Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 4,951 (96%)
Commercial 22 (0%)
Utility 199 (4%)
Other 1 (0%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 11.1 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 1962, newest 2025.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maroubra 2035 | 160 | 1,375 | 34% | 24.4% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 72 | 819 | 15% | 8.9% | |
| Coogee 2034 | 53 | 611 | 11% | 7.8% | |
| Kingsford 2032 | 36 | 429 | 8% | 16.4% | |
| Kensington 2033 | 18 | 172 | 4% | 8.2% | |
| Eastlakes 2018 | 16 | 200 | 3% | 13.9% | |
| Hillsdale 2036 | 15 | 164 | 3% | 7.5% | |
| Matraville 2036 | 9 | 137 | 2% | 6.0% | |
| Bronte 2024 | 9 | 64 | 2% | 5.0% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 6 | 58 | 1% | 1.3% |
| Clovelly 2031 | 6 | 45 | 1% | 4.1% | |
| Bondi Junction 2022 | 5 | 114 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Botany 2019 | 5 | 83 | 1% | 3.2% | |
| Centennial Park 2021 | 5 | 145 | 1% | 9.3% | |
| Bondi Beach 2026 | 5 | 56 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 4 | 37 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Point Piper 2027 | 4 | 15 | 1% | 3.6% | |
| North Bondi 2026 | 3 | 59 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Mascot 2020 | 3 | 64 | 1% | 2.3% | |
| Surry Hills 2010 | 3 | 36 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| Rosebery 2018 | 2 | 102 | 0% | 2.2% | |
| Bexley 2207 | 2 | 48 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Dulwich Hill 2203 | 2 | 39 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Double Bay 2028 | 2 | 32 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Vaucluse 2030 | 2 | 21 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Darlinghurst 2010 | 2 | 12 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Malabar 2036 | 2 | 12 | 0% | 5.0% | |
| South Coogee 2034 | 2 | 10 | 0% | 4.4% | |
| Glebe 2037 | 1 | 40 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Chippendale 2008 | 1 | 28 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Little Bay 2036 | 1 | 19 | 0% | 1.8% | |
| Queens Park 2022 | 1 | 19 | 0% | 3.0% | |
| Bondi 2026 | 1 | 17 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Waverley 2024 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Monterey 2217 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Pagewood 2035 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 7.1% | |
| Potts Point 2011 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Cammeray 2062 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Tamarama 2026 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Auburn 2144 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Brighton-Le-Sands 2216 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Sans Souci 2219 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Darling Point 2027 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.4% |
Tribunal & Court History
2
Total Cases
1
NCAT
2 cases on record. None resulted in adverse findings.
The owners corporation sought orders relating to trees on a neighbouring property, alleging damage to the boundary fence and obstruction of sunlight and views. The tribunal found in favour of the owners corporation for fence repair and pruning of specific trees. The tribunal decided other trees didn't form a hedge.
TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) – Pt 2 application – fence damage caused by neighbouring tree – Pt 2A application – whether the trees are planted so as to form a hedge – obstruction of sunlight and views – orders for pruning
Before
Galwey AC
Hearing
24 August 2023
File Numbers
2023/213166
Matched Strata Plans
SP3123
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel M Langenheim (Applicant) P Moore (Self-represented) (First Respondent) C Quaine (Self-represented) (Second Respondent) P Moore, C Quaine, A Harding, L Bell (Self-represented) (Third...
Orders
The Court orders: (1) The Pt 2 application is granted. (2) Within 60 days of the date of these orders, the first and second respondents are to restore the vertical alignment of, and make secure, the section of the applicant’s boundary fence immediately to the south of the southeast corner post of the first and second respondents’ property. (3) The applicant is to provide any access required for the first and second respondents to complete the works in order (2) during reasonable hours, on 48...
A lot owner appealed a tribunal order requiring them to perform works to reduce noise emanating from their unit. The Appeal Panel dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the original decision, which was based on the relevant by-laws regarding noise and vibration. The original orders were reinstated with adjusted deadlines.
APPEAL – application to admit further evidence refused – leave to appeal refused – service by post of notice of hearing on party sufficient – no obligation on Tribunal to serve notice of hearing by email - no denial of procedural fairness by proceeding with hearing when absent party served by...
Before
A Suthers, Principal Member P H Molony, Senior Member
Hearing
27 September 2022
File Numbers
2022/00197069
Matched Strata Plans
SP4221
Parties
Lot Owner v Lot Owner
Representation
John Toh (Agent) (Appellant) Respondent (Self-represented)
Orders
(1) Leave to appeal refused. (2) Appeal dismissed. (3) Orders numbers 1 and 2 made by the Tribunal on 8 June 2022 with respect to file number SC21/44169 and stayed on 8 August 2022, are revived, with the dates for the actions ordered to be performed in both paragraphs extended to 20 December 2022.
Google Reviews
21 Dec 2025
“I want to give a huge shoutout to George for their incredible service! He went above and beyond by arranging for a replacement fob to be delivered right before Christmas, ensuring we had access without stress. George's quick, professional, and caring approach made a huge difference. Highly...”
03 Feb 2026
“Low life strata company. Some very questionable record keeping going on at this company. I posted a negative review recently and you told me to email you which I did and surprise surprise no reply. Looks like another report to DFT is required.
Westside’s Facility Management company La Facility...”
13 Jan 2026
“Richard is our new Strata manager and what a change this has made. Richard is switched on, knows the business and genuinely cares. Having someone like Richard managing difficult issues not only saves time but potentially a lot of money. Thanks, Richard, for looking after us!”
08 Dec 2025
“We recently moved to Westside Strata as I’ve had a very good experience with them for my other property. Our manager, Richard, always provides clear instructions and advice, and their team responds very quickly. It was a great decision to move to them!”
17 Sep 2025
“We had an excellent experience with Jessica as our strata manager. She was incredibly helpful and responsive throughout the entire settlement process for our new townhouse. We're very happy with her service and really appreciate all her hard work. Highly recommend!”