Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 881 (83%)
Commercial 77 (7%)
Utility 54 (5%)
Other 48 (5%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 11.0 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 1964, newest 2020.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gladesville 2111 | 23 | 249 | 24% | 8.9% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 7 | 65 | 7% | 1.7% | |
| Hunters Hill 2110 | 5 | 28 | 5% | 3.4% | |
| Drummoyne 2047 | 4 | 47 | 4% | 1.4% | |
| West Ryde 2114 | 4 | 33 | 4% | 1.4% | |
| Summer Hill 2130 | 3 | 43 | 3% | 2.0% | |
| Marrickville 2204 | 3 | 33 | 3% | 0.9% | |
| Dulwich Hill 2203 | 3 | 37 | 3% | 1.4% | |
| Ashfield 2131 | 2 | 104 | 2% | 0.4% | |
| Meadowbank 2114 | 2 | 46 | 2% | 2.4% |
| Five Dock 2046 | 2 | 26 | 2% | 1.6% | |
| Huntleys Cove 2111 | 2 | 26 | 2% | 9.1% | |
| Eastwood 2122 | 2 | 17 | 2% | 0.5% | |
| Croydon 2132 | 2 | 16 | 2% | 2.6% | |
| Leichhardt 2040 | 2 | 9 | 2% | 1.0% | |
| Henley 2111 | 2 | 8 | 2% | 33.3% | |
| North Ryde 2113 | 2 | 7 | 2% | 1.5% | |
| Earlwood 2206 | 1 | 36 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| Strathfield 2135 | 1 | 26 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Homebush West 2140 | 1 | 20 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Chatswood 2067 | 1 | 19 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Silverwater 2128 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Fairfield 2165 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Cammeray 2062 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Baulkham Hills 2153 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Canada Bay 2046 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 3.6% | |
| Rockdale 2216 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Concord 2137 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Wiley Park 2195 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Smithfield 2164 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| Roselands 2196 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| Castle Hill 2154 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Granville 2142 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Elizabeth Bay 2011 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.6% | |
| Seven Hills 2147 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Putney 2112 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 3.0% | |
| Russell Lea 2046 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Mortdale 2223 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Rozelle 2039 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Lane Cove 2066 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| North Bondi 2026 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Cowra 2794 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 2.3% |
Tribunal & Court History
1
Total Cases
1
Supreme Court
1 case on record.
An owner sought to continue using an adjacent property for recreational purposes and claimed an entitlement to use the land, including by estoppel and easement. The tribunal dismissed these claims, found in favour of the adjacent land owner on the trespass claim, and ordered the defendant to remove structures built on the plaintiff's land.
TORTS — trespass to land — defences — land owned by plaintiff and plaintiff’s predecessor in title used by defendant’s predecessors in title and by defendant as garden since 1960s — plaintiff aware of use by 2009 — balcony, roof overhang, concrete slab, and deck constructed by defendant on, or...
Before
Parker J
Hearing
17, 18, 19 and 20 June; 5 July 2024; further written submissions ending 22 July 2024
File Numbers
2022/324943
Matched Strata Plans
SP4085
Parties
Third Party v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: Statement of Claim filed 31 October 2022 G A Sirtes SC/ D Robertson (Plaintiff) J Hutton SC (Defendant) Cross-Claim filed 19 December 2022 J Hutton SC (Cross-Claimant) G A Sirtes SC/ D...
Orders
See [498]–[501]
Google Reviews
15 Jan 2025
“We were left very frustrated and dissapointed with almost every aspect of service throughout our near 3 year tenure with OCMS. Frequent mistakes meant we had to keep a close eye on what was being done and what money was coming out of the accounts to ensure that errors could be corrected.
We...”
13 Aug 2024
“Over the last few years I have had an outstanding experience with OCMS. They are fast to respond , and genuinely want to get to the bottom of things in a timely manner. They are super helpful. Please keep up the great work and don’t ever change!”
24 May 2024
“Couldn't even manage to get the correct address when sending mail to a property they manage (they wrote the wrong address, even though their reply tries to blame me). Clueless admin team who make you wait in a tiny waiting area with no bell that says something like "we know you are here so...”
02 Mar 2025
“High fees, never returned phone calls, ignored repair requests, bad maintenance of the common property, little or no service . Don’t let this company run your unit or apartment block, cause you a lot of grief and problems.”
29 Jun 2023
“The team at OCMS were very helpful with all my questions and queries. They are very helpful with the issues that arise when being part of a unit complex, and very knowledgeable. It is a delight to deal with them and couldn't imagine anyone else managing the building we are in.
Thank you to all...”