Vancouver condo owners sue their strata over narrow parking stall

AlexandrinaZ/Shutterstock

Two Vancouver residents sued a strata corporation because they felt the strata owed them a new parking stall because the one they had didn’t quite meet their expectations.

Colin Hawes and Shuyu Kong co-own a strata lot in a Vancouver condo near Cambie Street and West 2nd Avenue.

In a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal case, the two co-owners say their parking stall is too narrow to use safely.

The applicants in the tribunal case allege that the strata misrepresented the parking stall’s width when they purchased the lot. In the hearing, the applicants asked the strata to replace their parking stall with a different one and, if not, compensate them for renting a different stall. They’ve claimed $5,000.

Meanwhile, the strata says the applicants should have inspected the stall before purchasing their strata lot and that the parking stalls vary in width, and previous owners used the same stall without a problem.

The strata added that Hawes and Kong declined an offer to be placed on a waiting list to rent a different stall.

What was wrong with the stall in the first place?

You might also like:

The tribunal decision states that the stall was 14 centimetres more narrow than what was indicated in the strata plan when the co-owners purchased it in December 2021.

Getting in and out of their vehicle is complicated by a concrete riser and pillar on the right-hand side when facing the stall that restricts door opening. Their vehicle is a compact crossover SUV. The co-owners submitted a video confirming their concerns.

According to the tribunal member overseeing the case, they found the stall was not impossible to use but agreed that it wasn’t easy or convenient. It even caused the co-owners to reduce vehicle use.

While the strata presented the option of renting a different stall, Hawes and Kong said they shouldn’t have had to and that the strata could exchange a different stall for the one they currently own.

Unfortunately for the co-owners, circumstances prevented the applicants from observing the stall before purchase.

“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. I find it was not reasonable for the applicants to rely exclusively on the strata plan without inspecting the stall,” reads the tribunal decision.

The co-owners did not receive a satisfactory conclusion and the tribunal dismissed their claims.

For more parking drama, click here for a story we covered last year that sounds a lot like this one.