Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 1,186 (90%)
Commercial 127 (10%)
Other 12 (1%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 6.6 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 1967, newest 2024.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ettalong Beach 2257 | 32 | 249 | 16% | 8.8% | |
| Terrigal 2260 | 18 | 83 | 9% | 4.0% | |
| Long Jetty 2261 | 17 | 74 | 8% | 8.0% | |
| Woy Woy 2256 | 15 | 64 | 7% | 4.3% | |
| The Entrance 2261 | 10 | 124 | 5% | 4.5% | |
| Booker Bay 2257 | 10 | 45 | 5% | 9.4% | |
| Umina Beach 2257 | 10 | 43 | 5% | 2.5% | |
| East Gosford 2250 | 9 | 38 | 4% | 3.9% | |
| The Entrance North 2261 | 6 | 90 | 3% | 11.3% | |
| Blackwall 2256 | 6 | 23 | 3% | 9.4% |
| Gosford 2250 | 5 | 63 | 2% | 2.9% | |
| Avoca Beach 2251 | 5 | 28 | 2% | 4.1% | |
| Erina 2250 | 4 | 58 | 2% | 2.4% | |
| Wamberal 2260 | 4 | 26 | 2% | 5.7% | |
| West Gosford 2250 | 4 | 26 | 2% | 4.0% | |
| Point Frederick 2250 | 3 | 36 | 1% | 4.3% | |
| Wyoming 2250 | 3 | 24 | 1% | 5.6% | |
| Blue Bay 2261 | 3 | 21 | 1% | 4.8% | |
| Bateau Bay 2261 | 3 | 17 | 1% | 3.8% | |
| Gorokan 2263 | 3 | 12 | 1% | 3.4% | |
| Toukley 2263 | 3 | 10 | 1% | 4.4% | |
| Lake Haven 2263 | 3 | 10 | 1% | 7.0% | |
| Wyong 2259 | 2 | 20 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Macmasters Beach 2251 | 2 | 24 | 1% | 28.6% | |
| Somersby 2250 | 2 | 18 | 1% | 6.9% | |
| Tumbi Umbi 2261 | 2 | 12 | 1% | 12.5% | |
| Watanobbi 2259 | 2 | 8 | 1% | 11.1% | |
| North Gosford 2250 | 2 | 8 | 1% | 2.6% | |
| Toowoon Bay 2261 | 2 | 5 | 1% | 5.4% | |
| Green Point 2251 | 2 | 4 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| Tuggerah 2259 | 1 | 16 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Cooranbong 2265 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 5.3% | |
| Ourimbah 2258 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Davistown 2251 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 5.6% | |
| Springfield 2250 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 5.0% | |
| Balmain 2041 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Berkeley Vale 2261 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Fingal Bay 2315 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Canton Beach 2263 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 12.5% |
Tribunal & Court History
4
Total Cases
2
NCAT
2
Supreme Court
0.0
Adverse per 100 Schemes
2.0
Total per 100 Schemes
4 cases since 2023. None resulted in adverse findings — all were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or brought by the owners corporation.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – appeal – adequacy of reasons – s 48MA of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)
Matched Strata Plans
SP92156
An Owners Corporation sued a builder for building defects, including water ingress and incorrect fire penetrations, seeking compensation. The tribunal found the builder liable for the defects and ordered them to pay over $230,000 for rectification. One claim regarding fire penetrations was dismissed.
BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION; Home Building – breach of statutory warranties – where work involved the conversion to residential use of a commercial space – scope of contract -effect of implied warranties.
Before
K Ross, Senior Member
Hearing
1 May 2023
File Numbers
HB 21/51775
Matched Strata Plans
SP92156
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: Horobin, P, Applicant Justice, AD, Respondent Solicitors: Chambers Russell, Applicant MRM Lawyers, Respondent
Orders
(1) Professional Construction Services Pty Ltd is to pay The Owners - SP 92156 the sum of $234,046.56, on or before 31 August 2023. (2) The applicant is to file and serve submissions in support of any cost application by 17 August 2023. (3) Submissions in response are to be filed and served by 31 August 2023. (4) Submissions in reply are to be filed and served by 7 September 2023.
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal — Dismissal of proceedings — Frivolous or vexatious proceedings — where the plaintiff is a bankrupt — where the Trustee in bankruptcy had revoked his consent to the continuation of the proceedings against the first defendant — where the bankrupt objected to the...
Matched Strata Plans
SP90255
The applicant, a lot owner, sought orders related to the termination of a strata plan. The tribunal decided to dismiss the proceedings against the second and third defendants. This was because the tribunal found the claims to be without merit and an abuse of process.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Summary disposal – Dismissal of proceedings – Frivolous or vexatious proceedings – Whether proceedings constituted collateral attack on prior judicial decision
Before
Chen J
Hearing
3 November 2022; further submissions (all parties) filed 17 November 2022
File Numbers
2022/98530
Matched Strata Plans
SP90255
Parties
Lot Owner v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: Mr J-J Loofs SC and Mr L James (Second Defendant) Ms C Coventry (Third Defendant) Solicitors: Byrnes Legal (Second Defendant) Gilchrist Connell (Third Defendant)
Orders
(1) Order, pursuant to r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), that the proceedings against the second and third defendants be dismissed. (2) Order that the plaintiff pay the second defendant’s costs of, and incidental to, the notice of motion dated 27 July 2022. (3) Order that the plaintiff pay the third defendant’s costs of, and incidental to, the notice of motion dated 26 July 2022. (4) Order that the plaintiff pay the second and third defendant’s costs of the proceedings....
Google Reviews
25 Jan 2026
“My experience with CSTM as Strata Manager was very disappointing.
I received a quote directly from the Owner / Chief Operating Officer. After advising that I wished to proceed with them and I was told on several occasions that my calls and emails would be returned. Unfortunately, that did not...”
28 Aug 2019
“Took 4 years and 3 months to repair my en-suite. Reported plumbing issues and cracks appearing on the ceiling 2 months ago, but nothing has been done, even constantly reminding strata by sending updates of photos and videos. But the strata plumber has denied it is a strata issue (Our hot water...”
21 Feb 2022
“Our apartment complex thankfully got rid of CSTM last month. Our new strata agency have publicly stated that it will take a long time to fix the complex after years of neglect. If you use CSTM, you are essentially paying for neglect. I wouldn't recommend them to my worst enemy.”
25 May 2024
“Very ordinary run operation. Over priced for the service they provide. Alot of cost for little return unless u are a rich owner you have no hope. They look after themselves and no one else. We had to take an extra mortgage and now sell our unit to look after 1 unit who now has a fully rebuilt...”
03 Nov 2019
“I deal with many strata companies on a regular basis & have always been impressed with the professionalism, patience & assistance provided by the whole team at CSTM offices on the Central Coast. It's a relief to me when I know they are managing a complex that I am dealing with. Thank you.”