Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 5,373 (99%)
Commercial 53 (1%)
Utility 3 (0%)
Other 12 (0%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 42.2 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 2025.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hurstville 2220 | 13 | 170 | 10% | 2.7% | |
| Rockdale 2216 | 9 | 360 | 7% | 4.8% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 8 | 232 | 6% | 3.5% | |
| Bexley 2207 | 7 | 53 | 5% | 1.9% | |
| Haymarket 2000 | 5 | 2,918 | 4% | 9.1% | |
| Auburn 2144 | 5 | 213 | 4% | 1.0% | |
| Kogarah 2217 | 4 | 135 | 3% | 1.2% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 4 | 166 | 3% | 1.0% | |
| Homebush West 2140 | 4 | 51 | 3% | 2.7% | |
| Riverwood 2210 | 4 | 54 | 3% | 3.7% |
| Beverly Hills 2209 | 4 | 30 | 3% | 4.3% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 3 | 87 | 2% | 0.5% | |
| Belmore 2192 | 3 | 67 | 2% | 1.5% | |
| Peakhurst 2210 | 3 | 51 | 2% | 1.5% | |
| Brighton-Le-Sands 2216 | 3 | 30 | 2% | 1.5% | |
| Merrylands 2160 | 3 | 29 | 2% | 0.7% | |
| Campsie 2194 | 3 | 27 | 2% | 0.6% | |
| Carlton 2218 | 3 | 16 | 2% | 1.6% | |
| Punchbowl 2196 | 2 | 18 | 2% | 0.9% | |
| Wiley Park 2195 | 2 | 19 | 2% | 1.0% | |
| Wolli Creek 2205 | 1 | 190 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Mascot 2020 | 1 | 88 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Alexandria 2015 | 1 | 77 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Harris Park 2150 | 1 | 60 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Epping 2121 | 1 | 52 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Woolooware 2230 | 1 | 27 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Liverpool 2170 | 1 | 24 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Granville 2142 | 1 | 16 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Ashfield 2131 | 1 | 15 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Ultimo 2007 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Neutral Bay 2089 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Baulkham Hills 2153 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Sefton 2162 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 3.7% | |
| Croydon Park 2133 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| West Ryde 2114 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Warriewood 2102 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Macquarie Fields 2564 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 0.9% | |
| Greenwich 2065 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Sydenham 2044 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 14.3% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.1% | |
| Blacktown 2148 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Monterey 2217 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.9% | |
| Croydon 2132 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Greenacre 2190 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 0.6% | |
| St Ives 2075 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Greystanes 2145 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 2.6% | |
| Canada Bay 2046 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 3.6% | |
| Penshurst 2222 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Berala 2141 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.9% | |
| Narwee 2209 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| Dundas 2117 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Telopea 2117 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| West Gosford 2250 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Eastwood 2122 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Blakehurst 2221 | 1 | 2 | 1% | 2.0% | |
| Connells Point 2221 | 1 | 2 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Mosman 2088 | 1 | 2 | 1% | 0.1% |
Tribunal & Court History
3
Total Cases
3
NCAT
1.6
Adverse per 100 Schemes
2.3
Total per 100 Schemes
3 cases since 2023. Of these, 2 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 1 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
The Applicants, a strata management company and its sole director, sought review of disciplinary decisions made by the Commissioner for Fair Trading, which included license cancellation, reprimands, and disqualification. The Tribunal set aside the initial decisions, reprimanded Mr. Wang and cancelled his license, disqualified him from managing a business for 12 months, and reprimanded and fined the company, PSMG.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – review of decision by external decision-maker, decision to cancel strata management agent’s licence – fine – company and individual licences and disqualify licence holder under the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002
Before
C Mulvey, Senior Member
Hearing
4 – 5 February 2025 Final submissions received 10 February 2025
File Numbers
2024/00273415
Matched Strata Plans
SP78095
Parties
Managing Agent v Government
Representation
Counsel: Mr J Horowitz (First and Second Applicants) Ms A Douglas-Baker (Respondent) Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (First and Second Applicants) Department of Customer Service (Respondent)
Orders
(1) The decisions under review are set aside. (2) Pursuant to s 192(1)(a) of the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002, Mr Whitney Wang is reprimanded. (3) Pursuant to s 192(1)(g) of the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002, Mr Whitney Wang’s licence is cancelled after 28 days from the date of this order. (4) Pursuant to s 192(1)(i) of the Property and Stock Agent Act 2002, Mr Whitney Wang is disqualified from being involved in the direction, management or conduct of the business of a licensee...
The applicant appealed a decision that dismissed her request for the owners corporation to repair a watermark in her lot. The tribunal decided the original finding was against the weight of evidence, and ordered the owners corporation to carry out repairs to the internal wall and rectify the water damage.
APPEAL- damage to lot property in a strata scheme-whether leave to appeal should be granted having regard to evidence-whether evidence was misinterpreted-whether decision resulted in a clear injustice-whether owners corporation liable to perform a work order- consideration of sections 106, 122...
Before
S Westgarth, Deputy President G Burton SC, Senior Member
Hearing
14 November 2023
File Numbers
2023/00289420
Matched Strata Plans
SP16107
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
J Ng (Advocate) (Appellant) W Wang (Agent) (Respondent)
Orders
1. Appeal upheld. 2. Order 2, made on 14 August 2023, is set aside. 3. The Respondent is to undertake all necessary work to repair the internal wall within Lot 8 the subject of the Appellant’s contentions in these proceedings, including to stop water from travelling behind tiles into cement render, removing the watermark and painting the room so that it looks the same as the room would have looked but for the damage. 4. The Respondent is to comply with order 3 by 1 March 2024.
A lot owner sought a compulsory strata manager and for the owners corporation to repair common property windows. The tribunal previously dismissed the initial application for interim orders. The parties reached a consent order for repairs. The tribunal ultimately dismissed both parties' applications for costs, so each party was to pay their own costs.
Compulsory manager sought but refused: The tribunal was not satisfied at the interim stage that the grounds required to make the order sought had been established.
COSTS – consent orders – no contested hearing on the merits of the parties’ various disputes - no special circumstances – exercise of discretion
Before
D G Charles, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
SC 23/10509; SC 23/10510; SC 23/21771
Matched Strata Plans
SP908
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Solicitors: Lawyers Chambers on Riley Pty Ltd (for Danielle Gai Purcell) Bannermans Lawyers (for The Owners – Strata Plan No 908)
Orders
1 The applications for costs by the parties in the proceedings constituted by file nos. SC 23/10509, SC 23/10510, and SC 23/21771, are dismissed. 2 No order as to costs, with the intent that each party is to bear their own costs of the proceedings.