I dont know if you are taking me too literally or not but I think my objection to the lack of compulsion to enforce by-laws is pretty clear if you look HERE. But, hey, I shouldn't assume that everyone has read everything I write – that would be the height of arrogance.
The enforcement of by-laws is so arbitrary that if I was ever pinged for some minor infraction (not that I ever do anything wrong … EVER) I would just claim it was victimisation because I'm sure I could quickly list half a dozen more serious issues that had gone unaddressed.
Also, this was one of my submissions to the recent online forum on Strata Law reform:
Make the enforcement of by-laws obligatory rather than optional (after giving everyone a chance to adopt a new set of by-laws if the current ones don’t quite fit). Optional enforcement leads to confusion and unnecessary conflict in strata developments. People buy into buildings expecting the rules in the by-laws to be in force – that should not be at the whim of the ruling executive committee. It would help a great deal if the CTTT would adjudicate on the simple question of whether or not a by-law has been breached – not whether or not that member thinks it’s a good by-law. OCs can change by-laws if the majority don’t like them but there should be a one-off opportunity to adopt model by-laws (plus local variations) before the compulsory by-laws are brought in.
I think my position on that is pretty clear. It works in other States so there's not reason it can't work here.