Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 11,046 (84%)
Commercial 1,605 (12%)
Utility 419 (3%)
Other 8 (0%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 10.5 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 1963, newest 2024.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warners Bay 2282 | 81 | 725 | 6% | 32.9% | |
| Charlestown 2290 | 80 | 935 | 6% | 27.6% | |
| Merewether 2291 | 74 | 442 | 6% | 18.3% | |
| Wallsend 2287 | 67 | 954 | 5% | 15.5% | |
| New Lambton 2305 | 52 | 304 | 4% | 34.7% | |
| Adamstown 2289 | 51 | 503 | 4% | 32.1% | |
| Cardiff 2285 | 33 | 203 | 3% | 33.0% | |
| Newcastle 2300 | 31 | 1,007 | 2% | 18.9% | |
| Kahibah 2290 | 30 | 188 | 2% | 46.2% | |
| Cooks Hill 2300 | 27 | 637 | 2% | 30.7% |
| Toronto 2283 | 25 | 232 | 2% | 28.7% | |
| Hamilton 2303 | 24 | 256 | 2% | 34.8% | |
| Belmont 2280 | 23 | 236 | 2% | 28.7% | |
| The Hill 2300 | 22 | 123 | 2% | 20.8% | |
| Mount Hutton 2290 | 21 | 277 | 2% | 31.8% | |
| Mayfield 2304 | 20 | 127 | 2% | 9.9% | |
| Elermore Vale 2287 | 19 | 121 | 2% | 25.0% | |
| Valentine 2280 | 18 | 78 | 1% | 21.7% | |
| Shortland 2307 | 17 | 147 | 1% | 41.5% | |
| Waratah 2298 | 17 | 124 | 1% | 23.9% | |
| Jesmond 2299 | 17 | 120 | 1% | 23.0% | |
| Blackalls Park 2283 | 17 | 110 | 1% | 45.9% | |
| Lambton 2299 | 17 | 87 | 1% | 20.0% | |
| Mayfield West 2304 | 15 | 149 | 1% | 28.8% | |
| Morisset 2264 | 15 | 128 | 1% | 20.8% | |
| Boolaroo 2284 | 14 | 62 | 1% | 37.8% | |
| Kotara 2289 | 14 | 77 | 1% | 35.0% | |
| Whitebridge 2290 | 13 | 108 | 1% | 35.1% | |
| Broadmeadow 2292 | 13 | 115 | 1% | 35.1% | |
| Swansea 2281 | 13 | 139 | 1% | 18.8% | |
| Redhead 2290 | 13 | 104 | 1% | 36.1% | |
| Beresfield 2322 | 12 | 99 | 1% | 18.2% | |
| Hawks Nest 2324 | 12 | 94 | 1% | 10.0% | |
| East Maitland 2323 | 11 | 51 | 1% | 5.7% | |
| Cameron Park 2285 | 10 | 934 | 1% | 21.3% | |
| Newcastle East 2300 | 10 | 102 | 1% | 37.0% | |
| The Junction 2291 | 10 | 76 | 1% | 21.7% | |
| Maryville 2293 | 10 | 76 | 1% | 35.7% | |
| Thornton 2322 | 10 | 42 | 1% | 6.6% | |
| Islington 2296 | 9 | 167 | 1% | 31.0% | |
| Belmont North 2280 | 9 | 175 | 1% | 42.9% | |
| Edgeworth 2285 | 9 | 98 | 1% | 27.3% | |
| Newcastle West 2302 | 8 | 137 | 1% | 22.2% | |
| Fletcher 2287 | 8 | 57 | 1% | 25.0% | |
| Gateshead 2290 | 8 | 83 | 1% | 42.1% | |
| Bar Beach 2300 | 8 | 59 | 1% | 22.2% | |
| Raymond Terrace 2324 | 8 | 38 | 1% | 5.0% | |
| Warabrook 2304 | 7 | 155 | 1% | 13.7% | |
| Wickham 2293 | 7 | 105 | 1% | 14.3% | |
| Bennetts Green 2290 | 7 | 68 | 1% | 33.3% | |
| Hamilton South 2303 | 7 | 40 | 1% | 25.9% | |
| Adamstown Heights 2289 | 6 | 51 | 0% | 50.0% | |
| Caves Beach 2281 | 6 | 48 | 0% | 23.1% | |
| Speers Point 2284 | 6 | 40 | 0% | 16.7% | |
| Dudley 2290 | 6 | 38 | 0% | 50.0% | |
| Rutherford 2320 | 6 | 43 | 0% | 4.7% | |
| Carrington 2294 | 5 | 134 | 0% | 20.0% | |
| Fennell Bay 2283 | 5 | 140 | 0% | 50.0% | |
| Marks Point 2280 | 5 | 95 | 0% | 22.7% | |
| Kurri Kurri 2327 | 5 | 33 | 0% | 6.8% | |
| Birmingham Gardens 2287 | 5 | 21 | 0% | 16.1% | |
| Eleebana 2282 | 4 | 140 | 0% | 3.3% | |
| Metford 2323 | 4 | 49 | 0% | 6.0% | |
| Maitland 2320 | 4 | 33 | 0% | 10.5% | |
| Rathmines 2283 | 4 | 18 | 0% | 16.0% | |
| Maryland 2287 | 4 | 18 | 0% | 7.1% | |
| North Lambton 2299 | 4 | 16 | 0% | 12.5% | |
| Mayfield East 2304 | 4 | 17 | 0% | 17.4% | |
| Tuggerah 2259 | 3 | 45 | 0% | 3.3% | |
| Carey Bay 2283 | 3 | 50 | 0% | 42.9% | |
| Waratah West 2298 | 3 | 22 | 0% | 18.8% | |
| Teralba 2284 | 3 | 26 | 0% | 37.5% | |
| Tea Gardens 2324 | 3 | 20 | 0% | 6.2% | |
| Argenton 2284 | 3 | 19 | 0% | 30.0% | |
| Cardiff South 2285 | 3 | 17 | 0% | 12.0% | |
| Kilaben Bay 2283 | 3 | 14 | 0% | 50.0% | |
| Georgetown 2298 | 3 | 15 | 0% | 15.0% | |
| Glendale 2285 | 3 | 16 | 0% | 25.0% | |
| Tenambit 2323 | 3 | 14 | 0% | 9.1% | |
| Aberglasslyn 2320 | 3 | 10 | 0% | 6.2% | |
| Fullerton Cove 2318 | 2 | 30 | 0% | 100.0% | |
| Windale 2306 | 2 | 17 | 0% | 50.0% | |
| Tarro 2322 | 2 | 17 | 0% | 20.0% | |
| Raworth 2321 | 2 | 12 | 0% | 5.9% | |
| Sandgate 2304 | 2 | 20 | 0% | 18.2% | |
| Floraville 2280 | 2 | 9 | 0% | 8.0% | |
| Woodberry 2322 | 2 | 9 | 0% | 28.6% | |
| Stockton 2295 | 2 | 7 | 0% | 9.5% | |
| Gloucester 2422 | 2 | 8 | 0% | 16.7% | |
| Hamilton North 2292 | 2 | 7 | 0% | 22.2% | |
| Highfields 2289 | 2 | 7 | 0% | 40.0% | |
| Aberdare 2325 | 2 | 5 | 0% | 3.4% | |
| Blue Bay 2261 | 2 | 6 | 0% | 3.2% | |
| Tighes Hill 2297 | 2 | 6 | 0% | 12.5% | |
| Fingal Bay 2315 | 2 | 5 | 0% | 2.2% | |
| Salamander Bay 2317 | 1 | 99 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Lakelands 2282 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 20.0% | |
| Telarah 2320 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 16.7% | |
| Mcdougalls Hill 2330 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 11.1% | |
| Dubbo 2830 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Shoal Bay 2315 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Wyong 2259 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Gillieston Heights 2321 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Largs 2320 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 10.0% | |
| Bonnells Bay 2264 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 16.7% | |
| Merewether Heights 2291 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 33.3% | |
| Summerland Point 2259 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 20.0% | |
| Medowie 2318 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 4.3% | |
| Belmont South 2280 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 11.1% | |
| Bellbird 2325 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 11.1% | |
| Marmong Point 2284 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 20.0% | |
| Bellbird Heights 2325 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 50.0% | |
| Croudace Bay 2280 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 33.3% | |
| Morpeth 2321 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 5.6% | |
| Singleton Heights 2330 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 2.7% | |
| Cessnock 2325 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Tanilba Bay 2319 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 7.1% | |
| Heatherbrae 2324 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 7.7% | |
| Tingira Heights 2290 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 20.0% | |
| Wangi Wangi 2267 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 9.1% | |
| Bolton Point 2283 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 33.3% | |
| Hunterview 2330 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Kotara South 2289 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 100.0% |
Tribunal & Court History
6
Total Cases
3
NCAT
1
Supreme Court
0.2
Adverse per 100 Schemes
0.5
Total per 100 Schemes
6 cases since 2021. Of these, 3 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 3 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
Orders Made 5
Dismissed 1
By-law enforcement 1
Building defects 1
Parking & access 1
Fire safety 1
The Merewether Historical Society sought to be joined to an appeal regarding a development consent modification to an Owners Corporation. The tribunal decided to allow the Society to join the proceedings, giving directions regarding filings and evidence. This allows the Society to argue that the modifications should not be approved because of impacts on public access.
PARTIES – joinder of party – modification of development consent to extinguish easement – easement in gross benefitting local council – servient owner obstructing easement – public body litigating to remove obstruction – extinguishment of easement would affect public body’s contingent right in...
Before
Preston CJ
Hearing
3 October 2025
File Numbers
2025/61685
Matched Strata Plans
SP105507
Parties
Owners Corporation v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: J Farrell (Applicant for Joinder) M Fraser (Applicant) S Faux (Solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Applicant for Joinder) Bilbie Faraday Harrison Solicitors...
Orders
The Court orders: (1) Merewether Historical Society Incorporated (the Society) is joined as a party to the proceedings, to be designated as the Second Respondent. (2) The Society is to file a notice of appearance within 2 days.
The Owners Corporation, representing a 72-apartment building, sued the builder for alleged defects under the Home Building Act and Design and Building Practitioners Act. The court declined to dismiss the Home Building Act claim due to statute of limitations issues, but ordered the Owners Corporation to clarify its claims by preparing a detailed schedule.
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – whether proceedings brought out of time – whether interim occupation certificate authorised occupation and use of the “whole of the building” for the purposes of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings – application to strike out – whether claims...
Before
Stevenson J
Hearing
08 March 2024
File Numbers
2023/8270
Matched Strata Plans
SP93357
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: A D Justice (Plaintiff/Respondent) D Weinberger (Defendant/Applicant) Solicitors: MRM Lawyers (Plaintiff/Respondent) Mills Oakley (Defendant/Applicant)
Orders
Parties to confer and agree on the orders to be made to give effect to the reasons; no order as to costs with the intent that each party bear their own costs
The applicant appealed a Fire Safety Order. The tribunal, following a conciliation conference, modified the order according to an agreement between the parties, resolving the appeal and clarifying the fire safety upgrade requirements. No merit assessment of the original issues was made.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ORDER APPEAL – fire safety – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Before
Espinosa C
Hearing
Conciliation Conference on 8 November 2023
File Numbers
2023/17301
Matched Strata Plans
SP98554
Parties
Third Party v Government
Representation
Counsel: C Koikas (Applicant) A Sinclair (Solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: Williamson Lawyers (Applicant) Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
The Court orders: (1) The appeal is upheld. (2) Fire safety order No. 1 dated 22 December 2022 issued by the Respondent to the Applicant pursuant to Div 9.3 and Sch 5, Pt 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in respect of premises identified as Lot 1-15 and CP in SP 98554 and known as 2 Veda Street, Hamilton is modified in the terms set out at Annexure A. (3) Fire safety order No. 1 dated 22 December 2022 issued by the Respondent to the Applicant pursuant to Div 9.3 and...
An apartment owner sought to invalidate a by-law prohibiting cooking in their lot. The Tribunal agreed, finding the by-law's blanket ban unreasonable and declaring it invalid. The Owners Corporation had argued the by-law was needed due to the small size of the lots and the lack of kitchen facilities.
LAND LAW — Strata title — By-laws — requirement that by-law not be harsh, unconscionable or oppressive — where by-law prohibits cooking — whether by-law harsh, unconscionable or oppressive
Before
S Hanstein, General Member
Hearing
23 November 2022
File Numbers
SC22/35101
Matched Strata Plans
SP87497
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
W Franklin (Applicant) Lake Group Strata, Mr Graham (Respondent)
Orders
Pursuant to s 150(1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015, paragraphs (1) and (2) of by-law 25 are declared to be invalid.
The applicant, the Owner, sought the Builder to pay its costs of an appeal on an indemnity basis. The tribunal decided the Builder should pay the Owner's costs on an ordinary basis, but not indemnity costs because the offer did not provide a reasonable time for consideration. The tribunal did not believe an unreasonable refusal of the offer was made.
COSTS – costs of unsuccessful appeal
Before
I Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member P Durack SC, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2021/00149120
Matched Strata Plans
SP96788
Parties
Lot Owner v Developer
Representation
Solicitors: Bilbie Faraday Harrison (Appellant) Keystone Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
(1) A hearing of the respondent’s application for costs of the appeal is dispensed with. (2) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, as agreed or assessed, on the ordinary basis.
The applicant, a builder, appealed a costs order related to rectifying building defects. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original decision that the builder pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis. The tribunal found no basis to alter the initial order.
COSTS-indemnity costs-refusal of offer for work order to be made -subsequently work order agreed to APPEALS-- no error of law-no point of principle-no appealable error concerning Tribunal’s conclusion that appellant acted unreasonably prolonged resolution of the proceedings – point not raised...
Before
I Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member P Durack SC, Senior Member
Hearing
25 October 2021
File Numbers
2021/00149120
Matched Strata Plans
SP96788
Parties
Developer v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: G Carolan (Appellant) Solicitors: Bilbie Faraday Harrison (Appellant) Keystone Lawyers (Respondent)
Orders
1. To the extent that it was required, leave to appeal is refused. 2. The appeal is dismissed. 3. The respondent is to serve and lodge written submissions in respect of any application as to the costs of the appeal within 14 days of the publication of these reasons and the appellant is to serve and lodge any written submissions in reply within 14 days of its receipt of the respondent’s submissions. The parties’ submissions are to include submissions as to whether the question of costs of the...
Google Reviews
12 Dec 2025
“We have been very very lucky to have Stacey take over from Lake Group Strata, in our building, and honestly everyone here absolutely adores her. Every single unit comes to the meeting. That says a lot.
She always asks about my twins who live in Thailand and somehow remembers everything about...”
10 Jul 2025
“Dom and the team at Lake Group strata are fantastic to work with. I have engaged them multiple times for strata management and highly recommend them to anyone looking for strata management on a new property or to take over strata management on an existing property.
Highly knowledgeable, always...”
17 Sep 2025
“Awful service from LGS. Poor management of funds. Ineffectiveness of managing claims resulting in an overcharge of additional levies. An average of 2 month response time from Robert Hintz as property manager. Unwillingness to look at alternate insurers for building insurance resulting in the...”
05 Jul 2025
“In my 40 years in the construction industry, dealing with Lake Group has been one of the most frustrating experiences I’ve had. Their understanding of customer service is virtually non-existent. Emails mostly go unanswered, and when they finally do respond, they often address only a portion of...”
08 Nov 2024
“We have been with Lake Group Strata for a year now, just had out annual meeting. Tomas was really helpful through the process, provided us with online options for access to voting and the meeting. We haven't had any issues with the customer service from these guys, always quick to respond to...”