View Full Version : Can the Condo Mgt legally make a resolution to keep me from parking at condo?
Hi Forummers,
I have a newbie question to check with you guys.
You see, all along after I had rented my unit, I could keep my car label and drive in and out of my condo freely. Sometimes, I may even park my car overnight although I rented out my unit.
Until this month, the mgt office told me that they cannot let me keep my car label because the mgt have ruled that once I rented out my unit, I have technically transferred my parking lot to the tenant. However, I believe they are illegally depriving me of my parking lot.
1) I am still paying the same maintenance fees for the unit. So why pay the same when I cannot park my car. My tenants are not driving.
2) my agreement with the tenant is purely commercial arrangement and hence, I did not sign away my parking lot to my tenant. Rather, the mgt assumed that I had signed it away.
3) can the mgt com vote a resolution that is legally unfair and discriminatory?should and can I engage a lawyer to bring them to the table for discussion? Any forum brother/sister advise me based on their experience.
Thank you for taking time to read this. Me brother very appreciate any kind of help.
Cheers
Once your unit has been tenanted out, you are assigning all your rights to use the facilities to your tenant in return for rent from tenant.
If tenant didn't drive, he is not using his entitlement, but doesn't mean you can use the car park in turn. If MC allow you to do that, what if say 1 month later, your tenant got a car & want back the car park lot & there isn't anymore because all allocated?
Similar analogy, can you say your tenant didn't use tennis court, gym, swimming pool etc & then you go there to help them to make full use of the facilities?
I ever heard of cases where owner try to be funny, insisted on parking his car & then got wheel-clamped.
Another case where owner argued his right to book & use tennis court, then estate manager purposely stopped his tenant to book & use tennis court citing owner want to exercise his right of use, later tenant fxxx his owner upside down, saying if owner come to use facilities again, tenant will deduct rent payment for depriving his right to usage of facilities despite he already paid rent for them.
In some condos, there may be as many as >70% of condo units tenanted out. Let say the condo was built with facilites enough & designed for 100 units of residents, if that 70% owners think they are entitled to come back to use the facilities despite tenanted out, you think the facilities are enough for 170 units of residents?
On above basis, MC has right to stop you to use facilities in your condo once you tenant out your unit, & they are legally protected. You engage Queen's Counsel to fight your case also useless.
Hi Forummers,
I have a newbie question to check with you guys.
You see, all along after I had rented my unit, I could keep my car label and drive in and out of my condo freely. Sometimes, I may even park my car overnight although I rented out my unit.
Until this month, the mgt office told me that they cannot let me keep my car label because the mgt have ruled that once I rented out my unit, I have technically transferred my parking lot to the tenant. However, I believe they are illegally depriving me of my parking lot.
1) I am still paying the same maintenance fees for the unit. So why pay the same when I cannot park my car. My tenants are not driving.
2) my agreement with the tenant is purely commercial arrangement and hence, I did not sign away my parking lot to my tenant. Rather, the mgt assumed that I had signed it away.
3) can the mgt com vote a resolution that is legally unfair and discriminatory?should and can I engage a lawyer to bring them to the table for discussion? Any forum brother/sister advise me based on their experience.
Thank you for taking time to read this. Me brother very appreciate any kind of help.
Cheers
Oh yes, forgot to say MC don't even need to table this as a resolution to vote in AGM in order to keep you away from using the facilities (including car park) once you have tenanted out your unit. They are empowered to do so, presumably under BMSMA laws. Watch out for new changes coming out soon in BMSMA laws!
Once your unit has been tenanted out, you are assigning all your rights to use the facilities to your tenant in return for rent from tenant.
If tenant didn't drive, he is not using his entitlement, but doesn't mean you can use the car park in turn. If MC allow you to do that, what if say 1 month later, your tenant got a car & want back the car park lot & there isn't anymore because all allocated?
Similar analogy, can you say your tenant didn't use tennis court, gym, swimming pool etc & then you go there to help them to make full use of the facilities?
I ever heard of cases where owner try to be funny, insisted on parking his car & then got wheel-clamped.
Another case where owner argued his right to book & use tennis court, then estate manager purposely stopped his tenant to book & use tennis court citing owner want to exercise his right of use, later tenant fxxx his owner upside down, saying if owner come to use facilities again, tenant will deduct rent payment for depriving his right to usage of facilities despite he already paid rent for them.
In some condos, there may be as many as >70% of condo units tenanted out. Let say the condo was built with facilites enough & designed for 100 units of residents, if that 70% owners think they are entitled to come back to use the facilities despite tenanted out, you think the facilities are enough for 170 units of residents?
On above basis, MC has right to stop you to use facilities in your condo once you tenant out your unit, & they are legally protected. You engage Queen's Counsel to fight your case also useless.
Oh yes, forgot to say MC don't even need to table this as a resolution to vote in AGM in order to keep you away from using the facilities (including car park) once you have tenanted out your unit. They are empowered to do so, presumably under BMSMA laws. Watch out for new changes coming out soon in BMSMA laws!
Separately if the resident indiscriminately washing car at the Parking lot, can the ma wheel clamp as well without prior resolution ?
My place the ma is handicapped , the most issue warning letter but some resident simply care less!
btw, BMSMA is an act , not a law, which come in force in 2005.;)
An Act => Law! More power to MC soon! :ashamed1:
Certain issues clear cut ones, don't need to pass AGM.
Certain issues not so clear cut ones, need to pass AGM. Car washing "indiscriminately" is not so clear cut...
The BMSMA will spell this out more clearly soon in the revised version...
Separately if the resident indiscriminately washing car at the Parking lot, can the ma wheel clamp as well without prior resolution ?
My place the ma is handicapped , the most issue warning letter but some resident simply care less!
btw, BMSMA is an act , not a law, which come in force in 2005.;)
Hi Forummers,
I have a newbie question to check with you guys.
You see, all along after I had rented my unit, I could keep my car label and drive in and out of my condo freely. Sometimes, I may even park my car overnight although I rented out my unit.
Until this month, the mgt office told me that they cannot let me keep my car label because the mgt have ruled that once I rented out my unit, I have technically transferred my parking lot to the tenant. However, I believe they are illegally depriving me of my parking lot.
1) I am still paying the same maintenance fees for the unit. So why pay the same when I cannot park my car. My tenants are not driving.
2) my agreement with the tenant is purely commercial arrangement and hence, I did not sign away my parking lot to my tenant. Rather, the mgt assumed that I had signed it away.
3) can the mgt com vote a resolution that is legally unfair and discriminatory?should and can I engage a lawyer to bring them to the table for discussion? Any forum brother/sister advise me based on their experience.
Thank you for taking time to read this. Me brother very appreciate any kind of help.
Cheers
A lot of condo facing parking lot problems. Some are resulted due to family members grown up and having 2nd or 3rd car which are common. These are over scribed, some case is the ma over issue the pass and nn proper control leading to insufficient parking lot.
What ever the case,if you are not staying there, u should not park overnight even u are the owner.But once u registered u have reprocess the unit and staying there, the ma is obliged to issue you the first parking lot. 2nd and 3rd will be subjected to avalibility.
An Act => Law! More power to MC soon! :ashamed1:
Certain issues clear cut ones, don't need to pass AGM.
Certain issues not so clear cut ones, need to pass AGM. Car washing "indiscriminately" is not so clear cut...
The BMSMA will spell this out more clearly soon in the revised version...
Let no go too technical in to diff between act or law..
Ya.. I really hope it can empower the ma to do more..and spell out particular on this issue.
Some ppl really nn civil minded and I had seen ppl washing at handicapp parking lot too..:banghead:
Respect this forum for immediate wise response. Faster, better and cheaper than to engage a QC. Under the Bo Bian Act/Law, I close those case. Good night Teddy and ZZZ. :sleep:
Let no go too technical in to diff between act or law..
Ya.. I really hope it can empower the ma to do more..and spell out particular on this issue.
Some ppl really nn civil minded and I had seen ppl washing at handicapp parking lot too..:banghead:
Respect this forum for immediate wise response. Faster, better and cheaper than to engage a QC. Under the Bo Bian Act/Law, I close those case. Good night Teddy and ZZZ. :sleep:
Thanks, Draven005 for bringing up this issue which is a real practical issue faced by condo owners / tenants and MA. Also wish to say that Teddybear's advice / points are valid.
Talking about MA... why not vote out the MA?
..... and staying there, the ma is obliged to issue you the first parking lot. 2nd and 3rd will be subjected to avalibility.
Actually.. there is no rule/law/civil/common law that says each unit is ENTITLED to 1 lot per unit. This is just an ASSUMPTION based on the 100% carpark provision rule.
Newer condos near to MRT have only 80% carpark provision, and have to ballot.
wat if say a project got 500 units & there are 500 carpark lots?
is tis implied to be 1 per unit or still subject to balloting?
if no balloting req'd, wat's gg to happen to those units wif more den 1 car?
Hi Forummers,
I have a newbie question to check with you guys.
You see, all along after I had rented my unit, I could keep my car label and drive in and out of my condo freely. Sometimes, I may even park my car overnight although I rented out my unit.
Until this month, the mgt office told me that they cannot let me keep my car label because the mgt have ruled that once I rented out my unit, I have technically transferred my parking lot to the tenant. However, I believe they are illegally depriving me of my parking lot.
1) I am still paying the same maintenance fees for the unit. So why pay the same when I cannot park my car. My tenants are not driving.
2) my agreement with the tenant is purely commercial arrangement and hence, I did not sign away my parking lot to my tenant. Rather, the mgt assumed that I had signed it away.
3) can the mgt com vote a resolution that is legally unfair and discriminatory?should and can I engage a lawyer to bring them to the table for discussion? Any forum brother/sister advise me based on their experience.
Thank you for taking time to read this. Me brother very appreciate any kind of help.
Cheers
which development is this?
thomastansb
24-10-13, 10:08
Normally, if 500 units and 300 lots taken up, then the remaining lots will be balloted. But if 450 owners say, no second lot, then MA will not issue a second parking lot. Really depends a lot on the residents during AGM. There is no hard and fast rule.
wat if say a project got 500 units & there are 500 carpark lots?
is tis implied to be 1 per unit or still subject to balloting?
if no balloting req'd, wat's gg to happen to those units wif more den 1 car?
..... can the mgt com vote a resolution that is legally unfair and discriminatory?should and can I engage a lawyer to bring them to the table for discussion?
Before we talk about engaging lawyers.. u need to understand which contract term, rule or law was violated, and then the lawyer can fight your case.
If it's going to be purely based on oppression/discrimination/common law, be prepared for substantial legal fees. And if the MCST decides to engage a senior counsel to represent them... this is really going to be interesting.
Normally, if 500 units and 300 lots taken up, then the remaining lots will be balloted. But if 450 owners say, no second lot, then MA will not issue a second parking lot. Really depends a lot on the residents during AGM. There is no hard and fast rule.
so do u mean to say if the majority of the residents objects to the releasing of the remaining 200 units, MA will let the 200 units go idle?
unless they come up wif a ruling eg owners nid to pay more in order to be given a 2nd or more car lots?
According to the law, yes! :beats-me-man:
so do u mean to say if the majority of the residents objects to the releasing of the remaining 200 units, MA will let the 200 units go idle?
unless they come up wif a ruling eg owners nid to pay more in order to be given a 2nd or more car lots?
Why is it that different units are allocated different shares to determine the maintenance fees i.e. bigger units pay more but each unit is only allocated one car park lot so to speak?
Why is it that different units are allocated different shares to determine the maintenance fees i.e. bigger units pay more but each unit is only allocated one car park lot so to speak?
Actually allocation depends solely on the MC subject to being voted at the AGM
Talking about MA... why not vote out the MA?
MA is the employee of the MC and takes orders from the MC
According to the law, yes! :beats-me-man:
tat's great! hehe :D
may not be very fair for 1 family to cross subsidize another ...
Why is it that different units are allocated different shares to determine the maintenance fees i.e. bigger units pay more but each unit is only allocated one car park lot so to speak?
so I feel the best way to be fair to everyone is to break up maintenance fees.
Eg, instead of :
1 bedder $200, 2 bedders $250, 3 bedders $300 etc,
change to
1 bedder $170, 2 bedders $220, 3 bedders $270.
Each carpark lot pay $50 more.
no one will kpkb ...
astroboy8681
24-10-13, 15:57
tat's great! hehe :D
may not be very fair for 1 family to cross subsidize another ...
so I feel the best way to be fair to everyone is to break up maintenance fees.
Eg, instead of :
1 bedder $200, 2 bedders $250, 3 bedders $300 etc,
change to
1 bedder $170, 2 bedders $220, 3 bedders $270.
Each carpark lot pay $50 more.
no one will kpkb ...
obviously mermaid you don't drive... but give a consideration for others who do ma.... hehe
obviously mermaid you don't drive... but give a consideration for others who do ma.... hehe
cannot liddat say ...
cos if say owner dun drive, tenants might be driving, still will nid to pay the $50 per lot ...
u will realise tat as long as ppl hv oni 1 car, the diff is negligible.
but u will agree tat is the best way to shut ppl's mouth up.
Why is it that different units are allocated different shares to determine the maintenance fees i.e. bigger units pay more but each unit is only allocated one car park lot so to speak?
You may find your answers here..
http://www.bca.gov.sg/BMSM/others/Share_Value_Guidelines.pdf
Share Values are assigned by BCA, efficient allocation of limited carpark spaces is a MCST matter.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.