7 day parking limit in condo

[Robert Paulson]

Out of nowhere a new management company came in and instituted this regulation. I don’t suppose any of you lads have a way to get around it? If you violate the 7 days they lock your car tires and fine you.
 

The thing I really don’t understand is to me the entire point of a condo is to be able to take trips and leave the place be for months on end. This parking regulation completely ruins the entire advantage of having a condo.  

[Crossy]

I don't think they can actually change the local bylaws without an owner's meeting (ask for the minutes).

 

Notification of an extended absence by registered letter would (hopefully) net an exception, but TiT so who really knows.

 

I'm sure they instigated the rule to ensure that vehicles don't get abandoned in the parking (there were a couple in our parking for several years) but 7 days seems somewhat silly.

 

[Robert Paulson]

4 minutes ago, Crossy said:

I don't think they can actually change the local bylaws without an owner's meeting (ask for the minutes).

 

Notification of an extended absence by registered letter would (hopefully) net an exception, but TiT so who really knows.

 

I'm sure they instigated the rule to ensure that vehicles don't get abandoned in the parking (there were a couple in our parking for several years) but 7 days seems somewhat silly.

 

It’s not only silly, the guys in charge of keeping track aren’t even good at counting the days. I have no idea what their system is. I got locked one time and my car had moved a day prior. Thanks for the reply. 
 

from what I could gather it’s due to overcrowding, or not enough spots. Moving a car to a different spot doesn’t seem like it would relieve that though. Also from what I could gather there are no exceptions, but I could have lost something in translation. 

[newnative]

    A condo management company should not have the power to institute a rule change such as this.  Management companies should not be independently making up rules.  Instead, they should be following dictates from the condo board, which should be following both the bylaws and agenda items, budget, etc., approved at the annual meetings.   As previously stated, this type of rule change should have been voted on by the condo owners.  I think you need to get more information from both the management company and the condo board with this issue.  Something doesn't sound right to me.

[tomazbodner]

1 hour ago, Robert Paulson said:

Out of nowhere a new management company came in and instituted this regulation. I don’t suppose any of you lads have a way to get around it? If you violate the 7 days they lock your car tires and fine you.
 

The thing I really don’t understand is to me the entire point of a condo is to be able to take trips and leave the place be for months on end. This parking regulation completely ruins the entire advantage of having a condo.  

Our condo has 14 days rule and it's enforced by 1000 baht fine for each day afterwards. It's been there since day 1. There's shortage of parking spaces (I think it's 30 or 40% of the number of units) so most support regulation, except those who bought car and just left it in parking lot. Seen a couple locked so far, with visible layer of dust on them. Some take a drive around the parking building to stamp out and in and can stay another 2 weeks. But others, for example when going somewhere for a long holiday, inform juristic office to get a waiver for the time away.

 

7 days is rather short though.

[impulse]

1 hour ago, newnative said:

    A condo management company should not have the power to institute a rule change such as this.  Management companies should not be independently making up rules.  Instead, they should be following dictates from the condo board, which should be following both the bylaws and agenda items, budget, etc., approved at the annual meetings.   As previously stated, this type of rule change should have been voted on by the condo owners.  I think you need to get more information from both the management company and the condo board with this issue.  Something doesn't sound right to me.

 

I've seen cases where such a rule was approved for many years, but not enforced.   Often because enough units are vacant that parking spots aren't an issue.  Then one day...

 

Obviously, the OP should inquire.   And see if there are waivers available (if he needs one).  Also, check to see what constitutes 7 days.  In the same spot, or not crossing the gate (in and out), or just being there.  I've lived in condos (not Thailand) where residents helped each other out by moving their traveling friends' cars around occasionally so they weren't in the same spot too long.

 

Edited March 5 by impulse

[Robert Paulson]

2 hours ago, tomazbodner said:

Our condo has 14 days rule and it's enforced by 1000 baht fine for each day afterwards. It's been there since day 1. There's shortage of parking spaces (I think it's 30 or 40% of the number of units) so most support regulation, except those who bought car and just left it in parking lot. Seen a couple locked so far, with visible layer of dust on them. Some take a drive around the parking building to stamp out and in and can stay another 2 weeks. But others, for example when going somewhere for a long holiday, inform juristic office to get a waiver for the time away.

 

7 days is rather short though.

One of the things I don’t understand is how is moving a car from one spot to another, helping relieve any sort of parking shortage? I mean I can see it of course, people have to move, but as you say most people who only use their car a few times a month just move it and repark. Policy seems crazy to me. I’d totally support car removal or fees that have flat tires and cobwebs on them. 
 

I’ll try to get some more information. From what I could gather there were no waivers for when one is on vacation.

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

One of the things I don’t understand is how is moving a car from one spot to another, helping relieve any sort of parking shortage? I mean I can see it of course, people have to move, but as you say most people who only use their car a few times a month just move it and repark. Policy seems crazy to me. I’d totally support car removal or fees that have flat tires and cobwebs on them. 
 

I’ll try to get some more information. From what I could gather there were no waivers for when one is on vacation.

 

I think what happens is that people let their friends park their car or bike at their condo while they travel overseas etc.

This takes up the space of residents, so to isolate those cars in use, they observe the movement. 

 

This is a lazy and clumsy way of monitoring this. I recall the juristic committee of condo I owned bringing this law in. 

The issue we had is that we'd travel overseas regularly 2-3 times per year for up to a month, it was impossible to move the car every week and I wasn't about to start. 

I just left a note with reception that xxxx is our car and is not to be touched while we are away.

 

There were no further issues. 

 

Thus: IF the Op is in a Condo and his/her car is not moved within a week and they want to 'clamp' his car, then they are being unreasonable...  Just tell reception its your car and not to be touched. If they do want to clamp it, take an angle grinder to the clamp, but realistically, those enforcing this issue need to see some logic. 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

13 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

I’ll try to get some more information. From what I could gather there were no waivers for when one is on vacation.

 

It happens a lot in Thailand, some dumb rule is pushed through that raises concern.  Then, once the impracticalities are realised whomever pushes said rule goes quiet and things just go back to normal.

 

The rule is unreasonable, especially for those going on holiday... So just tell them, if you are going away and not to clamp your car. 

Leave the rest up to them - a reasonable juristic committee and front office staff should have no issue with this. 

 

 

[Crossy]

It might be better to propose a number of numbered, paid, parking spots that would be defined for a specific vehicle which wouldn't be affected by the rule.

 

The remaining (unpaid) slots would be the standard free-for-all and face the wrath of the day counters. 

 

An increasing number of condos seem to be being constructed with less than one slot per unit! It's all about the $$$.

[digbeth]

29 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

One of the things I don’t understand is how is moving a car from one spot to another, helping relieve any sort of parking shortage? I mean I can see it of course, people have to move, but as you say most people who only use their car a few times a month just move it and repark. Policy seems crazy to me. I’d totally support car removal or fees that have flat tires and cobwebs on them. 
 

I’ll try to get some more information. From what I could gather there were no waivers for when one is on vacation.

It's not the act of moving car, but rather that stationary car means it's just being 'left' there, this is a problem with condos full of workers during the week, if there are cars they don't use, maybe they should have parked at their house or someplace else like parents' house.

 

It doesn't solve the oversubscription of cars vs parking spot issue, but it makes it inconvenient for those that don't use their car often enough that they may seek parking/storage of their rarely used cars elsewhere

 

If you want to have a garage where you can park without being bothered, 1:1 or 2:1 parking spot ratios condos or even with assign parking spot are available. 

[digbeth]

3 minutes ago, Crossy said:

An increasing number of condos seem to be being constructed with less than one slot per unit! It's all about the $$$.

 

The law seem to define it as ratio per square meters of usable area depending on size, works out to about  40-60% as in 40 spot for every 100 units as legal minimum, 

 

Unless the condo's couple of decades old or new ultra luxury high-end development 1:1 parking is rare

[Digitalbanana]

25 minutes ago, Crossy said:

It might be better to propose a number of numbered, paid, parking spots that would be defined for a specific vehicle which wouldn't be affected by the rule.

 

The remaining (unpaid) slots would be the standard free-for-all and face the wrath of the day counters. 

 

That's what they do at our condo in Bangkok. Seems to work OK.

[newnative]

2 hours ago, Digitalbanana said:

 

That's what they do at our condo in Bangkok. Seems to work OK.

    We have it at our Bangkok condo, too, but it's more for being able to park on a lower parking floor than any lack of parking.  There's always plenty of parking and we've never had to ever use the fifth, top floor of the parking.  The condo issues annual car stickers and remote controls to enter the parking garage so unauthorized vehicles are kept to a minimum.  

[Robert Paulson]

4 minutes ago, newnative said:

    We have it at our Bangkok condo, too, but it's more for being able to park on a lower parking floor than any lack of parking.  There's always plenty of parking and we've never had to ever use the fifth, top floor of the parking.  The condo issues annual car stickers and remote controls to enter the parking garage so unauthorized vehicles are kept to a minimum.  

I’ve never not been able to find a parking spot, even coming home very late at night. Maybe my sample size isn’t big enough on that. It’s possible they plan on having the problem soon, or as you say some people want spots on lower floors. 

[Robert Paulson]

3 hours ago, digbeth said:

It's not the act of moving car, but rather that stationary car means it's just being 'left' there, this is a problem with condos full of workers during the week, if there are cars they don't use, maybe they should have parked at their house or someplace else like parents' house.

 

It doesn't solve the oversubscription of cars vs parking spot issue, but it makes it inconvenient for those that don't use their car often enough that they may seek parking/storage of their rarely used cars elsewhere

 

If you want to have a garage where you can park without being bothered, 1:1 or 2:1 parking spot ratios condos or even with assign parking spot are available. 

I thought about what you said for 5 minutes and I still don’t get it. Why would a car that isn’t moving be a problem when compared to a car that’s just been moved within the garage. Anyway it doesn’t matter. I have inquired a bit about it all, I need to further it seems. It just makes no sense to me at all. 

[digbeth]

11 hours ago, Robert Paulson said:

I thought about what you said for 5 minutes and I still don’t get it. Why would a car that isn’t moving be a problem when compared to a car that’s just been moved within the garage. Anyway it doesn’t matter. I have inquired a bit about it all, I need to further it seems. It just makes no sense to me at all. 

 

It's not a problem if there are space enough for everybody, 

 

if someone park their car and use it once a week, it just shows that they don't need the car that much compared to those that drive to work and go out everyday. making it inconvenient for them enough that they get the message that maybe they should park somewhere else 

[ChipButty]

Here in Phuket we own a couple of condo's and there is quite a lot of spaces both under ground and outside, couple of years back some cheeky Russian running his motor bike rental business from the underground parking space, it' turns out he didn't even live there just had a friend there, Now you have to show your keycard to get in, Im not sure how long before they latched on to him, I did see him myself one day in and out about 3 times on different bikes, 

[Robert Paulson]

46 minutes ago, digbeth said:

 

It's not a problem if there are space enough for everybody, 

 

if someone park their car and use it once a week, it just shows that they don't need the car that much compared to those that drive to work and go out everyday. making it inconvenient for them enough that they get the message that maybe they should park somewhere else 

So what if some people used their carS many times a day. Should we then make the people who only move their cars once a day move them more? It’s all relative. It makes zero sense. As I was saying I’ll just deal with it, I guess not everything needs to make sense

[digbeth]

24 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

So what if some people used their carS many times a day. Should we then make the people who only move their cars once a day move them more? It’s all relative. It makes zero sense. As I was saying I’ll just deal with it, I guess not everything needs to make sense

 

It's what's the co-owners, or the committee agreed on, if enough people want to change it, bring it up at the next meeting.

 

from the perspective of those that came home from work and has to circle around the carpark trying to find a spot and see the Farang pensioner's car sitting in the same spot sitting there collecting dust for months, they could feel unfairly treated, why does that guy get to hog the space while the rest of us has to play musical chairs,

 

not saying that it is right of course, but situations change, when you moved in years ago the parking lot could be empty due to being full of renters with no cars or just that the whole building was vacant. In my very old condo while we don't have assigned parking spot and could comfortably park two cars, the past year more tenants has moved in and the car park has been more crowded, I rarely used my car whereas my wife drives almost every day, If I'm being courteous, I would park my car on the floors with no direct elevator access and leave the convenient floors for those that need it more like contractor moving stuff in or parents with children and lots of stuff, If it comes to worse, I could leave the car at our house instead, but that option is not available to many people. 

[Hamus Yaigh]

1 hour ago, ChipButty said:

couple of years back some cheeky Russian running his motor bike rental business from the underground parking space, it' turns out he didn't even live there

Hard to fathom isn't it?

[zhounan]

Speaking of condos and parking: does your building require you to put a sticker on the windshield of your car signaling that the car owner resides there?

 

Why should I drive around in my car and let everyone know that I live in that condos building?

 

Isn't the license plate itself an identifying sign? Why should security guards check whether you have attached the building sticker and not simply look at the license plate?

 

Maybe I don't know Thais way of thinking, but I don't understand the logic of these decisions. 

[newnative]

16 minutes ago, digbeth said:

 

It's what's the co-owners, or the committee agreed on, if enough people want to change it, bring it up at the next meeting.

 

from the perspective of those that came home from work and has to circle around the carpark trying to find a spot and see the Farang pensioner's car sitting in the same spot sitting there collecting dust for months, they could feel unfairly treated, why does that guy get to hog the space while the rest of us has to play musical chairs,

 

not saying that it is right of course, but situations change, when you moved in years ago the parking lot could be empty due to being full of renters with no cars or just that the whole building was vacant. In my very old condo while we don't have assigned parking spot and could comfortably park two cars, the past year more tenants has moved in and the car park has been more crowded, I rarely used my car whereas my wife drives almost every day, If I'm being courteous, I would park my car on the floors with no direct elevator access and leave the convenient floors for those that need it more like contractor moving stuff in or parents with children and lots of stuff, If it comes to worse, I could leave the car at our house instead, but that option is not available to many people. 

      I don't think I would say the pensioner was hogging a space.  If he is an owner or a renter, he should be entitled, with his condo unit, for a yearly car decal allowing him to park one car in the condo's parking.  It should not really matter whether he moves the car daily, weekly, monthly, or whatever, as long as he has a current parking sticker.  I would say if anyone is hogging it would be owners of one condo unit parking more than one car.  In order to receive a parking sticker, an owner must be current with his condo maintenance fees.

      I did notice in one condo I visited signs in the garage suggesting that owners who will be absent from the condo for extended periods might consider parking their cars on one of the upper levels of the garage while they are away.  Seems a sensible suggetion.  I think if condo projects are experiencing parking problems, the first thing needed is parking stickers, with one sticker per condo unit.  That will at least be a start in sorting out what cars are using the condo's parking spaces and will help get rid of those cars not entitled to a space.

      

[digbeth]

1 hour ago, zhounan said:

Speaking of condos and parking: does your building require you to put a sticker on the windshield of your car signaling that the car owner resides there?

 

Why should I drive around in my car and let everyone know that I live in that condos building?

 

Isn't the license plate itself an identifying sign? Why should security guards check whether you have attached the building sticker and not simply look at the license plate?

 

Maybe I don't know Thais way of thinking, but I don't understand the logic of these decisions. 

 

Privacy wise if you're concerned you can stick the sticker on a card, and put that on the front of your car when you come in
most buildings have access control gate with rfid card or remote that open the gantry that alone should be enough but some with multiple cars might be able to sneak second car in if the system is not too smart

[scubascuba3]

i guess the idea is to stop people dumping their cars amd motorbikes there then going away, the scourge of condo parking

[Robert Paulson]

22 hours ago, zhounan said:

Speaking of condos and parking: does your building require you to put a sticker on the windshield of your car signaling that the car owner resides there?

 

Why should I drive around in my car and let everyone know that I live in that condos building?

 

Isn't the license plate itself an identifying sign? Why should security guards check whether you have attached the building sticker and not simply look at the license plate?

 

Maybe I don't know Thais way of thinking, but I don't understand the logic of these decisions. 

Yes. We have stickers and we scan in at the gate. Which to me makes it all the more insane. I had the same problems as you with the permit. It even states my room number, which again, is insane.

 

I also don’t understand why it’s even legal for them to touch my car. It’s not their property and I have extreme issue with it. I guess I’d need to get a lawyer to get some really solid answers. 

[Robert Paulson]

23 hours ago, digbeth said:

 

It's what's the co-owners, or the committee agreed on, if enough people want to change it, bring it up at the next meeting.

 

from the perspective of those that came home from work and has to circle around the carpark trying to find a spot and see the Farang pensioner's car sitting in the same spot sitting there collecting dust for months, they could feel unfairly treated, why does that guy get to hog the space while the rest of us has to play musical chairs,

 

not saying that it is right of course, but situations change, when you moved in years ago the parking lot could be empty due to being full of renters with no cars or just that the whole building was vacant. In my very old condo while we don't have assigned parking spot and could comfortably park two cars, the past year more tenants has moved in and the car park has been more crowded, I rarely used my car whereas my wife drives almost every day, If I'm being courteous, I would park my car on the floors with no direct elevator access and leave the convenient floors for those that need it more like contractor moving stuff in or parents with children and lots of stuff, If it comes to worse, I could leave the car at our house instead, but that option is not available to many people. 

I dont see how anyone could *reasonably* feel unfairly treated in that circumstance. Moving your car to go to work shouldn’t entitle anyone to a spot any more than anyone else. And again, moving my car from one spot to the next wouldn’t solve any of the supposed issues either. 

But as you say it was perhaps a decision by the majority of owners, but I don’t even buy that either, but I don’t know is the truth. 

[Skipalongcassidy]

HAHAHA... rather than being proactive the condo is reacting to the bad actors who abuse the system... typical the world over... 

[Henryford]

How can a new management company just come in !! Surely it has to be approved by the Committe/AGM. Also it is up to the Committee/AGM to approve parking regulations not the management company. In my condo all car owners have to display a sticker showing they are allowed to park as a co-owner/renter. There is no time limit on parking as many go back home for months on end.

[CecilM]

Great. We don't have enough spots and there are cars that haven't been moved for months, years, and in one case for over 15 years.

But I do think that 7 days is too short and that the juristic person doesn't have that authority without owners committee or owners general meeting approval