Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 4,568 (91%)
Commercial 442 (9%)
Utility 3 (0%)
Other 9 (0%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 22.2 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 1962, newest 2025.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blacktown 2148 | 14 | 600 | 6% | 4.1% | |
| North Parramatta 2151 | 14 | 171 | 6% | 4.8% | |
| Parramatta 2150 | 12 | 208 | 5% | 2.5% | |
| Toongabbie 2146 | 11 | 196 | 5% | 8.0% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 7 | 303 | 3% | 1.7% | |
| Liverpool 2170 | 6 | 161 | 3% | 1.5% | |
| Granville 2142 | 6 | 148 | 3% | 2.9% | |
| Moorebank 2170 | 6 | 31 | 3% | 5.2% | |
| Merrylands 2160 | 5 | 106 | 2% | 1.2% | |
| Harris Park 2150 | 5 | 116 | 2% | 3.7% |
| Auburn 2144 | 5 | 68 | 2% | 1.0% | |
| Hassall Grove 2761 | 5 | 70 | 2% | 50.0% | |
| Bankstown 2200 | 4 | 288 | 2% | 0.9% | |
| Mays Hill 2145 | 4 | 99 | 2% | 14.8% | |
| Wentworthville 2145 | 4 | 52 | 2% | 1.4% | |
| Westmead 2145 | 3 | 96 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| St Marys 2760 | 3 | 62 | 1% | 0.9% | |
| Penrith 2750 | 3 | 108 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Guildford 2161 | 3 | 54 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Carlingford 2118 | 3 | 55 | 1% | 1.9% | |
| Baulkham Hills 2153 | 3 | 28 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| Kingswood 2747 | 3 | 33 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| Berala 2141 | 3 | 17 | 1% | 2.7% | |
| Oxley Park 2760 | 3 | 15 | 1% | 1.9% | |
| Silverwater 2128 | 2 | 162 | 1% | 3.1% | |
| Homebush 2140 | 2 | 152 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Warwick Farm 2170 | 2 | 129 | 1% | 2.6% | |
| Northmead 2152 | 2 | 82 | 1% | 2.0% | |
| Lidcombe 2141 | 2 | 73 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Homebush West 2140 | 2 | 43 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| Rydalmere 2116 | 2 | 35 | 1% | 3.6% | |
| South Wentworthville 2145 | 2 | 31 | 1% | 2.8% | |
| Campsie 2194 | 2 | 20 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Lakemba 2195 | 2 | 20 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Punchbowl 2196 | 2 | 18 | 1% | 0.9% | |
| Merrylands West 2160 | 2 | 19 | 1% | 3.4% | |
| Chester Hill 2162 | 2 | 22 | 1% | 3.8% | |
| Telopea 2117 | 2 | 14 | 1% | 2.2% | |
| Sylvania 2224 | 2 | 18 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Lurnea 2170 | 2 | 16 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 2 | 10 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Rooty Hill 2766 | 2 | 16 | 1% | 2.6% | |
| Dundas 2117 | 2 | 13 | 1% | 3.4% | |
| Casula 2170 | 2 | 13 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Doonside 2767 | 2 | 4 | 1% | 4.9% | |
| Mascot 2020 | 1 | 141 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Tallawong 2762 | 1 | 81 | 0% | 2.9% | |
| Cammeray 2062 | 1 | 69 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Kogarah 2217 | 1 | 61 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Hornsby 2077 | 1 | 52 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Holroyd 2142 | 1 | 52 | 0% | 6.2% | |
| Schofields 2762 | 1 | 48 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Carlton 2218 | 1 | 41 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Ashfield 2131 | 1 | 39 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Macquarie Park 2113 | 1 | 30 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Belmore 2192 | 1 | 29 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Colyton 2760 | 1 | 26 | 0% | 2.5% | |
| Thornton 2322 | 1 | 19 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Campbelltown 2560 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Somersby 2250 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 3.4% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Bella Vista 2153 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Wiley Park 2195 | 1 | 16 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Tuggerah 2259 | 1 | 16 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Meadowbank 2114 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Smithfield 2164 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Pendle Hill 2145 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| North Rocks 2151 | 1 | 13 | 0% | 2.9% | |
| Charmhaven 2263 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 4.2% | |
| Beecroft 2119 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 2.3% | |
| Quakers Hill 2763 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Bass Hill 2197 | 1 | 11 | 0% | 1.8% | |
| Girraween 2145 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Mulgrave 2756 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 3.4% | |
| Green Valley 2168 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 2.3% | |
| Maroubra 2035 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Abbotsford 2046 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Mount Druitt 2770 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Lane Cove North 2066 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Seven Hills 2147 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Greenacre 2190 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Bardwell Park 2207 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 9.1% | |
| Castle Hill 2154 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Gladesville 2111 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Panania 2213 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| Greystanes 2145 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 2.6% | |
| Ermington 2115 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Chipping Norton 2170 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Wattle Grove 2173 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 14.3% | |
| Holsworthy 2173 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 2.3% | |
| Wetherill Park 2164 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Elizabeth Hills 2171 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 5.0% | |
| West Ryde 2114 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Claremont Meadows 2747 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 0.7% |
Tribunal & Court History
3
Total Cases
1
NCAT
2
Supreme Court
0.4
Adverse per 100 Schemes
1.3
Total per 100 Schemes
3 cases since 2021. Of these, 1 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 2 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
The Owners Corporation sought to terminate the strata scheme. The tribunal refused to terminate the scheme but determined who should pay costs based on the different parties involved. The court ordered cost arrangements.
COSTS — Party/Party — Orders when proceedings involve multiple parties — Whether some defendants should be considered “interveners” — Whether plaintiff ought to pay the costs of those defendants – Whether plaintiff capitulated COSTS — Party/Party — Court’s discretion — Where two dominant issues...
Before
Peden J
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2022/00156218
Matched Strata Plans
SP80877
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: M Castle (Plaintiff) D Sulan SC, J Mee and S Hoare (First Defendant) M Rivette (Second Defendant) W Hall (Third Defendant) S Robertson SC and D Allen (Fourth Defendant) M Collins (Sixth...
Orders
At [46]
(1) The Owners Corporation sought to terminate the strata scheme. (2) The court dismissed the application. (3) The court found that terminating the scheme was not appropriate, and made no further orders at this time. The court reserved costs.
LAND LAW — Strata title — Termination of strata scheme — Where termination orders sought not unanimous — Where there are existing debts owed by owners corporation to an unsecured lender — Whether registered mortgagees ought be paid first from proceeds of sale if termination orders made — Whether...
Before
Peden J
Hearing
23, 24 and 25 October 2023; further submissions received 3 November 2023
File Numbers
2022/00156218
Matched Strata Plans
SP80877
Parties
Owners Corporation v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: M Castle and M Keene (Plaintiff) D Sulan SC, J Mee and S Hoare (First Defendant) M Isaac (Second Defendant) Z Hillman (Third Defendant) S Robertson SC and D Allen (Fourth Defendant) T...
Orders
(1) Further Amended Summons is dismissed. (2) Parties are to confer and attempt to agree on appropriate costs orders. Should agreement not be possible within 7 days, the parties are to make a joint approach to the Associate to Peden J with a proposed timetable for a costs hearing.
The applicants, owners of retail lots in Mascot Towers, sought a compulsory strata manager and access to their lots. The tribunal had dismissed the initial application, finding no serious question to be tried and not satisfied that urgent considerations justified making the order, and that damages would be an adequate remedy, and ordered that the applicants pay the respondent's costs.
Compulsory manager sought but refused: The applicants initially sought a compulsory strata manager but abandoned that claim at the hearing.
COSTS – whether there are special circumstances warranting an award of costs
Before
G Blake AM SC, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
SC 21/16322
Matched Strata Plans
SP80877
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Solicitors: Speirs Ryan (Respondent)
Orders
(1) A hearing is dispensed with in relation to the costs of the proceedings. (2) The applicants are to pay the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the proceedings as agreed or assessed on the basis set out in the legal costs legislation (as defined in s 3A of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW)).
Google Reviews
14 Jan 2026
“Our townhouse Strata Complex at Campbellfield Bradbury has been managed by United Strata for nearly 20 years.
The staff are highly professional and experienced. Friendly and obliging they respond in a timely and effective manner on all matters as Strata Manager.
I have sat on the Strata...”
24 Sep 2025
“We have found United Strata to be extremely helpful during our time with them. Our previous Strata company couldn't care less about our issues but the Team at United Strata are always willing to listen and act on our behalf. If you are looking to change your Strata company I highly recommend...”
03 Jul 2023
“The team at United Strata Solutions have given our Strata sound advice and work in the best interests of the owners corporation.
They respond quickly and courteously to enquiries and use quality licenced trades for any work carried out on the property.
Highly recommended for your consideration...”
14 Jan 2026
“United strata Solutions
Marilyn Stephane Christian they are people who are always there to help you when the phone calls or emails that you sent these people have a heart of gold and always there to advise us or you in the best way possible if anyone is looking for a strata company do not...”
09 Oct 2025
“We would like to thank Stephane Nemorin for the exceptional customer service we received. We appreciate the ease, prompt communication and instant response to resolving the matter. A wonderful team that is professional and understanding.
Well done guys!”