owners/tenants parking in visitors car spaces

In our situation was hoping to find residents in question in breach of numerous bylaws, not just the parking bylaw.  For instance, from the model bylaws which this complex adopted (with a couple of our own), was thinking of:

Bylaw 2: Vehicle parking on common property without permission.

Bylaw 3: Obstruction common property from intended use.  Not only the parking, but for residents car washing and maintenance of the lawn area. Also some residents have complained their their bonafide visitors with physical impairment (ie the elderly) cannot walk down our driveway as it is very steep (infact the steepness doesn't meet Building Code standards!).  So they are more than annoyed when other residents constantly park in these limited spots!

Bylaw 4: Damage to lawns on common property.  The council insists we have lawn, not concrete.  Constant parking has deprived this area of sunshine, let alone the pressure of cars constantly parking there.  Should be empty 50% of the time even allowing for the odd rogue parker.

Bylaw 5: Damage to common property.  With the lawns dying and the constant parking, the soil is compacted and affecting drainage and the erosion of the top soil has caused an uneven surface, something that our insurer wanted addressed in the past (spent $5000 upgrading visitors car parks to satisfy insurer and council).

Also Bylaw 1:  The main offenders of parking favor the visitors parking located right under the window of a resident whose bedroom is 4 metres away.  This constant coming and going is bothering this resident especially as the main offenders drive utes/SUVs/V6/V8 cars and sometimes arrive in the middle of the night or rev them up at 5am.  This resident has mentioned on numerous occasions that should the matter of the parking not be addressed may ask for sound proofing/double glazing/privacy film be supplied by OC!

So thoughts on us hitting these serial offenders with all of the above?  Breaching more than one bylaw in the one instance?  Anyone done similar?  

Perhaps, after we send our another notice spelling out in plain English that the visitors parking is for visitors and car washing, we could ask the Strata Manager to charge offenders a $50 fee for sending out Notices to Comply.  This $50 fee worked really well when our Strata Manager complained about the number of chase up correspondence sent out to people who were very forgetful!  Since that fee was introduced the SM has had to chase up only a few people.

So a $50 fee for a Notice to Comply, for each by-law (parking on common property, obstructing area from its intended use, damage to lawns and noise) that would be $200!  Personally, don't care if the SM benefits from those say “but no one was using the space when I parked there”.  This morning is day 6 in a row that one resident has parked his ute in a visitors car space.  So thats all weekend when most people have friends and family over.  Most people want to wash their cars.  The arrogance and lack of respect for others is astounding from this resident!

There is a theory (which I believe is yet to be tested) that if you pass a by-law saying that owners accept that they will be fined for illegal parking, then the can be fined.  The same theory applies to 'management fees' for issuing Notices To Comply.

Given that you need 75 percent of those voting at a general meeting to pass by-laws, this is not something that can be imposed on the whim of a few individuals. Whether or not it's legal or  not is another issue but from what I hear, it works as a deterrent so where's the harm?

JImmy, Ben, Struggler et al…

On the subject of Parking Fines, the advice that our Plan received back in 2006 (from a Barrister who at the time lived in the Building next door) was that an O/C cannot legally issue fines under any circumstances. But it can invoice parking fees provided the basis of those can be proven (e.g. photos), that they’re enabled by a registered Special By-Law, and that they don’t purport (e.g. resemble) to be a fine; even brown envelopes are out!

So after first placing a politely-worded postcard style note (cheap at “Vista Print”) under the windscreen wipers of offending vehicles, that’s what we’ve done, and as I reported in an earlier post, with limited success so far as payment is concerned but with substantially more success in stopping the inappropriate use of designated visitors’ carspaces and those of other residents.

I’d love to make some constructive comments on those (of Billen Ben) about O/C’s becoming our 4th Tier of Government – but that will have to wait until I have some more time.

Billen Ben said:

Jimmy loves to talk about the owners empowering things by special resolution but i have some concerns over this type of democracy, it can disadvantage people because they do not have the numbers.
If fees were by unanimous resolution then perhaps that would be OK but action by special resolution had led to cases where CTTT has acknowledged that this type of democracy can disproportionately disadvantage some people. Generally it works but it has the potential to be misused and that potential has been realised in several CTTT matters.

The usual reason people don't have the numbers is because the majority of people don't agree with them.  Requiring a unanimous vote on financial decision is a frankly ridiculous idea.  And of course some people are “disadvantaged” by a majority vote – even one that requires 75 percent of support.  That's life.  What about the 90+ percent of people who would be disadvantaged because one antisocial curmugeon refused to go along with a proposal that made sense to everyone else in their building?

As Winston Churchill once observed: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government  … except all the others that have been tried.”

As for strata being the fourth level of government … of course it is.  But this is nothing new … village councils and street committees have been around for hundreds of years.  The truly retrograde aspect of strata democracy is that it is based on ownership rather than residency and right there is the root of most of its problems.

Yu need to crack down on the HARD and as soon as possible.

Put a a note on their cars explaining that by parking in Visitors parking or on grass verges they are:
a) in breach of the buildings by laws and that will lead to fines of up to $550 and
b) by being in breach of by-laws they are also in breach of their lease which could lead to eviction.
They are not free from by-laws because they are tenants – in fact they are even more at risk because they could lose their home.
I wouldn’t mention the occasional use by other residents – that too is a breach of by-laws and could come back to bite you on the bum if this went to a tribunal.
A copy of the same notice from your strata manager or EC secretary should be delivered to their mailbox and to the rental agent for the property. And you need to have an EC meeting as soon as possible to agree to issuing a Notice To Comply, the first step in having them fined by the CTTT.

I am with you on this.

Do not give them an option that will allow an out.

We place a polite letter under their wiper, we do this three times before a sticker is applied to the rear drivers side window. This sticker is a bright yellow or orange colour and is difficult to remove. This tends to have an effect but you may still need to visit the Real Estate agent and get them to follow up with a letter threatening eviction for non compliance with the by laws.