the attendance of the building manager to inspect removals.  Given that everybody in the building has to move in or out at some point, I can't see how this would be above and beyond your building manager's duties.

As a tenant, you have no role in the Owners Corporation (unless you are given a proxy vote by an owner).  So I would write to your landlord and tell him you think this is onerous and unfair.  All it takes is a 25 percent vote to stop the by-law in its tracks – but if nobody does anything, it will just slip through.

Let's say you do refuse to pay the part (f) bond; what can the OC do?

Perhaps they might send you a notice to comply for breaching the by-law. Hooray for them. You are gone so it is not as if you are about to re-offend.

This by-law sounds completely bizarre, just ignore the by-law. You would not be the first tenant in NSW to ignore a half-baked strata by-law. Let the OC try to enforce it and see how they go.

Who proposed this by-law; the Manager??

Situations like this should not exist – they can't hold prisoner.

So there are multiple lifts and the owner is using a removalist?
I failed to read that part of the post.

I would not argue the OC has a “perfect right” to protect the common property but what Jimmy suggests is a part of what is wrong in strata.

If a person breaks a by-law then be as big a pain as possible to that person and see if you can't hit them where it may or may not hurt, in the hip pocket — that is what i am reading. That is sad.

One could just as easily pay the bond and be the victim of a disgruntled manager if the manager doesn't like what he is seeing. In the case in question it sounds as if the manager and the tenant are not best of friends so there is little guarantee everything would go smooth anyway.
Perhaps we all need a 5 page by-law giving those moving out a degree of protection so they can get out without having to wrap the exit path in cotton wool.

Don't removalists have there own insurance to cover any damage caused in the act of moving the client?

If the owner/tenanat self moves then they save a bomb and half of Jimmy's immediate reprisal approach disappears – let the guy not lock the lift; if that was ever going to be the case.

In my SP there is a bond applied to hire of one of the common property buildings. This is only a relatively new thing, it is a policy and not a by-law, and one person has already not had their bond returned. The place was left tidy and any “issues” were sorted by the hirer, at the hirer's expense. The OC gave no reason for keeping the bond.

I will take this concept a little further. We have owners who hire large earth moving equipment (vehicles with tracks) that drive on concrete roads that cost significant money. Water tankers, concrete truck and other very heavy large vehicles are fairly common. The potential damage could run into tens of thousands of dollars. If this OC required a bond to protect themselves from potential damage then it would prohibit most owners from ever having these service available – especially if the bond ended up being consumed to pay someone to watch.

I understand where you are coming from with the bond concept and the details are somewhat unimportant but I am with those who would object to having to pay to have the building manager stand and watch the whole removal at the departing persons expense.

Pay for any damage- sure.
Pay to have the removal police watch over the parade – no thanks.