Do unwritten rules apply differently to board members than to non-board members?

In our association, the written rules are different than the actual enforcement, and the unwritten rules have become common knowledge among the homeowners. Only the board is privy to the written rules. For example, the written rules state one cannot park a vehicle in a visitor spot without a permit 24/7 (or it becomes subject to towing), but it is common knowledge that this area is patrolled only from 11PM to 6AM and as such, people will park their cars in the visitor spots without a permit during the day and move them into their garage or onto street parking at night. So if one has a guest during the day who asks, "will my car be towed", the resident can safely say "no" (assuming a permit is not used). But if a board member has a daytime guest who asks, "will my car be towed" (again, assuming the permit is not available), would it not be abuse of privileges to say "no" and allow them to park in visitor parking?

What an odd question. The way I see it unwritten rules don't apply to anyone because they don't exist to begin with. Why not concentrate on the real issue which is enforcement of existing rules that really do exist?

Thanks for the response. I feel that there should not be a difference between the enforcement and the rules. But in our community, there is. The board officially knows what the enforcement is, while the remainder of the homeowners also know it, but not officially - just as the 'unwritten rules'. Thus a non-board member can have a guest violate the parking rules by adhering to the unwritten rules, while knowing there will not be any repercussions. But it seems to me that it would be abuse of privileges if a board member were to violate the parking rules in that exact same manner - even though both the board member and non-board member both know the vehicle will not be cited/towed.

Didn't you ask this question a different way just a month ago?

Subject: HOA won't provide verbal info in writing

Have you submitted a request for IDR? If so, report back. If not, I suggest writing the board the following letter and mailing it registered mail, return receipt requested to the HOA's corporate registered agent:

Dear Board of Directors,

The visitor parking rules are not being enforced uniformly across the membership. It appears the guests of Directors are allowed to park 24/7 in the visitor parking spots without fear of being towed. By contrast, the guests of non-directors risk being towed. I am asking that the rule be re-written so that _________________ . Ideally towing is no longer allowed for parking in the visitor spaces. Pursuant to California Civil Code 5910 and to resolve this, I request Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR). Please be aware that Civil Code 5915(b) requires the HOA to meet with a person who requests IDR.

Sincerely.

name
address
phone
email addie

This letter is the first step to obtaining resolution of this dispute using the legal process. You indicate you want the written rules to be followed. So I hope you yourself are open to following the written rules for resolving disputes.

Else I doubt anyone here has some kind of magic to offer you to fix this.

I have read this a few times and for the life o me cant see the problem. I happen to manage a HOA that has limited parking and the rules state no owner can park in the visitor spots. There are emergency exceptions. Guests of an owner, whether of not they are on the board is allowed.

I have been doing this for a while and night time parking is where it is abused and therefore that is when patrols are used. If and owner parks in a visitor spot during the day time, when the spaces are not being used, I'm not going to worry. Want to take me or the board to court they were be throw out faster than Trump's stupid election pranks.

If you typed up your Augustin letter, wad it up and throw it in the trash, it is useless.

Just my humble opinion.

Because you did not read the OP's first post to the thread.

First, for a rule to be enforceable, it has to be "fair and reasonable". I have no idea what written and unwritten is and why only the board is privy to the written rules, so I'll leave that alone. Paul complains about the cars parked during the day belonging to owners, I'll provide a solution at the end.

I have an exact situation in a property I manage with the same rule, which was put there 30 years ago by some other board. I'll do a daytime drive thru and the place is a ghost town. With 40 guest spots available and 8 paid spots there might be 6 or 7 in visitors spots. Not a problem. At night, different story. Space is at a premium, and thus the use of patrol company to monitor the situation. So, as Sue asked, is there a daytime parking problem. My guess, from experience, is NO.

So a solution, ask Paul if he would like to form a parking patrol committee of one and be judge, jury and executioner. Let him cite the vehicles and owners, write the owner(s) the required number of warning letters, call them to a hearing in front of himself and Paul can make a recommendation to the board before a fine is handed out.

Well said.

The fact the daytime use of the visitor parking is permitted while technically against the rules is the primary issue.

Incorrect. It is the presence of a rule which is not enforced and is widely understood to be not enforced with many people - including board members - being in violation of it. What is the point of such a rule if they are not enforcing it?

Well said. He is pi$$ed and wants a pound of flesh.

Oh, this is the parking sticker poster?

Maybe it’s like ordering at In-N-Out? Secret menu?