Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd
Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd manages around 250 strata schemes totalling 26,000 lots across NSW. With an average of around 98 lots per scheme, it specialises in larger buildings — more than double the state-wide average of around 20 lots. It has a broad geographic spread across 69 suburbs, with Crackenback as its largest market (12%). Its schemes have been involved in 16 tribunal and court decisions since 2021, none of which resulted in adverse findings.
Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd is part of the PICA Group, which collectively manages 6754 schemes (119161 lots) across 17 entities in NSW. See also: PICA Services Pty Ltd, BCS Strata Management Pty Ltd, Mason & Brophy Strata Management Pty. Limited, Robinson Strata Management Pty Ltd, LB Lanolin Pty Ltd, Sydney Unit Management Pty Ltd, Seyval Enterprises Pty Ltd, The 4JGG Pty Ltd, KPR Managements Pty Ltd, Glen & Joanne Mobbs Pty Ltd, Reif Group Pty Ltd, Vamana Management Pty Ltd, Green Planet Homes Pty Ltd, Spar Properties Pty Ltd, Jakes Global Services Pty Ltd, Moogen International Pty Ltd.
Counts (~) are rounded figures sourced from the NSW StrataHub register. Figures may include duplication in staged or mixed-use developments and reflect data at the time of the last register extract.
Portfolio
86% residential
SCA NSW
Not listed
Fair Trading
✓ Not on register
Scheme Decisions
16 in portfolio since 2021
Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 86%
Commercial 6%
Utility 7%
Other 1%
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 98.2 lots. A significant share of schemes have 100+ lots, indicating a focus on large apartment buildings.
Portfolio Age
Schemes by registration decade. Oldest scheme registered 1962, newest 2024.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crackenback 2627 | 32 | 6,144 | 12% | 100.0% | |
| Sydney 2000 | 21 | 1,302 | 8% | 4.6% | |
| Erskineville 2043 | 15 | 1,985 | 6% | 20.3% | |
| Surry Hills 2010 | 13 | 1,412 | 5% | 5.1% | |
| Pyrmont 2009 | 11 | 1,443 | 4% | 10.5% | |
| Botany 2019 | 10 | 1,776 | 4% | 6.6% | |
| Darlinghurst 2010 | 9 | 638 | 3% | 3.6% | |
| Dawes Point 2000 | 8 | 114 | 3% | 50.0% | |
| Jindabyne 2627 | 8 | 139 | 3% | 2.6% | |
| Marsfield 2122 | 7 | 699 | 3% | 5.1% |
| Chippendale 2008 | 6 | 1,138 | 2% | 7.7% | |
| Potts Point 2011 | 5 | 147 | 2% | 2.5% | |
| Wollongong 2500 | 5 | 233 | 2% | 0.7% | |
| Little Bay 2036 | 5 | 266 | 2% | 9.3% | |
| Woolooware 2230 | 4 | 660 | 2% | 2.7% | |
| Camperdown 2050 | 4 | 592 | 2% | 4.0% | |
| Wollstonecraft 2065 | 4 | 355 | 2% | 1.3% | |
| Newcastle 2300 | 4 | 245 | 2% | 2.5% | |
| Millers Point 2000 | 4 | 155 | 2% | 10.3% | |
| Neutral Bay 2089 | 4 | 89 | 2% | 0.8% | |
| North Sydney 2060 | 3 | 780 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| Newington 2127 | 3 | 539 | 1% | 14.3% | |
| Elizabeth Bay 2011 | 3 | 358 | 1% | 2.1% | |
| Manly 2095 | 3 | 435 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Wentworth Point 2127 | 3 | 261 | 1% | 5.5% | |
| Paddington 2021 | 3 | 161 | 1% | 3.0% | |
| Woollahra 2025 | 3 | 84 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Darling Point 2027 | 3 | 48 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| Bondi Beach 2026 | 3 | 36 | 1% | 0.6% | |
| Leichhardt 2040 | 3 | 29 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Tamarama 2026 | 3 | 14 | 1% | 3.6% | |
| Double Bay 2028 | 3 | 9 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| Rhodes 2138 | 2 | 298 | 1% | 2.4% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 2 | 202 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Greenwich 2065 | 2 | 156 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Chatswood 2067 | 2 | 145 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Mosman 2088 | 2 | 126 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Waverton 2060 | 2 | 73 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Pagewood 2035 | 2 | 82 | 1% | 15.4% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 2 | 35 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Rushcutters Bay 2011 | 2 | 46 | 1% | 2.4% | |
| Kingsford 2032 | 2 | 19 | 1% | 0.9% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 2 | 23 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| St Leonards 2065 | 2 | 20 | 1% | 2.3% | |
| Haymarket 2000 | 1 | 756 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Macquarie Park 2113 | 1 | 412 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Kirrawee 2232 | 1 | 209 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Edgecliff 2027 | 1 | 204 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Dee Why 2099 | 1 | 161 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Glebe 2037 | 1 | 119 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Hillsdale 2036 | 1 | 116 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Bondi Junction 2022 | 1 | 71 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Waterloo 2017 | 1 | 69 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Coogee 2034 | 1 | 50 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Woolloomooloo 2011 | 1 | 35 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Liberty Grove 2138 | 1 | 28 | 0% | 7.7% | |
| Crows Nest 2065 | 1 | 27 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Oxford Falls 2100 | 1 | 25 | 0% | 100.0% | |
| Artarmon 2064 | 1 | 23 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 1 | 22 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Newtown 2042 | 1 | 22 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Milsons Point 2061 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Vaucluse 2030 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Point Piper 2027 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Cremorne Point 2090 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Watsons Bay 2030 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 4.0% | |
| Cremorne 2090 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Bronte 2024 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.6% |
Tribunal & Court History
16
Scheme Decisions
7
NCAT
7
Supreme Court
1
Court of Appeal
0.0
Manager Adverse / 100
6.1
Total per 100 Schemes
16 tribunal or court decisions in managed schemes since 2021. In none of these was Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd named as a party — all involved schemes they manage. No adverse findings against the manager.
Orders Made 11
Dismissed 5
Repair & maintenance 5
Common property 3
Building defects 3
Parking & access 1
Fire safety 1
The owners corporation brought proceedings seeking declaratory relief which was dismissed by the tribunal. The tribunal decided that the owners corporation should pay the developer's costs because the proceedings were unnecessary and the issues could be addressed in existing proceedings. The tribunal found that there was no good reason to depart from the usual costs order.
COSTS — r 42.20(1), Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (2005) — owners of high-rise development bring four proceedings against developers, builder and others for building defects — fifth proceeding against developer dismissed as abuse of process — whether defendants entitled to costs of proceedings —...
Before
Rees J
Hearing
On the papers; submissions 24 October 2025
File Numbers
2025/48263
Matched Strata Plans
SP87881
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: F Hicks SC / SC Ipp (Plaintiffs) DT Miller SC / M Sheldon (Defendants) Solicitors: HWL Ebsworth (Plaintiffs) Minter Ellison (Defendants)
Orders
Costs order made.
The Owners sought a declaration regarding the method of rectifying building defects. The tribunal dismissed the proceedings, finding that the issues could be addressed within existing building-defect proceedings. The tribunal reasoned that this would avoid duplication and the potential for inconsistent rulings.
SUMMARY DISPOSAL — owners of high-rise development bring four proceedings against developers, builder and others for building defects — building work rectification order issued to developers under Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020 (NSW) — owners...
Before
Rees J
Hearing
28 August 2025; last submissions 2 September 2025
File Numbers
2025/48263
Matched Strata Plans
SP87881
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: F Hicks SC / SC Ipp (Plaintiffs) DT Miller SC / M Sheldon (Defendants) Solicitors: HWL Ebsworth (Plaintiffs) Minter Ellison (Defendants)
Orders
Proceedings dismissed.
The Owners Corporation and the defendants had a mediation session that was aborted. The defendants sought a gross sum costs order, but the tribunal dismissed this. The tribunal ordered the Owners Corporation pay the defendants' costs of the mediation, subject to assessment.
COSTS — Application for costs to be fixed in a gross sum — Appropriateness of gross sum costs order – Sufficiency of evidence required for gross sum costs orders – Where parties scheduled to participate in mediation – Where mediation terminated upon failure of plaintiff’s personal representative...
Before
Peden J
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2022/00172260
Matched Strata Plans
SP93105
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: NYH Li (Plaintiff) Solicitors: Kerin Benson Lawyers (Plaintiff) Colin Biggers & Paisley (Defendants)
Orders
See [26]
The applicant sought to have the tribunal uphold the original orders which required the Owners Corporation to undertake repairs to the applicant's lot. The tribunal declined to grant the Owners Corporation an extension of time to complete the work. The Owners Corporation was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the application.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act s 41 – extension of time for compliance with orders – applicable principles
Before
D Robertson, Principal Member
Hearing
On the papers, last submissions received 1 July 2025
File Numbers
2024/00071125
Matched Strata Plans
SP2661
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: A Rizk (Applicant) Solicitors: Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Applicant) Mills Oakley (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Pursuant to s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) a hearing in respect of the respondent’s Miscellaneous Matters Application filed on 30 May 2025 is dispensed with. (2) The Miscellaneous Matters Application is dismissed. (3) The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of the Miscellaneous Matters Application as agreed or assessed.
The applicant appealed a decision about land tax liability, arguing an exemption applied because they intended to live in a new unit replacing the original lots. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the exemption applied to the original lots, which were not intended as a residence, and that the new unit was materially different. Costs were not awarded.
TAXES AND DUTIES — land tax — liability —principal place of residence — unoccupied land concession — where multiple strata lots are claimed as principal place of residence — where strata lots are intended to be consolidated into a single lot — where taxable land does not exactly correspond to...
Before
Mitchelmore JA at [1]; McHugh JA at [77]; Griffiths AJA at [78]
Hearing
22 November 2024
File Numbers
2024/00268915
Matched Strata Plans
SP107340,SP4655
Parties
Third Party v Government
Representation
Counsel: C Bevan / A Kaylinger (Appellant) K Lord (Respondent) Solicitors: Solon Lawyers (Appellant) Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The appeal is dismissed with costs.
A homeowner sued a builder alleging defects in the construction of their new home. The tribunal found the builder breached a warranty regarding the suitability of materials used for a polished concrete floor, specifically the sealant. The tribunal ordered the builder to pay the homeowner $55,999.19 for the cost of rectification work.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION - Home building - Breach of statutory warranties
Before
Dr K M George, Senior Member
Hearing
12 November 2024
File Numbers
2023/00369499 (formerly HB 23/48520) 2024/00147859
Matched Strata Plans
SP92888
Parties
Lot Owner v Developer
Representation
Counsel: Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd: Mr Kent Solicitors: Kyle Douglas Fish: Enright Law Group Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd: Leeds Lawyers Polycrete Australia Pty Ltd: Mr Mekuri, Director
Orders
1 By 21 February 2025 Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd is to pay Kyle Fish $55,999.19. 2 Application 2023/00369499 is otherwise dismissed. 3 Application 2024/00147859 is dismissed. 4 If an application for costs is made: (a) The application is to be filed and served, supported by evidence and submissions not exceeding 3 pages in length by 17 February 2025; (b) Evidence and submissions in response to the costs application not exceeding 3 pages in length are to be filed and served by 3 March 2025; (c) Any...
An apartment owner sought compensation from the owners corporation for a water leak, as well as repairs. The tribunal found in favour of the applicant, ordering the owners to pay compensation and repair common property, specifically the brickwork. Costs were to be determined later.
LAND LAW – strata title – duties of owners corporation – duty to maintain and repair common property – claims for rectification works and damages by lot owner under Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), s 106(5) and 232(1) following breach of duty – reasonably foreseeable losses suffered as...
Before
D Robertson, Principal Member
Hearing
27 June 2024, last submissions received 23 August 2024
File Numbers
2024/00071125
Matched Strata Plans
SP2661
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: A Rizk (Applicant) C Purdy (Respondent) Solicitors: Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Applicant) Mills Oakley (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Pursuant to s 106(5) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (the Act) order the respondent to pay the applicant $98,374.29 compensation for breach of s 106 of the Act within 28 days of the date of this decision. (2) Pursuant to s 232 of the Act, direct that the respondent is not to pay any compensation awarded to the applicant from levies to which the applicant has been required to contribute. (3) Pursuant to s 232 of the Act, direct the respondent, within two months of the date...
The applicants appealed against Development Control Orders related to fire safety. The tribunal, after a conciliation process, modified the original orders to extend compliance timeframes and remove some requirements, based on an agreement between the parties. The modifications were made to ensure adequate fire safety.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ORDER – fire safety order - conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Before
Targett C
Hearing
Conciliation Conference 24 July and 29 October 2024
File Numbers
2023/37295 2023/37305 2023/37299 2023/37297
Matched Strata Plans
SP87881
Parties
Developer v Government
Representation
Proceedings 2023/37295, 2023/37305, 2023/37299, 2023/37297 Counsel: C Novak (Applicant) T Poisel (Respondent) Solicitors: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Applicant) NSW Department of Planning and...
Orders
Proceedings 2023/37295 The Court orders that: (1) The appeal is upheld. (2) Pursuant to s 8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Development Control Order issued by the Minister for Planning to Fortius Broadway No 1 Pty Ltd (ACN 634 804 550), dated 10 January 2023, in respect of land identified as Lot 327 in Deposited Plan 1270348, is modified in accordance with the instrument set out in Annexure A. Proceedings 2023/37305 The Court orders that: (1) The appeal...
The Owners had filed an application for contempt against Selkirk, which they later withdrew. Selkirk applied for costs. The Tribunal decided that the Owners could not use funds from Selkirk's lot to pay the Owners' costs of the proceedings.
CONTEMPT - special circumstances warranting an order of costs – Civil and Administrative Act 2013 section 73 - contempt application withdrawn - unconditional withdrawal and dismissal of any application without a determination on the merits – both parties acted reasonably – Tribunal not satisfied...
Before
Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member
Hearing
On The Papers
File Numbers
2024/00179339
Matched Strata Plans
SP2661
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: C Purdy (Applicant) A Rizk (Respondent) Solicitors: Mills Oakley (Applicant) Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
(1) That, pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) the Tribunal dispenses with a hearing of this application. (2) That, pursuant to s 60(4) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) the Owners Strata 2661 are restrained from applying any funds held to the credit of Simone Selkirk or payable by her to it towards or for the purposes of paying the Owners’ costs of or incidental to these proceedings.
Mr. Vatner sought to set aside land tax assessments for his property. The tribunal determined that the land was not exempt from land tax. Consequently, the assessments were affirmed, and Mr. Vatner was ordered to pay the Commissioner's costs.
TAXES AND DUTIES — land tax — liability — concessions — principal place of residence
Before
Richmond J
Hearing
29 April–1 May 2024
File Numbers
2022/190833
Matched Strata Plans
SP107340,SP4655
Parties
Lot Owner v Government
Representation
Counsel: C Bevan (Plaintiff) K Lord (Defendant) Solicitors: Crown Solicitor’s Office (Defendant)
Orders
Appeal dismissed. Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs on the ordinary basis.
An owners corporation appealed a decision related to a lot owner's claim for damages following a leak, arguing the lot owner's conduct affected their claim. The court allowed the appeal in part, finding it was open to the owners corporation to argue the lot owner's actions affected the claim. The court also referred concerns about the lot owner to the professional regulator.
LAND LAW – strata title – duties of owners corporation – duty to maintain and repair common property – claims for rectification works and damages by lot owner under Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), s 106(5) and 232(1) following breach of duty – whether entitlement of owners corporation...
Before
Leeming JA
Hearing
12 June 2024
File Numbers
2024/85147
Matched Strata Plans
SP2661
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: C Purdy (Plaintiff) A Rizk (Defendant) Solicitors: Mills Oakley (Plaintiff) Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Defendant)
Orders
1. Grant leave to appeal, confined to ground 3 of the summons filed on 5 March 2024, and otherwise refuse leave. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. Answer the question “Whether a mitigation defence is available in answer or partial answer to a claim for damages under s 106(5)”: It is open to an owners corporation to seek to establish that all or part of a lot owner’s claimed damages are not damages for foreseeable losses as a result of the owners corporation’s breach of duty, including by establishing...
An applicant appealed a decision, claiming the owners corporation breached its duty to repair common property. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding in favor of the applicant, and ordered the owners corporation to pay the applicant's appeal costs. The Tribunal reserved the costs of the initial hearing for later determination.
REAL PROPERTY – STRATA MANAGEMENT – strict duty of repair – onus of proof on scope and consequences of breach – causation and mitigation – measure and quantification of loss – Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) ss 106, 122, 124, 232. COSTS – costs orders on severable issues - application...
Before
S Westgarth, Deputy President G Burton SC, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2023/00289207
Matched Strata Plans
SP2661
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: A Rizk, (Appellant) C Purdy, (Respondent) Solicitors: Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Appellant) Mills Oakley Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Order that a hearing on costs is dispensed with. (2) Order that the first respondent (OC) pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed except for the costs of the flooring issue not pressed on appeal. (3) Note that, the appellant having been found to have been successful in the proceedings within the meaning of s 104 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), pursuant to the operation of s 104 of that Act costs and expenses of the OC in the...
An apartment owner appealed a previous decision regarding common property repairs in their bathroom. The tribunal found errors in the original decision concerning the owners corporation's obligations. The appeal was allowed, and the case was sent back to the tribunal for a new decision.
REAL PROPERTY – STRATA MANAGEMENT – strict duty of repair – onus of proof on scope and consequences of breach – causation and mitigation – measure and quantification of loss – Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) ss 106, 122, 124, 232
Before
S Westgarth, Deputy President G Burton SC, Senior Member
Hearing
14 November 2023
File Numbers
2023/00289207
Matched Strata Plans
SP2661
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Appellant) Mills Oakley Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
1. As against the first respondent Owners SP 2661, (a) to the extent necessary leave to appeal is granted, and (b) the appeal is allowed. 2. Note that the second respondent was by consent order dated 26 October 2023 removed as a party to the appeal. 3. The proceedings are remitted for determination by the Tribunal consistent with the findings and reasons in this decision on the following matters and any related matters pressed on this appeal: the scope of work and terms of the work order to...
A lot owner applied for compensation from the owners corporation for water damage. The tribunal found the owners corporation breached its duty to maintain common property and ordered payment of damages for the water damage. The tribunal dismissed parts of the claim due to time limits.
LAND LAW – Strata title – common property – maintenance of common property – breach – damages – whether damages claim is out of time – whether compliance with duty to maintain the common property in good and serviceable repair has been deferred
Before
P French, Senior Member
Hearing
19 April 2022
File Numbers
SC 21/45413
Matched Strata Plans
SP88789
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Applicant (self-represented) Counsel: A Power (Respondent) Solicitor: J S Mueller & Co (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The Owners – Strata Plan No. 88789 must pay Yu Wang $3,604.00 immediately. (2) The application is otherwise dismissed.
A lot owner sued the owners corporation and another lot owner over water damage, strata levies, and noise. The court decided to transfer the case to NCAT. The court made no order regarding costs for either party.
COSTS – dispute concerning a strata scheme – parties agree that proceedings should be transferred to NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal – whether order for costs should be made against plaintiff – plaintiff not shown to have acted unreasonably – appropriate to make no order as to costs
Before
Darke J
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2021/196829
Matched Strata Plans
SP2661
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: Mr H Black (First Defendant) Solicitors: Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Plaintiff) Vardanega Roberts (First Defendant)
Orders
Proceedings transferred to New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. No order as to costs.
The developer appealed a decision that found their Biowood cladding did not comply with the Building Code of Australia. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the cladding presented an undue fire risk and that the lower tribunal's decision was correct. The developer was ordered to pay the Owners Corporation's costs.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal pursuant to s 83 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) – decision of Appeal Panel of Civil and Administrative Tribunal that use of “Biowood” attachments to external walls of multi-storey residential buildings constitutes undue risk of fire spread –...
Before
Henry J
Hearing
16 October 2020
File Numbers
2020/253142
Matched Strata Plans
SP92888
Parties
Developer v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: G A Sirtes SC with B Le Plastrier (Plaintiffs) T Davie with A Power (Defendant) Solicitors: Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers (Plaintiffs) JS Mueller & Co Lawyers (Defendant)
Orders
(1) Grant leave to appeal. (2) Dismiss the amended summons filed by the First Plaintiff and the cross-summons filed by the Second Plaintiff. (3) Unless any party makes an application for a different costs order within 14 days, the Defendant’s costs of these proceedings be paid by the First and Second Plaintiffs on an ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.
Frequently Asked Questions
- How many strata schemes does Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd manage in NSW?
- Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd manages around 250 strata schemes (around 26,000 total lots) across 69 suburbs in New South Wales, based on the NSW StrataHub register.
- What areas does Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd provide strata management in?
- Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd is most active in Crackenback, Sydney, Erskineville, covering 69 suburbs across NSW in total.
- Does Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd specialise in residential or commercial strata?
- Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd manages primarily residential (86% residential, 6% commercial).
- What is the average scheme size managed by Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd?
- Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd manages schemes averaging 98 lots each, compared to the NSW state average of approximately 20 lots per scheme.
- Is Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd a member of Strata Community Association (SCA) NSW?
- Based on the SCA NSW online directory, Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd does not appear as a current member.
- Does Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd have any NSW Fair Trading enforcement actions?
- Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd does not appear on the NSW Fair Trading Name and Shame Register, indicating no recorded enforcement actions as of our last data update.
- How many NCAT or court cases involve schemes managed by Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd?
- 16 tribunal or court cases involving schemes managed by Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd appear in NSW caselaw records since 2021.
- What is Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd's NSW strata management licence number?
- Dynamic Property Services Pty Ltd's NSW licence number is 280243, issued under the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002.