By the Paddocks Club team
Below are examples of two questions on the Paddocks Club discussion forum, to show you what is available to our Community members!
Can permanent residents use the scheme’s visitor’s parking?
Member’s question:
Good day Paddocks,
An owner rents out her 2 bedroom with 1 garage. 1 vehicle is parked in the garage and the other in front of the garage. These are the 2 parking spaces allocated to the unit.
It recently came to the management’s attention that the unit is now occupied by the tenant and two adult family members, one of whom has a vehicle that is parked in the visitor’s parking lot.
The CONDUCT RULES (Prescribed in terms of section 10(2)(b) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act, 2011 (Act No. 8 of 2011) state the following:
3. VEHICLES
3.1 The owner or occupier of a section must not, except in a case of emergency, without the written consent of the Trustees, park a vehicle, allow a vehicle to stand or permit a visitor to park or stand a vehicle on any part of the common property other than a parking bay allocated to that section or a parking bay allocated for visitors’ parking.
3.2 A consent under sub-rule (1) must state the period for which it is given.
The owner asked for permission they could park the 3rd vehicle on the visitors parking until the lease expires, however, management decided against it due to a previous incident where another tenant with multiple vehicles rented a unit.
The owner sent a lawyer’s letter to Management with the following:
“In terms of rule 3 of the rules of conduct under the heading Vehicles, any occupier of a unit is entitled to park his/her vehicle on a visitor parking lot and you are hereby notified that the said occupier intends to park her vehicle on one of to park the two mentioned visitor parking lots.”
Can a permanent resident park their vehicle on visitor parking or leave it there because there is no space at the allocated parking for the specific unit where she now lives?
Jennifer’s answer:
Dear member,
No. The resident is not entitled to park in a visitors parking bay in these circumstances. In fact, PCR 3(1) specifically prohibits this – except in the case of genuine emergencies – without the written consent of the trustees.
Here is an article setting out the different ways in which the BC can legally allocate common property parking bays to owners – in case there is space to create an additional bay or bays and the BC is keen to proceed with the project.
However, if the resident continues to illegally park in the visitors parking bay/s, the BC or any person materially affected can bring an application to the CSOS for relief.
Regards
Jennifer
Informally creating extra parking bays via PMR 29 (2)
Member’s question:
Hi Paddocks,
The trustees in a complex that we manage have been trying to make space for each unit to have a parking bay as parking has become a major issue. They have therefore proposed informally “creating” 2 or 3 extra bays on the common property where parking bays were not demarcated on the original sectional plan and have done this in terms of PMR 29 (2).
An owner has now contested this outside of the 30-day period on the basis that this has not been properly approved by a land surveyor and has concerns that there would not be sufficient room for emergency vehicles, like a fire truck to maneuver in and out of the parking area.
Please could you advise how you would tackle this issue?
Graham’s answer:
Dear member,
This question raises a whole lot of issues.
The trustees first step should be to make sure that the objecting owner is not correct that putting EU bays in the position they propose will impede access for emergency vehicles. They should approach the council for confirmation on this point.
If emergency vehicle access is not a problem, then we return to how to make these common property areas subject to EU rights and give those rights to the two or three areas they think need them.
If the common property areas the trustees have in mind need ‘improvement’ or ‘alteration’ that will cost the BC money, then the trustees would have to use PMR 29 to get authority to spend BC money on the project. However, if the areas in question are already tarmac surfaced and all that has to be done is for other owners to agree to give up their rights to use those areas, with white lines to demarcate them, I don’t think that PMR 29(1) or (2) could apply.
Then we get to the nub of the issue, the creation and allocation of the EU rights. Here are some general comments:
- EU rights can be created in terms of rules or by registration. The different process involved are set out in the Survival Manual available under the BOOKS tab above, but in short registration is much slower and more expensive than making a rule and having it approved.
- The other owners are not obliged to give up their use rights to these proposed additional bays—it will require a special resolution at least to create and allocate the rights in terms of rules and a unanimous resolution to have them registered.
- It is not unusual for owners to require that whoever gets the EU rights should pay the BC a fair market value for them.
- The owners identified by the trustees have no preferential right to acquire EU parking rights. It is not unusual for new bays to be auctioned to the highest bidding owners.
- If sufficient other owners are keen to have more bays in the scheme, happy to let the owners the trustees have identified have the rights and satisfied with the financial arrangements (payment is not always required, but it is usual for the owners getting the rights to pay all the associated legal and draftsperson/surveyor costs) then the trustee can go ahead.
I suggest that the trustees should start by talking to all owners and then making a proposal that covers the points above in a way they think sensible. They should also get the BC lawyer on board to handle the drafting of the rule.
Kind regards
Graham
Member’s additional question:
Hi Graham,
Thank you for your comprehensive feedback.
In this case the trustees merely want to convert common area (that is already tarred) into body corporate parking bays, by painting lines on the tar. These will not be EUA bays. Does this change your response at all?
Graham’s answer:
Absolutely – remove the EU aspect and it gets much simpler.
The trustees still need to check the emergency access issue—that is a fiduciary responsibility, but in addition to that on this scenario they don’t need to get special or unanimous resolutions from owners.
My recommendation is that they tell owners, in detail and with a plan, what they propose doing and specifically state that they are not proposing EU rights, just making more open parking bays available to all owners, which will also not be reserved for visitors.
If they get many owners objecting to the proposal, I suggest that they should put it on the agenda of the next AGM / SGM and ask owners to give them a direction to do this.
Kind regards
Graham
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 17, Issue 12.
Graham Paddock is available to answer questions on the Paddocks Club discussion forum for Community members. Get all your questions answered by joining Paddocks Club.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Recent Posts
Archives
- 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
Recent Comments