Driveway parking

Parking is a pain in the bum, isn’t it!  I’m reminded of the complex that couldn’t get the local council to patrol their access roads which meant commuters used their relatively narrow streets (all common property) as free parking while they travelled to work from a nearby station.  The problem was miraculously solved when a fire truck couldn’t get to a unit and the council was suddenly interested and sent parking wardens down on a regular basis.

So your friend asking their local Firies to have a look wouldn’t go amiss. They might even issue a fire safety order.

I don’t think the insurance issue is going to wash as the OC has no legal obligation to enforce by-laws (although some would argue they have a duty of care – but that has yet to be established legally, as far as I know).

But your friend shouldn’t forget that, in the absence of their own EC taking action, any owner can go to Fair Trading and ask for a Notice To Comply to be issued. Presumably there is more than one resident sick of having to weave their way around parked cars so they could apply as a group.

Perhaps stating the intention to take action at the AGM might persuade some of the rogue parkers it’s time to do the right thing.

By the way, the person who uses their garage as a store room might be in breach of by-laws and planning approval.

And, at the AGM, your friend should ask the people who stand for re-election to the EC why they are even on the committee if they have no intention of enforcing the by-laws.

@kiwipaul said:

The BC and EC do have a duty to enforce the bylaws. Here is a quote from the NSW Strata website.

Owners corporations also have the following powers and obligations:
To issue a notice on a person to comply with a by-law, when the owners corporation or its executive committee passes a resolution that there has been a contravention of the by-law in question.

I hate to contradict you but … um .. you’re wrong. The  EC may well be obliged to enforce the by-laws “when the owners corporation or its executive committee passes a resolution that there has been a contravention of the by-law in question.”
But the key point is that there has to be a resolution for that to take effect and ECs don’t have to pass a resolution, discuss an issue or even acknowledge that there has been a complaint. An autocratic chairperson or secretary can decide that something isn’t worth their time and it doesn’t make the agenda (therefore, no resolution).
A typical situation where this might apply is where most of the EC members enjoy using visitor parking for their own purposes. When a disgruntled owner complains, he or she is asking turkeys to vote for Christmas and it simply doesn’t get discussed.
There’s a difference between enforcing by-laws – which OCs and ECs are NOT obliged to do  – and carrying out the decisions made by the EC (which they are). But you’re right, even that isn’t always done because there are no penalties for not doing so.
By the way, this is in stark contrast to Victoria where ECs have to at least give a reason in writing as to why they have decided not to take action. 

@struggler said:

It sounds like the EC doesn’t want to get involved in issues in this complex. My friend reports that owners have changed common property without permission and without repercussion. Anything goes and the EC just turns a blind eye. Suggestions on what may friend can take to the AGM to try and get the attention of owners and the action from the EC?

Just to get back to the original over-arching question, perhaps the way to get the EC’s attention is for your friend to map out the means by which they plan to have the running of the building brought back under control. 

For instance, they may have a valid case to take to the CTTT and ask for the statutory appointment of a strata manager to replace the EC and run the building properly.  I’m not saying the CTTT would go for it but if there is enough evidence of the EC willfully ignoring their responsibilities with regard to Common Property, it could get a hearing.

Perhaps the prospect of having their power removed from them – and I’ve yet to hear of an Owners Corp that was happy with the imposition of a Statutory SM – might have the desired effect of getting their attention and forcing them to lift their game.

In reality, your friend would have to prove that some owners were suffering unduly because of the way the building was being run; the ongoing casual annexation of common property and the failure to manage the by-laws which led to even a minority of owners being disadvantaged would come into that category.

I wouldn’t recommend actually applying for the appointment of an SM but the mere showing of the instruments of torture seemed to work for the Spanish Inquisition, so it might be worth a bluff.

FYI:  Here’s the relevant section of the Act:

183B   Orders for appointment of strata managing agent

(1) Order appointing strata managing agent to exercise functions of owners corporation
The Tribunal may, on its own motion, make an order appointing a person as a strata managing agent:

(a)  to exercise all the functions of an owners corporation, or

(b)  to exercise specified functions of an owners corporation, or

(c)  to exercise all the functions other than specified functions of an owners corporation.

(2) Order may confer other functions on strata managing agent
The Tribunal may also order, when appointing a strata managing agent under this section, that the strata managing agent is to have and may exercise:

(a)  all the functions of the chairperson, secretary, treasurer or executive committee of the owners corporation, or

(b)  specified functions of the chairperson, secretary, treasurer or executive committee of the owners corporation, or

(c)  all the functions of the chairperson, secretary, treasurer or executive committee of the owners corporation other than specified functions.

(3) Circumstances in which order may be made
The Tribunal may make an order under this section only if satisfied that the management structure of a strata scheme … is not functioning or is not functioning satisfactorily.

It strikes me that the best way to pursue this line is for your friend to ask the OC’s insurers as well as his individual car insurers – policies may differ between companies and only they can provided definitive answers.

However, I have a horrible feeling that whoever bashed the car would be responsible – driving through a space that’s too narrow is a judgement call by the driver.

Your friend needs to bite the bullet and lodge a mediation application at Fair Trading.

I think in brief that cars should not be parked on common property especially on access driveways where the car may impede entry and exit to the buildings garages.As a previous posting says once 1 car starts doing it others will follow with even visitors parking all over the place.

If a parked car gets hit by another this is not covered by strata insurance as the vechicle was in effect parked illegally on common property.Visitors cars must be parked in the designated area if your complex has a special area marked visitors only.No area than park on public road.

Of course there are no parking police patrolling the site so any problems refer them to the strata manager.