We often categorise the issues we experience in sectional title schemes as the “three ‘P’s’ of sectional title living”, namely pets, parking and people, which are more often than not, the cause of all the problems in sectional title schemes. Although this list has been added to over time, the abovementioned three issues remain the favourites.
Prescribed Conduct Rule (“PCR”) 3(1) included in Annexure 9 to the Regulations under the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 (“the Act”) provides that no owner or occupier shall park or stand any vehicle upon the common property, or permit or allow any vehicle to be parked or stood upon the common property, without the consent of the trustees in writing.
Demarcated visitors parking bays are included in this PCR, and many schemes specifically prohibit or regulate residents’ use of visitors parking bays in their additional, amended or substituted registered conduct rules.
PCR 3(2) further provides that the trustees may cause to be removed or towed away, at the risk and expense of the owner of the vehicle, any vehicle parked, standing or abandoned on the common property without the trustees’ consent.
This PCR does not provide that the trustees may themselves remove or tow away the vehicle, rather that they arrange for the removal or towing away of the vehicle. By arranging a specialised contractor, the trustees reduce the risk of possible damage to the vehicle, and liability for such damage. However, the situation has occurred when the trustees, managing agent or scheme employees have been unsuccessful in their attempts to arrange such a contractor to come out to the scheme to remove and / or tow away a vehicle. In such a case, clamping of the vehicle may be a better option.
PCR 3(2) does not provide for clamping of vehicles, however the scheme’s registered rules may provide for this action to be taken by the trustees, managing agent, security or other scheme employee. This additional, amended or substituted rule will need to comply with the provisions of section 35 of the Act, in so far as the rule has been approved by the members by either unanimous or special resolution, and that the rule has been filed with the Registrar of Deeds.
Bearing in mind that PCR 3(2) provides that the owner of the vehicle will be liable for the expense of removing and / or towing away the vehicle, when drafting a rule providing for clamping of vehicles, provision may be made for a release fee or penalty to be paid by the owner of the vehicle before the clamp will be removed from the vehicle. Issues may arise when the owner of the vehicle wishes to remove the vehicle at a time when there is no one available to release the clamp ie. late at night. When clamping the vehicle, it is suggested that a notice be placed on the car, providing the contact details of the party in charge of releasing the clamp.
As with any fining or penalty provision in the scheme’s rules, the rule (and the amount of the fine or penalty imposed) must be reasonable, in terms of section 35(3) of the Act, and be enforced through proper procedure.
Image source: amberpm.wordpress.com/category/civil-code
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 10, Issue 9, Page 2.
Zerlinda van der Merwe has recently been admitted as an Attorney of the High Court. She is a specialist Sectional Title Attorney (BA LLB LLM) and soon to be qualified Conveyancer. Zerlinda forms part of the Paddocks Private Consulting Division and brings a wealth of experience and additional services. If you would like to schedule a consultation with Zerlinda, please contact Nicole on 021 686 3950 or consulting@paddocks.co.za.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Graham Paddock on Body Corporate Functions: Insurance
- Graham Paddock on Spending body corporate funds
- Graham Paddock on The Levy Clearance Certificate: The Body Corporate’s Cheap & Effective Weapon
- Graham Paddock on The benefits of online sectional title meetings
- Heinz Wiesner on The benefits of online sectional title meetings
Archives
- October 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- February 2008
- February 2007
6 Comments.
We have 2 fairly large dedicated visitors parking areas in our scheme , besides these our Conduct Rules are clear that that double garages are allowed 2 cars and an additional car in front of the garage door or parallel to the garage .Single garages 1 car and 1 car in the driveway. outside my boundry wall there is space where if 3 cars parked at an angle could fit ,but many owners or visitors regularly use this space and park along the wall so that in that event ony one car can park there . I have no problem with cars parking there but I have recently complained that bakkies or 4X4 should not park there because if they do , they are able to look into my bathroom window and that I did not want to be looking into someone’s cab ( they are higher than a normal car). one of the Trustees now wants to have lines drawn on this area ( which is part of the common property) to allow more cars to be able to park there diagonally. I am concerned that this could affect the value of my property if this is seen as a public parking area. Having said this I would like to point out that our parking areas are not ever so full that there is no parking space for visitors. Can i object to this ?
Hi Malja,
Thank you for your comment. We would love to help but unfortunately do not give free advice. Here’s how we can help:
– We offer a Free Basics of Sectional Title 1-week short course. You’ll be able to ask your course instructor any related questions. Find out more here.
– We offer consulting via telephone for R390 for 10 minutes. Please call us on +27 21 686 3950.
– We have Paddocks Club, an exclusive online club, to help you get answers to your questions about community schemes. Find out more here.
Kind regards
Paddocks
Hi there…
What action can I take as a owner towards a renting tenant of our scheme that is parking in front of the gates, blocking my way in and out of the garages? On the gates we have already posted signs of No Parking, Tow-Away Zone, but she ignores it completely.
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your comment. We would love to help, however we do not give free advice. Here’s how we can help:
– We offer a 1-week Free Basics of Sectional Title short course.
– We offer consulting via telephone for R490 for 10 minutes. Please call us on 021 686 3950.
– We have Paddocks Club, an exclusive online club, to help you get answers to your questions about community schemes.
Kind regards,
Paddocks
Is it a requirement that a vehicle parked on the common property or parking bays must have a valid licence disc…….what if the disc expires and the owner does not renew for a period of 3 months or so? perhaps as a result of an overseas visit.
Hi there,
Thank you for your comment.
This is something our attorneys would be able to assist with. Please email us on consulting@paddocks.co.za with regards to your matter, and we can provide you with a no-obligation quote, so that we can assist you.
Kind regards,
Paddocks