Question: Our by-law limits car spaces to motor vehicles. Can the owners corporation ban bicycles from our car space?
A lot owner has two adjacent car spaces with an approved storage cage in one car space and one motor vehicle parked in the other.
The owner received a request that they cannot park bicycles within the airspace of either of the two car spaces and that owners should register bikes with the building and park them in an approved bicycle rack at another location in the building.
These are not e-bikes, so there are no lithium-ion battery concerns.
The strata scheme has a by-law regarding individual lot car spaces:
Car space
- Owners and occupiers of a car space must keep the car space of their lot clean and free from grease
- Owners and occupiers of a car space must not use their car space for storage purposes, unless in full compliance with a special by-law relating to storage units (i.e. owners can install approved metal storage cabinets can be installed behind the car space)
- Owners and occupiers may only use their car space for parking motor vehicles and motorcycles (and no other vehicles such as boats)
- Owners and occupiers must have consent from the owners corporation to enclose their car space
The request received by the lot owner is “Bylaw Non-Compliance | Invitation to relocate to the Owners Corporation Bicycle Rack area on B1.”
Is a bicycle a “vehicle” or “storage”, according to the wording of the by-law?
The letter received from the strata manager says “Non compliance with by-law”, “the strata committee on behalf of the owners corporation, would appreciate your attention to this matter as indicated”, “Please kindly remove the bicycles pictured below from your car park lot in reference to by-law in the next seven (7) calendar days.” and “The strata committee, on behalf of the owners corporation, invite you to apply to store these bicycles in the owners corporation bicycle rack area on B1.”
Is this letter a non-compliance letter for which there is a penalty, or is it an “invitation”? Is the by-law an example of a harsh, unconscionable or oppressive by-law?
Would the owners corporation have the right to remove the bicycles from the lot without the lot owner’s permission?
In an era where we are trying to encourage the use of more sustainable types of transport, such as bicycles, and there is no threat from e-bike batteries exploding, can an owners corporation demand that owners only store bikes in a designated bike rack area?
Answer: Whether storing a bicycle in a car space breaches a by-law depends on how the by-law is worded and interpreted.
This one raises several good questions, and they need to be unpacked separately because they sit in different parts of the legal framework. Before getting into it, one important caveat: whether a by-law is “harsh, unconscionable or oppressive” is ultimately a question for the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). Nothing below should be read as a view on enforceability in this particular scheme. That question genuinely needs legal advice on the specific facts.
Is a bicycle a “vehicle” under the by-law?
The by-law as drafted says owners and occupiers “may only use their car space for parking motor vehicles and motorcycles (and no other vehicles such as boats).” On a plain reading, the by-law is restricting the use of the car space to parking certain types of vehicles — motor vehicles and motorcycles. It expressly excludes “other vehicles such as boats.” The drafter has signalled what kind of thing they had in mind: larger, motorised or trailered items that don’t belong in a car space.
Whether a bicycle is a “vehicle” in ordinary language is debatable. In the NSW Road Rules 2014, a bicycle is defined as a vehicle. In general usage, people don’t tend to think of a pushbike the same way they think of a car or a boat. The better question is how a tribunal would interpret this specific by-law, and tribunals interpret by-laws purposively, focusing on what the by-law was evidently trying to achieve. A by-law aimed at stopping people dumping boats and trailers in car spaces isn’t obviously aimed at pushbikes propped in the corner.
Is storing a bicycle in a car space “storage”?
This is where the by-law wording matters. Sub-clause (b) prohibits using a car space “for storage purposes” unless in compliance with the approved storage cabinet by-law. Sub-clause (c) restricts use to motor vehicles and motorcycles.
There’s a legitimate argument that a bike parked in the airspace of a car space is being parked, not stored — particularly if it’s being ridden in and out regularly. A motorcycle parked in a car space isn’t “stored” for the purposes of this by-law, and there’s no principled reason a bike that’s in daily use should be treated differently. But if a bike is sitting unused in the car space for months, an owners corporation might reasonably characterise that as storage. It’s fact-specific.
Is this letter a Notice to Comply, or an invitation?
This is the clearest of the questions, and the answer is: it’s not a Notice to Comply under the Act.
A Notice to Comply with a By-Law under section 146 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 has strict formal requirements. It must:
- be in the form approved by the secretary (the NSW Fair Trading template)
- contain a copy of the specified by-law in full
- be preceded by a resolution of the strata committee, the owners corporation at a general meeting, or be issued by the strata manager under a properly delegated function
- identify one by-law only
A letter headed “Bylaw Non-Compliance / Invitation to relocate” that politely asks the owner to move their bikes within seven days is correspondence, not a section 146 notice. The use of the word “invite” and “appreciate your attention” is the giveaway. Without a section 146 notice, the owners corporation has no basis to later apply to NCAT under section 147 for a civil penalty — because section 147 requires a prior section 146 notice to have been given and the contravention to have continued.
So: this is an early-stage communication, not a penalty-bearing document. The owner should take it seriously and respond (ignoring informal correspondence is how matters escalate to formal notices), but they’re not on the clock for a penalty.
Can the owners corporation remove the bicycles without the owner’s permission?
No. Not from inside the lot.
Car spaces that form part of a lot are part of the owner’s private property. The owners corporation’s power to enter a lot under section 122 of the Act is tied to carrying out repairs, maintenance, or other statutory duties — not to enforce by-laws by self-help. Entering a car space without consent to remove personal property would likely amount to trespass to land and conversion (unlawful interference with goods).
The recent changes to the uncollected goods regime make this even clearer. Since July 2021, the Uncollected Goods Act 1995 has been extended to goods on a lot, and an owners corporation must obtain the lot owner’s consent before removing anything from the lot.
The proper path to enforcement is: issue a valid section 146 Notice to Comply — if the breach continues, apply to NCAT for a penalty order under section 147 or a compliance order under section 232. Self-help removal is not an available remedy.
Could this by-law be “harsh, unconscionable or oppressive”?
This is the big one, and it’s the question that needs legal advice on the specific facts — so what follows is a framework, not a view.
Section 139(1) of the Act provides that a by-law must not be “harsh, unconscionable or oppressive,” and under section 150 NCAT can invalidate any by-law that crosses that line. The leading authority is Cooper v The Owners — Strata Plan No. 58068 [2020] NSWCA 250, which struck down a blanket pet ban on the basis that a by-law severely affecting a lot owner’s lawful use of their property needs a rational connection to protecting other owners’ use and enjoyment.
Applied here, a committee or tribunal would likely ask questions like:
- What detriment is caused to other owners by a bicycle sitting in the owner’s own car space?
- Is there a legitimate objective (safety, access, amenity) that justifies the restriction?
- Is the restriction proportionate, or is it a blanket prohibition with no meaningful connection to a problem?
Given the owner here has the right to park in two adjacent car spaces and currently parks only one vehicle, the bicycles are in airspace that would otherwise sit empty. On those facts, a reasonable person might struggle to identify what harm the bicycles are causing. But it genuinely depends on the scheme — the configuration of the carpark, whether bicycles could obstruct access, fire egress considerations, and the purpose behind the bike-rack infrastructure the OC has provided. That’s why this is a question for a strata lawyer who can look at the specific by-law, scheme, and circumstances.
The sustainability angle
Section 139(5A) of the Act specifically prevents by-laws from prohibiting the installation of sustainability infrastructure on a lot or common property (subject to limited exceptions). That provision is aimed at things like solar panels, EV chargers, and similar fixed installations — it doesn’t squarely cover where the owner can keep their bicycle. So while the sustainability argument has moral weight, it’s not a statutory trump card on its own. It may well inform a tribunal’s view of proportionality under section 139(1), but it’s not a standalone basis for striking down the by-law.
Practical takeaway for the lot owner
- The letter is an invitation, not a Notice to Comply. There’s no immediate penalty exposure.
- Respond in writing. Engage with the committee. Ask for the factual basis for the concern — is it a safety issue, an access issue, or something else? A reasonable response from the owner is the best defence against escalation.
- If a section 146 Notice is ultimately issued and the owner wants to challenge the underlying by-law, that’s the point at which an application to NCAT under section 150 (to invalidate) or a defence under section 147 becomes relevant — and that’s when independent legal advice is essential.
- The owners corporation cannot remove the bicycles from the car space without consent.
This response is general information only and is not legal advice. By-law interpretation and challenges under section 139 are highly fact-specific — any lot owner or owners corporation considering enforcement action, or challenging a by-law, should obtain independent legal advice on the specific scheme and registered by-laws.
This post appears in Strata News #789.
Tim Sara
Sara Strata
E: tim@sarastrata.com.au
P: 04 8500 7960
Leave a Reply