The Invisible Years

What happens to your automated parking system when no one is watching.

By Eusebiu Vasilciuc — Independent Consultant, Car Stackers and Automated Parking Systems

Nobody calls me when the system is working.

They call me when a vehicle is trapped. When the residents are furious and the building manager has no answers. When the insurer is asking questions nobody can answer. When the lawyer needs to know whose name goes on the liability.

And every single time — I already know what I'm going to find.

Because after more than 20 years installing, commissioning, programming, and forensically assessing automated parking systems across Australia and Europe, I have seen the same story play out again and again, in different buildings, with different systems, under different brand names.

The failure was never sudden. It was always accumulating — quietly, invisibly, for years.

This article is about that period. The period I call the Invisible Years.

What Are the Invisible Years?

An automated parking system — whether a mechanical car stacker, a semi-automated pallet system, or a fully robotic AGV installation — is a complex piece of industrial infrastructure. It has electrical systems, hydraulic systems, structural steel, PLC control logic, sensors, actuators, and safety interlocks. It operates in a wet, dusty, compressed environment, under constant cyclic load, often 365 days a year.

When a building is handed over and the developer walks away, something important happens.

The system enters its Invisible Years.

This is the period — sometimes three years, sometimes ten — during which the system continues to operate, the maintenance contractor continues to visit, the owners corporation continues to receive service reports, and absolutely nobody with genuine technical expertise looks closely at what is actually happening inside the machine.

The maintenance contractor is not always at fault. Often they are simply under-resourced, underqualified for the specific system type, incentivised to retain the contract rather than report problems, or not equipped to identify the class of defect that matters most.

The owners corporation is not negligent either. They receive a report they cannot read, written in technical language they were never trained to interpret, and they file it — reasonably assuming that a signed document means a safe system.

It doesn't.

What I Find When I Walk In

Across independent assessments of automated parking systems in multiple Australian jurisdictions, the findings have been consistent in one respect above all others: the gap between the service record and the actual condition of the system is often profound.

Let me be specific.

In one independent assessment of a semi-automatic system, I identified a substantial number of discrete defects across a single installation. These included structural integrity issues, hydraulic system deterioration, electrical non-compliance, absent safety sensors, gate mechanism failures, platform adjustment deficiencies, and active oil leak hazards near electrical components. The maintenance contractor had a full-service history on file. Signed. Dated. Filed neatly.

In another assessment of a fully automated system, the findings included electrical board non-compliance, emergency stop failure, platform lock disengagement risk, structural modifications without engineering sign-off, and fire-authority access issues across multiple levels. Escalation to the relevant authority was considered appropriate based on the findings. The owners corporation had received clean service reports for years.

In a separate commissioning-related matter involving a semi-automated system, forensic assessment revealed that the system had not been correctly commissioned against its specification. Hazardous conditions were present from the day of handover. The matter was ultimately resolved on the basis of independent technical evidence.

These are not outliers. They are representative of what independent assessment finds when it is finally applied.

The signed service record is not evidence of a safe system. It is evidence that someone visited.

Attendance is not maintenance.

Why This Keeps Happening

The automated parking industry has a structural problem that is rarely discussed openly.

The parties best positioned to identify defects — the manufacturer's service agents and the incumbent maintenance contractors — have a commercial interest in retaining the contract, not in producing findings that expose their own prior performance. This is not malice. It is a structural conflict of interest that is built into the way the industry operates.

Manufacturers are not independent. Their service networks are incentivised to keep systems running well enough to avoid complaints, not to audit them against the standard they were originally commissioned to.

Independent technical expertise — genuinely independent, with no hardware to sell, no manufacturer relationship, and no commission — remains rare in this asset class. Owners corporations do not know it exists. Lawyers and insurers often have not had a clear path to find it. Developers rarely commission it because by the time they hand over the keys, the practical responsibility has passed to others.

Independence is not a statement. It is a structure.

This is the gap.

And it is the gap that turns a manageable maintenance issue into a disruptive failure, a contractual dispute, or an insurance claim.

What Owners Need to Understand

If you are an owner, a building manager, a strata committee member, or a facilities manager with responsibility for an automated parking system, there is one fact that supersedes everything else:

When your system fails, the operational responsibility — and often the commercial and legal exposure — sits with the owner of the asset. Not the contractor. Not the developer. Not the manufacturer.

The maintenance agreement you signed does not, in most cases, protect you from exposure arising from a defect that should have been identified and rectified.

The service records you have been provided do not constitute independent verification of system safety or compliance.

The manufacturer's warranty, if it has not already expired, generally covers manufacturing defects — not the consequences of maintenance non-performance or post-installation modifications.

The only position of genuine protection is one of genuine knowledge. Knowing the true condition of your asset, verified independently, before something goes wrong.

An independent technical audit does three things that no other document in your building management file does:

It tells you what is actually inside the system.

It identifies the gap between the service record and reality.

And it establishes a documented baseline from which any future conversation — with a contractor, a developer, or an insurer — can be properly grounded in evidence.

Why the Assessment Method Matters

The problem is not simply that defects exist. Defects are expected in ageing mechanical and automated infrastructure.

The real problem is that most buildings have no independent baseline against which the condition of the system can be measured.

A proper assessment must do more than list visible faults. It must separate symptoms from root causes. It must distinguish maintenance failure from design weakness, installation defect, commissioning gap, misuse, and post-handover modification. It must also produce findings that can be understood by owners, acted on by contractors, and relied on by insurers, lawyers, or asset managers if the matter escalates.

That requires a structured, evidence-based methodology.

Not another service visit. Not another generic checklist. A real technical assessment.

What to Look For in an Independent Assessment

Not all technical assessments are equal. An assessment conducted by a party with any commercial relationship to the manufacturer, the installer, or the maintenance contractor is not independent — regardless of how it is described.

A genuinely independent assessment should include:

Full mechanical condition review across structural steel, drive systems, hydraulic components, chain and guide systems, and platform mechanisms.

Electrical compliance review against AS 3000, AS 5124:2017, and applicable state electrical regulations — not a visual check, but a detailed technical assessment.

Safety system verification — not an assumption that sensors and interlocks are functional because they appear intact, but tested confirmation of operational status.

Maintenance contractor audit — an assessment of whether the incumbent contractor's documented service activity reflects the actual condition of the system.

Written findings, risk classifications, and recommended actions — produced under the assessor's professional responsibility, not as a marketing document.

The assessor should have direct, hands-on experience with the specific class of system being assessed — not general mechanical or electrical engineering experience applied to a parking system for the first time.

The Question Worth Asking

Automated parking systems are high-value, high-risk infrastructure. They carry the vehicles of every resident in a building. When they fail — and without proper oversight, failure becomes far more likely — the consequences are operational, financial, and potentially physical.

The Invisible Years are not inevitable. They are the product of an industry that has not yet developed the independent oversight mechanisms that other asset classes take for granted.

That is changing. Slowly. Case by case, audit by audit, report by report.

But the most important step is the one that begins with a single question — the question your building manager, your maintenance contractor, and your developer cannot answer for you:

When did someone with no commercial stake in the outcome last look at your system?

If you do not know the answer to that question — that is the answer.

About the Author

Eusebiu Vasilciuc is an Independent Consultant specialising in car stackers, automated parking systems, automated vehicle parking systems, and vehicle storage infrastructure.

With more than 20 years of international experience across Australia and Europe, he provides forensic assessments, independent technical reviews, commissioning reviews, maintenance contract reviews, and expert witness support for developers, owners corporations, strata committees, insurers, legal teams, manufacturers, and asset owners.

His work focuses on identifying the hidden gap between service records, system condition, safety performance, commissioning evidence, and long-term asset risk. He holds no manufacturer relationship, accepts no commissions, and maintains independence from the outcome of every assessment.

For independent technical advisory on car stackers and automated parking systems, contact details are available through this website.