- This topic has 7 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
The Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT) has notified our Owners’ Corporation (OC) that the tenant in one of our lots has to appear before the CTTT about one of her sub-tenants (boarder?) parking in the visitor car parking spaces. The lot has a double garage which does not provide parking space for everyone living/visiting the lot in question.
Why is the owner of the lot not called as a co-respondent? In my opinion the owner(s) of a lot, and possibly their managing agents, should ensure that the lease clearly indicates the number of occupants entitled to live in their lot, including the number of car owners entitled to live there. Such lease conditions should alleviate the problems the EC has encountered with the tenant(s) of this lot. Breach of such lease conditions should immediately revoke the lease and put the tenant(s) who are in breach on the street.
A similar argument could be applied to unethical selling agents and their principals who sell a strata lot to prospective purchasers who have two or more cars when there is only a single garage in the lot to be sold. The legitimate car space(s) should be stated in the sales contract and be treated as a condition of the sale which, when breached, would void the sales contract.
Wishful thinking on my part? Look forward to your comments.
Jef
-
Replies
-
Tenants are equally responsible for observance of the by-laws as owners. Why would you have a lease condition requiring only so many car owners to live there, when they may be doing the right thing and parking their car in a legitimate place, ie not in a visitor car space? Anyhow they may not be car owners as such, having leased or borrowed the vehicle, and then parking in the visitor space. You’re also asking a bit much of the selling agent as well to determine whether prospective tenants are telling porkies about the number of vehicles they intend to bring with them.
Though I did once jump on a real estate agent who was advertising “additional parking” with a unit, which only had a single garage. I told him in no uncertain terms that the visitor parking on common property was not part of the title being sold therefore he must remove the reference from the advertisement. The unit he was selling was no different to any other in the complex, it had no additional allocated car parking.
Legitimate car spaces are shown on the strata plan as part of the lot, but how many cars the owners or tenants have at the beginning of their occupancy should have no bearing for the reasons above. In any case what is to stop them acquiring more vehicles after they take up occupancy under your suggestion?
regards
Dave B
Def agree owner should be included in the dispute as it’s his / her house.
If it’s an adjudication hearing their is allowance on the form for more than one respondent to be included. Maybe whoever lodged the claim didn’t know (it’s as simple as that).
The number of people living in strata who understand even the basic rules is few and far between. That is why this forum is so good you can get real down to earth answers (rather than legal speak).
We had this debate just the other week, where someone was outraged that tenants were being approached directly by the EC. My view at the time was, and still is, that as a tenant I’d rather deal with complaints myself than be dobbed in to my landlord who might then kick me out.
In this case, I think you treat the tenants as adults and tell them that they are in breach and give them an opportunity to mend their ways (they won’t be the first residents – tenants or owners – to not know what the rules are).
But if they persist, you certainly should contact the owners and explain that their tenants are in breach of the by-laws, and therefore in breach of their lease and ask what they plan to do about it. If they say ‘nothing’ then, sure, send them a Notice To Comply too.
I think the big difference is that the tenants are in breach of the by-laws whereas lax landlords are in breach of the strata Act (Section 117, I think) by permitting their tenants to breach the by-laws.
It’s not as simple as dragging the landlords in on the same Notice To Comply – nor do I think it should be. You can’t hold people responsible for other people’s behaviour – all you can do make them accountable when there’s something they could have done but haven’t.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
@Jef said:
In my opinion the owner(s) of a lot, and possibly their managing agents, should ensure that the lease clearly indicates the number of occupants entitled to live in their lot, including the number of car owners entitled to live there. Such lease conditions should alleviate the problems the EC has encountered with the tenant(s) of this lot. Breach of such lease conditions should immediately revoke the lease and put the tenant(s) who are in breach on the street.
Landlords are required by law to give tenants a copy of the by-laws. Breach of the by-laws is a breach of the terms of their lease and can lead to eviction. But you have to prove the breach and you have to give people a chance to do the right thing. The CTTT (quite rightly) isn’t going to put people on the street just because someone saw them parking in a visitor’s space and reported it to the EC.
Most leases refer to the number of people allowed to occupy the apartment. As to the number of cars, you could have one person with four cars, each of which might be legally parked in a car space leased from another owner.
You don’t need complicated by-laws that restrict people from doing what they want … just from doing what’s wrong. As far as rental agents go, I think ECs should be encouraged to blacklist agents (the same way agents blacklist tenants) for persistently renting units in the wrong building to the wrong people. You can’t ban them but you can warn your owners that there are certain agents that are likely to bring trouble to their doors.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
Unfortunately living in a complex of 35 units with only 7 visitor parking spaces the chance of actually getting a visitor parking space for a ‘genuine’ visitor is 99% of the time impossible.
This breach of bylaw is constantly discussed at every EC meeting.
We have an Executive Committee Chairman who only wants everything (no matter what the issue) handled in the softly softly approach. He has taken it upon himself to issue a newletter every couple of months and in the last 1 he mentioned the parking in visitor spaces and ‘requested’ all those concerned to address him with any solutions. e.g the people who abuse the visitor spaces to give their opinions. So yet again we have gotten nowhere with this issue and its the same old people using visitors parking 24/7 and now to top it all off the EC chairman has been utilising the visitors parking for both of his cars since before Christmas.
It is a joke and there needs to some way around this issue.
It doesn’t require the EC to take action (although that is preferable). Take photos of the Chairpersons cars illegally parked and start proceeding against him yourself at CTTT. You cannot issue a NTC but you can go to arbitration and then adjudication if he persists in refusing to comply.
You cannot expect others to obey the rules if the chairperson himself ignores them.
If you can get a ruling against him he will soon start enforcing the ruling against others when he finds he cannot park in the visitor bays but others are doing.
As kiwioaul has said take photos. Not just of the chairmans car but all cars. Then this is what I would do. I would write to the chairman saying that on advice you were told that to take further action you would need to photo evidence (digital with date stamp some smart phones don’t record the date). Then attach the photos of all cars without saying that hou know who owns which car. Tell the chairman that if the EC does not instigate a firm letter to all residents and then issue ntc to those who ignore the notice that you will take the matter further.
Now this may seem like a bluff and essentially it is. I have bluffed those on the EC here in just such a way as we had EC members who abused the visitors parking and then stating, in writing, that they could do whatever they wanted too as they apparently were more important. I let it be known that I had photos, and I wasn’t afraid to use them. Funny, the visitors car parks have been empty 99% of the time lately. Do I have photos? Yes I do. Have I taken it further? No need at the moment. All quiet on the visitor parking front – for now.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.