A homeowner who had some issues with her designated parking stall took it up with the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal but didn’t quite get her way.
The applicant in the case, a homeowner who owns one of the strata lots in the building in question, claimed that the strata had reduced the size of her parking stall. This, according to the homeowner, forced her vehicle to occupy two spots.
At some point, when she was parked, occupying her own stall and another homeowner’s adjacent space, her vehicle was towed. She brought a legal fight against the strata and the other homeowners to pay $1,000 for her towing fees and other damages.
The strata, one of the respondents in the case, denied reducing the width of her stall. The strata added that the vehicle was towed after, and only she was given an ample warning about occupying both stalls. The other respondent, the owner of the other stall, said that she shared the parking area with the applicant and also noted that the entire area was reduced to accommodate a structural support pillar, but agreed with the strata’s other claims, asking for the applicant’s case to be dismissed.
According to photos submitted to the tribunal, support columns are located on the perimeter of the two parking stalls in question, not between them.
The tribunal also agreed with the strata that, based on all evidence provided, the width of the parking stalls was not reduced.
“This also means that the respondent’s understanding that the parking area for both strata lots is shared by the SL6 and SL8 owners is incorrect,” the decision notes.
The changes to the area required the respondent to park around two feet closer to the applicant.
The tribunal had to calculate some math to understand the situation entirely.
“The respondent says she owns a 2021 Nissan Qashqai. This is the vehicle in the photographs that is parked in her stall. Based on the manufacturer’s specifications for this vehicle, it is 72.3 inches wide or 6.025 feet. Therefore, if she parks beside the additional support column as the photographs show, the width of her vehicle plus the column equals about 8.025 feet.”
The results of those calculations led the tribunal to the conclusion that the respondent could park her vehicle (2021 Nissan Qashqai) next to the support column while remaining entirely within her stall. The tribunal also noted that the applicant’s car (Honda CR-Z) was much smaller than the respondent’s vehicle, meaning she should’ve been able to fully park in the single stall instead of occupying both.
Turning to the applicant’s claim for damages, the tribunal found that the strata had every right to tow the vehicle and found it more than likely that the homeowner was parked in both stalls. It also noted that the strata did attempt to call and discuss the matter with the homeowner before the towing took place, but the applicant “refused to answer the door or her telephone.”
“It appears towing the vehicle was a joint effort between the respondent and the strata. The respondent apparently contacted the towing company, and a council member met the tow driver when the vehicle was removed. In any event, I find that the respondent had a right to have the vehicle towed because it was in her LCP parking stall,” the decision states.
The tribunal dismissed all claims.