Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 4,998 (85%)
Commercial 253 (4%)
Utility 2 (0%)
Other 642 (11%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 10.9 lots. The portfolio is dominated by small schemes (10 lots or fewer), typical of townhouse and villa complexes.
Portfolio Age
Schemes by registration decade. Oldest scheme registered 1961, newest 2024.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dubbo 2830 | 59 | 338 | 11% | 30.3% | |
| Kogarah 2217 | 39 | 662 | 7% | 12.0% | |
| Sans Souci 2219 | 39 | 357 | 7% | 16.1% | |
| Bexley 2207 | 37 | 266 | 7% | 9.9% | |
| Orange 2800 | 29 | 297 | 5% | 10.5% | |
| Brighton-Le-Sands 2216 | 26 | 449 | 5% | 12.8% | |
| Hurstville 2220 | 22 | 208 | 4% | 4.5% | |
| Cronulla 2230 | 22 | 214 | 4% | 2.5% | |
| Penshurst 2222 | 22 | 237 | 4% | 8.3% | |
| Allawah 2218 | 22 | 205 | 4% | 12.4% |
| Ramsgate Beach 2217 | 17 | 233 | 3% | 20.5% | |
| Carlton 2218 | 16 | 163 | 3% | 8.5% | |
| Monterey 2217 | 15 | 204 | 3% | 12.9% | |
| Dolls Point 2219 | 15 | 285 | 3% | 29.4% | |
| South Hurstville 2221 | 15 | 118 | 3% | 12.7% | |
| Mortdale 2223 | 12 | 125 | 2% | 4.7% | |
| Oatley 2223 | 8 | 55 | 1% | 4.6% | |
| Miranda 2228 | 7 | 240 | 1% | 2.0% | |
| Caringbah South 2229 | 7 | 58 | 1% | 1.8% | |
| Connells Point 2221 | 7 | 50 | 1% | 17.5% | |
| Rockdale 2216 | 6 | 102 | 1% | 3.2% | |
| Sylvania 2224 | 6 | 53 | 1% | 3.1% | |
| Campsie 2194 | 5 | 49 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Peakhurst 2210 | 5 | 18 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Marrickville 2204 | 4 | 124 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| Sutherland 2232 | 4 | 43 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Kirrawee 2232 | 4 | 42 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Narwee 2209 | 4 | 32 | 1% | 4.4% | |
| Byron Bay 2481 | 3 | 43 | 1% | 0.6% | |
| Ramsgate 2217 | 3 | 31 | 1% | 13.0% | |
| Belmore 2192 | 3 | 30 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Engadine 2233 | 3 | 32 | 1% | 1.9% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 3 | 24 | 1% | 0.6% | |
| Bathurst 2795 | 2 | 37 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Kingsford 2032 | 2 | 19 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Matraville 2036 | 2 | 19 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Jannali 2226 | 2 | 21 | 0% | 2.3% | |
| Bardwell Valley 2207 | 2 | 14 | 0% | 7.4% | |
| Woolooware 2230 | 2 | 12 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Caringbah 2229 | 2 | 10 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Kelso 2795 | 2 | 10 | 0% | 5.9% | |
| Blakehurst 2221 | 2 | 8 | 0% | 4.0% | |
| Parkes 2870 | 2 | 6 | 0% | 4.3% | |
| Darling Point 2027 | 2 | 4 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Little Bay 2036 | 1 | 78 | 0% | 1.8% | |
| Bexley North 2207 | 1 | 29 | 0% | 3.8% | |
| Casula 2170 | 1 | 29 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 1 | 17 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Wiley Park 2195 | 1 | 16 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Edgecliff 2027 | 1 | 16 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Summer Hill 2130 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Arncliffe 2205 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Rushcutters Bay 2011 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Peakhurst Heights 2210 | 1 | 11 | 0% | 33.3% | |
| South Bathurst 2795 | 1 | 11 | 0% | 9.1% | |
| Newtown 2042 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Kensington 2033 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.1% | |
| Tempe 2044 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 5.6% | |
| Beverly Hills 2209 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Abbotsford 2046 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Revesby 2212 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Padstow 2211 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Gymea Bay 2227 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Lakemba 2195 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Warren 2824 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 20.0% | |
| Coogee 2034 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.1% | |
| Skennars Head 2478 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Hurstville Grove 2220 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 4.2% | |
| Forbes 2871 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 6.2% | |
| Mitchell 2795 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 12.5% | |
| Wellington 2820 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 25.0% |
Tribunal & Court History
3
Total Cases
2
NCAT
0.0
Adverse per 100 Schemes
0.6
Total per 100 Schemes
3 cases since 2021. None resulted in adverse findings — all were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or brought by the owners corporation.
A lot owner appealed a decision that did not order the owners corporation to repair a balcony. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the initial ruling and stating the lot owner did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.
APPEALS – Finding of breach of duty to maintain and repair common property - exercise of discretion - no error of law- no basis for granting leave to appeal
Before
S Westgarth, Deputy President G Ellis SC, Senior Member
Hearing
12 September 2024
File Numbers
2024/00232142
Matched Strata Plans
SP9348
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Appellant (Self-represented) V Glazenburg, Strata Managing Agent (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Leave to appeal is refused. (2) The appeal is dismissed.
The applicant, an owners corporation, sought compensation for damage to their garages caused by the respondent’s trees. The tribunal found that the respondent’s trees had caused damage and ordered them to pay 50% of the repair costs, along with specific orders for tree removal and repairs.
TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Part 2 application – damage to property – trees have been removed but stumps remain – consent orders other than apportionment – actions and omissions of the parties
Before
Galwey AC
Hearing
10 May 2021
File Numbers
2020/326088
Matched Strata Plans
SP3346
Parties
Owners Corporation v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel P Holt (Solicitor) (Applicant) N Hammond (Respondent) Solicitors Holding Redlich (Applicant) Kerin Benson Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
See orders at [49]
A lot owner sought approval for installing solar panels on the common property roof above their garage and for a related by-law. The tribunal dismissed the application, finding the owner failed to demonstrate the owners corporation's refusal was unreasonable and the proposed works were not sufficiently detailed.
LAND LAW — Strata title — Owners corporation — Application for the approval of works and a common property rights by-law – Whether the owners corporation unreasonably refused its consent
Before
G Blake AM SC, Senior Member
Hearing
17 May 2021
File Numbers
SC 21/07549
Matched Strata Plans
SP6743
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Orders
(1) The proceedings are dismissed.
Google Reviews
23 Jun 2025
“Outstanding Service from Ashleigh Smith and the Absolute Strata Management Team
We’ve had the pleasure of working with Ashleigh Smith from Absolute Strata Management, and I can honestly say the experience has been nothing short of exceptional. Ashleigh’s professionalism, communication, and...”
12 Jul 2025
“We’ve had an outstanding experience with Absolute Strata Management. From day one, their professionalism, transparency, and responsiveness have really stood out. A special mention to Ashleigh Smith, whose dedication and attention to detail have made a real difference. She’s approachable,...”
24 Jun 2025
“Who Knew Strata Could Be This Easy?
Ashleigh Smith and the Absolute Strata Management team have completely flipped the script on what we thought strata was meant to be. Helpful? Absolutely. Organised? Always. Friendly and easy to deal with? 100%.
From day one, Ashleigh made it feel like...”
04 Jul 2022
“We changed our Strata Manager about two years ago to Absolute Strata Orange and couldn’t be happier with the service. The team are proactive and committed to resolving any issues that arise and are incredibly professional. As an investor, it is great to know that the management is in good hands.”
23 Jun 2025
“The team here are the best, so informative and helpful, they really talk you through how it all works especially if you are new to owning a property that’s under strata management. Even if you can’t get them when you call they always call you back and make sure they are following up with you....”