A dispute over the size of a parking stall in the underground garage of a condo building ended up in court.
Colin Hawes and Shuyu Kong, who co-own a strata lot in a building in Vancouver, took the strata to the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal.
The reason? The parking spot they were assigned when they bought their unit isnsa国际传媒檛 big enough, they said in the CRT ruling, and they wanted a new spot assigned to them.
sa国际传媒淭he applicants say their limited common property (LCP) parking stall is too narrow to safely use,sa国际传媒� reads the CRT ruling. sa国际传媒淭hey say the strata misrepresented the parking stallsa国际传媒檚 width to them when they purchased their strata lot. The applicants want the strata to replace their current parking stall with a different one. Alternatively, they ask the strata to compensate them for the cost of having to rent a common property (CP) parking stall. They give their claim a $5,000 value.sa国际传媒�
The strata disagreed, saying the fault lies with the buyers for not doing due diligence, said the CRT ruling.
sa国际传媒淭he strata says it made no representations about the parking stall,sa国际传媒� according to the ruling. sa国际传媒淚t says the applicants should have inspected the stall before purchasing their strata lot. It says the parking stalls all vary in width, and the previous owners used the same parking stall without a problem. The strata says the applicants declined its offer to place them on a waiting list to rent a CP parking stall. The strata says I should dismiss the claim.sa国际传媒�
The CRT claim listed the size of the parking stall as 2.42-metres wide, but the CRT adjudicator in the case agreed with the stratasa国际传媒檚 assertion that the size was actually 2.47 metres, 14 centimetres narrower than indicated on the strata plan. Parking stalls vary in size in the building, said the CRT ruling.
sa国际传媒淭he applicants say getting in and out of their vehicle is further constrained by a concrete riser and pillar on the right-hand side when facing the stall, which restricts door opening,sa国际传媒� said the CRT ruling. sa国际传媒淰ideos the applicants submitted showing reverse and forward parking attempts confirm this. The applicants drive a compact crossover sport utility vehicle. From the videos, I accept that parking in the stall presents a challenge for a reasonable driver with a normal vehicle. I do not find that it is impossible to use the stall, but I find that it is not easy or convenient. This conclusion is supported by the applicantssa国际传媒� evidence that the narrow parking stall has led them to significantly reduce their vehicle use, but not to stop using it altogether.sa国际传媒�
Hawes and Kong said they relied on the sa国际传媒渋naccuratesa国际传媒� strata plan when buying their unit, said the CRT ruling.
sa国际传媒淭he applicantssa国际传媒� submissions focus on the stratasa国际传媒檚 refusal to provide a different parking stall,sa国际传媒� reads the ruling. sa国际传媒淭he applicants say one of the CP parking stalls could simply be sa国际传媒榚xchangedsa国际传媒� for their parking stall. Alternatively, they say the strata could cover the cost of renting a CP parking stall. I find the strata has no obligation under the SPA or its bylaws to provide the applicants with a convenient parking stall.sa国际传媒�
In the end, the CRT dismissed the claims and said it would not resolve claims about misrepresentation.
sa国际传媒淲hile the applicants are disappointed with their parking stall, I find it was not the stratasa国际传媒檚 fault that the parking stall did not meet their expectations,sa国际传媒� reads the CRT ruling. sa国际传媒淚 find it was not reasonable for the applicants to rely exclusively on the strata plan without inspecting the stall. When the parking stall was not suitable it was also not reasonable for the applicants to expect the strata to convert a CP parking stall to LCP for them, or to give them free use of a CP stall that other residents rent for monthly fee. I find the strata has not treated the applicants significantly unfairly. I therefore dismiss the applicantssa国际传媒� claim.sa国际传媒�
READ MORE:
