Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 3,026 (95%)
Commercial 149 (5%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 18.9 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 1966, newest 2024.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parramatta 2150 | 15 | 210 | 9% | 3.2% | |
| Castle Hill 2154 | 8 | 154 | 5% | 3.0% | |
| Baulkham Hills 2153 | 8 | 150 | 5% | 3.8% | |
| Granville 2142 | 8 | 81 | 5% | 3.9% | |
| Blacktown 2148 | 7 | 115 | 4% | 2.1% | |
| Eastwood 2122 | 7 | 71 | 4% | 1.6% | |
| North Parramatta 2151 | 7 | 82 | 4% | 2.4% | |
| Thornleigh 2120 | 6 | 744 | 4% | 7.3% | |
| Carlingford 2118 | 5 | 121 | 3% | 3.2% | |
| Westmead 2145 | 5 | 51 | 3% | 1.8% |
| Hornsby 2077 | 4 | 70 | 2% | 1.1% | |
| Merrylands 2160 | 4 | 47 | 2% | 1.0% | |
| Lidcombe 2141 | 3 | 98 | 2% | 1.0% | |
| Harris Park 2150 | 3 | 60 | 2% | 2.2% | |
| Guildford 2161 | 3 | 32 | 2% | 1.6% | |
| Northmead 2152 | 3 | 35 | 2% | 2.9% | |
| Caringbah South 2229 | 3 | 11 | 2% | 0.8% | |
| Pymble 2073 | 2 | 56 | 1% | 2.6% | |
| Wahroonga 2076 | 2 | 71 | 1% | 1.8% | |
| Epping 2121 | 2 | 33 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Camperdown 2050 | 2 | 26 | 1% | 2.1% | |
| North Strathfield 2137 | 2 | 22 | 1% | 2.4% | |
| Toongabbie 2146 | 2 | 23 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| West Ryde 2114 | 2 | 6 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| North Richmond 2754 | 2 | 5 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Rouse Hill 2155 | 1 | 80 | 1% | 2.0% | |
| Turramurra 2074 | 1 | 58 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Meadowbank 2114 | 1 | 52 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| Lindfield 2070 | 1 | 40 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Strathfield 2135 | 1 | 40 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Minto 2566 | 1 | 36 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| Summer Hill 2130 | 1 | 24 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Lane Cove North 2066 | 1 | 24 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Merrylands West 2160 | 1 | 23 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Lane Cove 2066 | 1 | 20 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Yagoona 2199 | 1 | 20 | 1% | 0.9% | |
| Rydalmere 2116 | 1 | 20 | 1% | 1.8% | |
| Caringbah 2229 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Georges Hall 2198 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 5.6% | |
| Concord 2137 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Mosman 2088 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 0.1% | |
| Dee Why 2099 | 1 | 17 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Villawood 2163 | 1 | 15 | 1% | 4.3% | |
| Silverwater 2128 | 1 | 14 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Holsworthy 2173 | 1 | 13 | 1% | 2.3% | |
| Homebush West 2140 | 1 | 13 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Rosehill 2142 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Pendle Hill 2145 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Wentworthville 2145 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Seven Hills 2147 | 1 | 11 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Strathfield South 2136 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Dulwich Hill 2203 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Wakeley 2176 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 5.3% | |
| Marrickville 2204 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Stanmore 2048 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 0.6% | |
| Woollahra 2025 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Richmond 2753 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Fairfield 2165 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Oatlands 2117 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 2.1% | |
| Newtown 2042 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Concord West 2138 | 1 | 7 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| Marsfield 2122 | 1 | 7 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Campsie 2194 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Engadine 2233 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.6% | |
| Padstow 2211 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Cammeray 2062 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Drummoyne 2047 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Hurstville 2220 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| North Ryde 2113 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Croydon 2132 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Peakhurst 2210 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Putney 2112 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 3.0% | |
| Jordan Springs 2747 | 1 | 2 | 1% | 2.9% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 1 | 2 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Burraneer 2230 | 1 | 2 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| Allawah 2218 | 1 | 2 | 1% | 0.6% |
Tribunal & Court History
3
Total Cases
3
NCAT
1.2
Adverse per 100 Schemes
1.8
Total per 100 Schemes
3 cases since 2025. Of these, 2 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 1 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
An owner appealed a prior decision, but the appeal was dismissed. The Owners Corporation sought costs. The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
REAL PROPERTY – STRATA MANAGEMENT – owners corporation’s strict duty to maintain and repair common property –alleged damage to lot property from alleged breach of duty – measure of damage to lot property when renovations occurred – whether relevant pipes were common property -Strata Schemes...
Before
G K Burton SC, Senior Member M Tibbey, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2024/00373098
Matched Strata Plans
SP11258
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Appellant (Self-Represented) Solicitors: JS Mueller & Co, Solicitors (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Order that a further hearing on costs is dispensed with. (2) Order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.
A lot owner appealed a previous decision, claiming water damage and governance issues in her strata scheme. The tribunal found against her on the water damage claims, citing insufficient evidence and lack of specificity. The appeal was dismissed because of these reasons.
REAL PROPERTY – STRATA MANAGEMENT – owners corporation’s strict duty to maintain and repair common property –alleged damage to lot property from alleged breach of duty – measure of damage to lot property when renovations occurred – whether relevant pipes were common property -Strata Schemes...
Before
G K Burton SC, Senior Member M Tibbey, Senior Member
Hearing
13 February and 12 March 2025
File Numbers
2024/00373098
Matched Strata Plans
SP11258
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Self-Represented (Appellant) JS Mueller & Co, Solicitors (Respondent)
Orders
(1) Grant leave (to the extent not already granted) to file the amended notice of appeal served 2 December 2024. (2) Leave to appeal (to the extent that leave is required) is refused. (3) Appeal dismissed. (4) In respect of costs of the appeal: (a) any application in respect of costs together with submissions and any further documents in respect of costs and including any application for a hearing on costs are to be filed and served within 14 days after date of these orders; (b) any...
The applicants, owners of all lots, sought a reallocation of unit entitlements. The tribunal decided the initial allocation was unreasonable and ordered the reallocation based on a valuation report. This reallocation corrected an initial error when the strata scheme was registered.
LAND LAW – strata title – unit entitlements – unreasonable or mistaken initial allocation – reallocation of unit entitlements – consideration of valuation – method of valuation - exercise of discretion
Before
S A McDonald, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2024/00068553
Matched Strata Plans
SP89670
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
No appearances
Orders
(1) Pursuant to section 236(1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), the Tribunal finds that the allocation of unit entitlements upon registration of Strata Plan No. 89670 was unreasonable and the Tribunal orders that the allocation of unit entitlements among the lots in Strata Plan No.89670 be in accordance with the schedule of unit entitlement contained in the report of Karvon Property Partners dated 15 February 2024, a copy of which is attached to the Affidavit of Peter Karvon...
Google Reviews
01 Oct 2025
“Thank you to John O’Connor at O’Connor Properties for his exceptional service renting our property.
From our very first meeting, John’s communication and service have been beyond our expectations. He insured every ‘i” was dotted and provided excellent advice regarding the presentation of the...”
01 Feb 2026
“I had an exceptionally great renting experience with John as the property was well maintained and clean. He was also very kind, responsive and easy to communicate with either it be a simple question or maintenance request. I highly recommend them, especially when looking for a reliable rental experience!”
12 Oct 2025
“O’connor properties has been amazing to be renting with, John is very attentive to the property making sure that everything is running perfectly. He is very easy to communicate with has been a delightful first rental experience for me. Highly recommend his services 10/10”
14 Jan 2026
“John has been an amazing landlord and made the rental process so easy! Our building was very well maintained, and any services our unit needed were arranged promptly and painlessly.”
28 Jul 2024
“Working with John and O’Connor Properties has been a truly delightful experience. I have complete peace of mind knowing that my property is in excellent hands. John's genuine care, attention to detail, and thorough approach ensure that my property is managed with the utmost diligence and...”