- Jurisdiction
- California
I live in a gated town-home community much larger than 15-units, our landlord/owner there for the last several months has been on a tangent regarding parking, sending out notices and threatening to enforce the rules of her "community." These include their asserting the right to tow vehicles on the property within 48-hours of being issued parking violation notices (regardless if the vehicle has a parking pass or not.) I attempted to inform the landlord/owner of my reading of VC22658; however, she retorted under the notion that I was incorrect as those codes do no apply to her private property and I am obliged under our rental agreement. I would like confirmation on what points I am correct one, and/or if I am missing anything pertinent (as this has been an ongoing battle for the last several months and I can simply no longer bear dealing with this nonsense--as "parking control" is just so not my dog fight), including:
1. CVC such as 22658 do in fact apply to private property--as made clear by its context.
2. My contention that private contracts that violate public statutes are legally invalid, e.g., a murderer is no less a murderer because they had committed the act under a contractual obligation--albeit an extreme example.
3. The enforcement of her so-decreed contractual 48-hour right to tow after being noticed is improper being that ibid, paragraph (2), stipulates a 96-hour right to tow after being noticed (realizing, that is, when paragraph (1) public parking is not in play, or its succeeding paragraphs, inoperable vehicle, etc.)
4. Paragraphs (1) and (4) proffers zero authority to tow the vehicles of active tenets parking on the premises, so as they are parked in tenet's allotted parking spots.
5. Her contention that she or her on site manager bears zero legal obligation to notify the tow driver of the vehicle owner's current address on the property (for an attempt at personal contact) prior to towing the vehicle is invalid under subsection (b), being a misdemeanor.
6. Non-tenet vehicles may not towed within the first hour of them being parked, as per 22953(a).
TIA
SRC: Law section
1. CVC such as 22658 do in fact apply to private property--as made clear by its context.
2. My contention that private contracts that violate public statutes are legally invalid, e.g., a murderer is no less a murderer because they had committed the act under a contractual obligation--albeit an extreme example.
3. The enforcement of her so-decreed contractual 48-hour right to tow after being noticed is improper being that ibid, paragraph (2), stipulates a 96-hour right to tow after being noticed (realizing, that is, when paragraph (1) public parking is not in play, or its succeeding paragraphs, inoperable vehicle, etc.)
4. Paragraphs (1) and (4) proffers zero authority to tow the vehicles of active tenets parking on the premises, so as they are parked in tenet's allotted parking spots.
5. Her contention that she or her on site manager bears zero legal obligation to notify the tow driver of the vehicle owner's current address on the property (for an attempt at personal contact) prior to towing the vehicle is invalid under subsection (b), being a misdemeanor.
6. Non-tenet vehicles may not towed within the first hour of them being parked, as per 22953(a).
TIA
SRC: Law section
