excathedra

It should not be the job of an individual firm of strata lawyers to develop a by-law to cover an issue like this. The by-law should be a part of the model package attached to the Strata Schemes Act.  These are crisply worded in plain English and could be said to have the force of law behind them in case anyone tries to get smart.

Parking arrangements vary from scheme to scheme, and a reasonable amount of incidental storage of car-related materials should generally be tolerated.  What is unacceptable just about anywhere is filling the car space or lockup garage with a variety of goods and then using this as an excuse for basing the car in the visitors’ area.

If Esmeralda is in NSW and her building allows pets, the relevant by-law most likely requires that a pet owner must “take any action that is necessary to clean all areas of the lot or the common property that are soiled by the animal”.

If the perpetrator can’t be identified, then the unfortunate cleaner is probably stuck with the problem, which is a sad reflection on her employer’s lack of respect for its staff. She has rights, but they are not being respected, possibly because she is young, female, and perhaps also a visa holder with plenty of potential replacements available if she quits.

She deserves support from the Owners’ Corporation.

There will be no quick and easy solution.  Many local councils declare parking spaces close to shopping centres and transport hubs as ‘resident only’ beyond one or two hours.  Is there scope for a local campaign?  It would have to be considered by the council, and there would be a lengthy time for notice to be given and objections to be called for.  If your efforts were successful, you would have to pay for a permit, and there is no guarantee of being able to park, but it would be better than nothing.

You did not mention how many visitor spaces your building has.  Many schemes are ready to tolerate occasional and brief occupation of a visitor space, but twice in one week seems provocative, especially if it was the ‘last space’ on each occasion and you gave the impression that you had decided to base your car there.

My building does not have a pool and is in an area where the local council maintains several harbourside tidal pools but no in-ground facility.  Dogs are prohibited at all the council-controlled swimming areas.

Your correspondent’s local council may operate a swimming centre and, if so, its policy on dogs (almost certainly a ban) should provide support in pressing the case for keeping dogs outside the child-proof fence around the pool.

It should not be too hard to create a by-law prohibiting dogs from being brought poolside, even if they are allowed off-leash in the general common area.  Such a by-law could be defended as being in line with generally accepted community standards.

JT is right, but you would have been better off with your own insurance.  Your insurer would be working for YOU; you would not be arguing the case against an insurer working for someone else.

(I do not work for an insurance company.)

We are facing a ‘perfect storm’ of giant gentrified tradies’ trucks — e g VW Amarok, a new entrant from Mercedes-Benz, and probably other luxury brands. Add to these the familiar giant tarted-up farm implements that have been around for years under various illustrious labels, and imagine them side-by-side in parking lots built in the age of the XM Falcon and the EH Holden.

Width is not necessarily any more of an issue than with a regular five-seat sedan (e g the Camry or Commodore mentioned by Bn) provided the vehicle is centred accurately between the marked lines. Tradies are generally very good at parking their crew-cab trucks accurately, but the same is not necessarily true of other family members still adjusting to the jump in size from the mid-sized hatchbacks to which they may have been accustomed. There will be similar problems with the giant SUVs that some may feel they need to maintain credibility in the school pickup queue or the carpool for Saturday sports.

I argued in my submission to the review of the NSW Strata Management Act that it would be desirable to add some sort of preamble to the Act stating an expectation that occupants observe not just the letter of their Scheme’s By-laws, but also the spirit of those that are (or should be) intended to facilitate living at close quarters and sharing facilities. That could include the unwritten rule, obeyed by most of us, that we park in a way that does not deny our immediate neighbours a reasonable amount of space to access their correctly parked vehicles. It would be a challenge to codify this in a way that will allow it to be enforced for those who take the line that they can do what they like with their property unless there is a by-law that says they can’t.

With respect, I think that JimmyT is being unduly restrictive with his criteria for permissible lengths of stay for visitors.  In my submission at the time the NSW Act was being revised, I identified how long is a reasonable time for a visiting car to occupy a designated visitor parking space as an area of uncertainty. Casual guests (e g for a meal) or visiting tradesmen typically stay for a few hours. I think it is reasonable for overnight guests to use the visitors’ area within hotel checkin and checkout times (broadly interpreted), but when does a visitor become a short-term resident — after a second night, or longer? Those responsible for upholding the availability of visitor parking spaces for legitimate users are still waiting for guidance.

Our building is purely residential, and I do sympathise with Ziggy’s situation, sharing the site with a commercial operation.  We share parts of our site with another residential block whose visitor areas are not as convenient as ours.  Occasional abuse of our area by their residents tends to stop once we have identified the offenders and put notes on their windscreens — the embarrassment of being ‘busted’ seems to be quite a deterrent.