Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 3,630 (89%)
Commercial 188 (5%)
Retirement 25 (1%)
Utility 89 (2%)
Other 143 (4%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 9.7 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 1961, newest 2021.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cronulla 2230 | 162 | 1,713 | 38% | 18.5% | |
| Caringbah 2229 | 39 | 369 | 9% | 8.8% | |
| Miranda 2228 | 15 | 158 | 4% | 4.2% | |
| Sans Souci 2219 | 14 | 132 | 3% | 5.8% | |
| Caringbah South 2229 | 14 | 56 | 3% | 3.7% | |
| Sutherland 2232 | 11 | 126 | 3% | 4.5% | |
| Allawah 2218 | 11 | 115 | 3% | 6.2% | |
| Woolooware 2230 | 11 | 57 | 3% | 7.7% | |
| Mortdale 2223 | 10 | 103 | 2% | 3.9% | |
| Hurstville 2220 | 9 | 81 | 2% | 1.9% |
| Engadine 2233 | 8 | 85 | 2% | 4.9% | |
| Ramsgate Beach 2217 | 7 | 54 | 2% | 8.4% | |
| South Hurstville 2221 | 7 | 69 | 2% | 5.9% | |
| Penshurst 2222 | 6 | 64 | 1% | 2.3% | |
| Brighton-Le-Sands 2216 | 6 | 107 | 1% | 3.0% | |
| Oatley 2223 | 6 | 36 | 1% | 3.5% | |
| Sylvania 2224 | 6 | 40 | 1% | 3.1% | |
| Gymea 2227 | 5 | 47 | 1% | 2.4% | |
| Carlton 2218 | 4 | 52 | 1% | 2.1% | |
| Jannali 2226 | 4 | 20 | 1% | 4.6% | |
| Rockdale 2216 | 3 | 44 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Lakemba 2195 | 3 | 32 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Riverwood 2210 | 3 | 27 | 1% | 2.8% | |
| Bexley 2207 | 3 | 15 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Menai 2234 | 2 | 53 | 0% | 2.7% | |
| Dolls Point 2219 | 2 | 41 | 0% | 3.9% | |
| Kogarah 2217 | 2 | 36 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Monterey 2217 | 2 | 19 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Peakhurst 2210 | 2 | 16 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Kirrawee 2232 | 2 | 14 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Canterbury 2193 | 2 | 13 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Barden Ridge 2234 | 2 | 14 | 0% | 11.8% | |
| Campsie 2194 | 2 | 14 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Narwee 2209 | 2 | 9 | 0% | 2.2% | |
| Milton 2538 | 2 | 12 | 0% | 7.7% | |
| Dolans Bay 2229 | 2 | 8 | 0% | 10.5% | |
| Kurnell 2231 | 2 | 6 | 0% | 11.8% | |
| Granville 2142 | 1 | 22 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Taren Point 2229 | 1 | 19 | 0% | 1.9% | |
| Queanbeyan 2620 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Merrylands 2160 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| North Bondi 2026 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Leichhardt 2040 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Heathcote 2233 | 1 | 11 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Queanbeyan East 2620 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Minto 2566 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Banksmeadow 2019 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 2.9% | |
| Alexandria 2015 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Vaucluse 2030 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Eastlakes 2018 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Clovelly 2031 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Croydon 2132 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Gymea Bay 2227 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Bardwell Valley 2207 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 3.7% | |
| Abbotsford 2046 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Coogee 2034 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.1% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.1% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Beverly Hills 2209 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Woollahra 2025 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Bondi Beach 2026 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Tempe 2044 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 5.6% | |
| Burraneer 2230 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Bundeena 2230 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 16.7% | |
| Loftus 2232 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 2.1% |
Tribunal & Court History
2
Total Cases
2
NCAT
2 cases on record.
The owners corporation sought orders regarding unauthorized and defective bathroom work. The tribunal found the work unauthorized and ordered the lot owner to remove the bathroom and reinstate it to its previous condition, except for work paid for by the owners corporation. The tribunal rejected the respondent's other requests.
Compulsory manager sought but refused: The respondent requested a compulsory strata manager but did not file a cross-application and provided insufficient evidence.
LAND LAW — Strata title — Common property — Maintenance and repair of common property — Order to reinstate where no authorisation for lot owner works given
Before
Dr D Goldman, Senior Member
Hearing
31 March 2025
File Numbers
2024/00387354
Matched Strata Plans
SP550
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Mr G Adamson (strata managing agent) Ms R Mottram (co-owner with respondent)
Orders
(1) Order that the respondent carry out, in accordance with the specification provided by Gary Finn dated 13 February 2025, the removal of the bathroom installed at Lot 1 Strata Plan No. 550 including all alterations and additions undertaken by or on the respondent’s behalf (except for the limited works paid for by the Owners Corporation) and reinstate the bathroom as near as practicable to its previous condition (Reinstatement Works). (2) Order that the respondent ensure that the...
An apartment owner sought orders, including a rectification order for common property repairs and an order for the appointment of a strata manager. The tribunal made orders by consent but decided on the issue of costs. The Tribunal ordered the Owners Corporation to pay 60% of the applicant's costs as the corporation was in breach of their duties.
Compulsory manager sought but refused: The Tribunal was not persuaded that the applicant was almost certain to succeed if the matter had been fully tried or that the respondent acted unreasonably in contesting this part of the application.
COSTS – exercise of discretion to award costs where proceeding has settled without a hearing on the merits – defect in common property – repair of common property
Before
D Moujalli, Senior Member
Hearing
7 and 8 July 2022
File Numbers
SC 21/46693
Matched Strata Plans
SP3260
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Counsel: Applicant: J P Knackstredt Respondent: A Byrne Solicitors: Applicant: Sachs Gerace Lawyers Respondent: J S Mueller & Co
Orders
The respondent to pay 60% of the applicant’s costs of the proceeding on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed.
Google Reviews
18 Nov 2025
“Extremely Poor Experience
Our experience with Strata Title Management has been consistently disappointing. We have sent countless emails highlighting mistakes, requesting investigations, and asking for responses, yet they rarely reply. Issues are left unresolved for months, and we constantly...”
01 Sep 2025
“Abe is a fantastic strata manager — always reliable, responsive, and a pleasure to deal with. He handles everything with professionalism and a friendly attitude that makes all the difference. Highly recommended!
Can’t say much about the other strata managers though”
12 Nov 2025
“Last week, some unannounced contractors working at my apartment complex put my motorcycle in the direct line of fire of their works.
After a week of trying to reach out for a solution, it is a mission to even receive a response from STM.
I have resorted to paying from my own pocket to rectify...”
10 Sep 2025
“Luckily we have a professional and experienced strata manager Abe in our building, he guides us with major renovations and helps us to do a checklist with engineers and contractors. Abe also provides his recommendation to draft and register our special bylaw.
Thank you Abe”
26 Aug 2024
“I am very pleased with the outstanding service provided by Strata Title Management and Elizabeth Wang. Elizabeth’s expertise and dedication have made a significant impact on our strata management experience. Her thorough understanding of the industry, combined with her proactive approach, has...”