sa国际传媒’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has dismissed a small claims action from condo owners who wanted $5,000 because their parking space was too small.
“While the applicants are disappointed with their parking stall, I find it was not the strata’s fault that the parking stall did not meet their expectations,” said tribunal member Micah Carmody in an .
Colin Hawes and Shuyu Kong co-own a unit in the False Creek condo and told Carmody their parking spot isn’t wide enough.
“The 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 restrict door opening,” Carmody said. “Videos the applicants submitted showing reverse and forward parking attempts confirm this.”
They said the strata misrepresented the parking stall’s width to them when they purchased the unit, and wanted the strata to replace their current parking stall with a different one.
Alternatively, they asked the strata to compensate them $5,000 for the cost of having to rent a common property parking stall.
The strata, however, said it made no claims about the stall, that Hawes and Kong should have inspected it before purchasing their strata lot. The strata said Hawes and Kong declined its offer to place them on a waiting list to rent a common parking stall.
“The applicants say they should not have to rent a stall because they should have a usable . . . parking stall,” Carmody said.
Carmody said the stall dimensions on the building’s plan are 2.61 by 5.59 metres. The parking stalls vary in size across the plan, with the narrowest being 2.44 metres.
Hawes and Kong said their stall is just under 2.42 metres at its widest point. “The strata say it accepts this, although it submitted a measurement of 2.47 metres,” Carmody said.”
“I therefore find 2.47 metres is the accurate measurement. I find the stall is 14 centimetres narrower than indicated on the strata plan.”
Carmody found the stall is neither convenient or easy to use and it was not reasonable for the applicants to rely only on the strata plan and not to inspect or inquire about the stall to ensure it would meet their needs.
“I find the strata has no obligation under the (Strata Property Act) or its bylaws to provide the applicants with a convenient parking stall,” Carmody said.
And, Carmody said, when the parking stall was not suitable it was also not reasonable for Hawes and Kong to expect the strata to convert a common property parking stall to limited common property for them, or to give them free use of a common property stall that other residents rent for monthly fee.
“I find the strata has not treated the applicants significantly unfairly,” the tribunal ruled.
