Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 2,787 (86%)
Commercial 164 (5%)
Utility 1 (0%)
Other 298 (9%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 24.4 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 1965, newest 2024.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eastwood 2122 | 16 | 220 | 12% | 3.7% | |
| Epping 2121 | 11 | 644 | 8% | 3.8% | |
| Auburn 2144 | 10 | 156 | 8% | 2.1% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 7 | 237 | 5% | 3.1% | |
| Carlingford 2118 | 5 | 94 | 4% | 3.2% | |
| Telopea 2117 | 5 | 64 | 4% | 5.6% | |
| Fairfield 2165 | 4 | 48 | 3% | 1.7% | |
| Bankstown 2200 | 3 | 119 | 2% | 0.7% | |
| Rydalmere 2116 | 3 | 72 | 2% | 5.4% | |
| Berala 2141 | 3 | 65 | 2% | 2.7% |
| Penshurst 2222 | 3 | 40 | 2% | 1.1% | |
| South Granville 2142 | 3 | 62 | 2% | 12.0% | |
| Pymble 2073 | 2 | 67 | 2% | 2.6% | |
| Gordon 2072 | 2 | 64 | 2% | 2.6% | |
| Strathfield 2135 | 2 | 60 | 2% | 0.9% | |
| Parramatta 2150 | 2 | 16 | 2% | 0.4% | |
| Homebush West 2140 | 2 | 22 | 2% | 1.4% | |
| Umina Beach 2257 | 2 | 20 | 2% | 0.5% | |
| St Ives 2075 | 2 | 20 | 2% | 1.6% | |
| Denistone 2114 | 2 | 7 | 2% | 3.4% | |
| Macquarie Park 2113 | 1 | 192 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Rouse Hill 2155 | 1 | 140 | 1% | 2.0% | |
| Liverpool 2170 | 1 | 124 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Asquith 2077 | 1 | 92 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Warwick Farm 2170 | 1 | 88 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Meadowbank 2114 | 1 | 71 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| Waitara 2077 | 1 | 54 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| Rosehill 2142 | 1 | 26 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| West Ryde 2114 | 1 | 24 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Mount Druitt 2770 | 1 | 20 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Granville 2142 | 1 | 20 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Turramurra 2074 | 1 | 18 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| North Parramatta 2151 | 1 | 15 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Dundas 2117 | 1 | 14 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Silverwater 2128 | 1 | 14 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| St Leonards 2065 | 1 | 14 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| Ashfield 2131 | 1 | 13 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Campbelltown 2560 | 1 | 13 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Padstow 2211 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Peakhurst 2210 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Sutherland 2232 | 1 | 12 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Marrickville 2204 | 1 | 11 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Pennant Hills 2120 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 1.6% | |
| Wiley Park 2195 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Hornsby 2077 | 1 | 10 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Lane Cove 2066 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 0.5% | |
| Glebe 2037 | 1 | 9 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Young 2594 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Warrawee 2074 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 6.2% | |
| Willoughby 2068 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 1.5% | |
| Punchbowl 2196 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.4% | |
| Lidcombe 2141 | 1 | 8 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| North Ryde 2113 | 1 | 7 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| St Marys 2760 | 1 | 7 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Greenwich 2065 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 1.3% | |
| Dundas Valley 2117 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 3.2% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.2% | |
| Ramsgate Beach 2217 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 1.2% | |
| Seven Hills 2147 | 1 | 6 | 1% | 0.7% | |
| Holroyd 2142 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 6.2% | |
| Lilyfield 2040 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| Beverly Hills 2209 | 1 | 5 | 1% | 1.1% | |
| Chatswood 2067 | 1 | 4 | 1% | 0.3% | |
| Wetherill Park 2164 | 1 | 3 | 1% | 1.0% |
Tribunal & Court History
3
Total Cases
3
NCAT
0.0
Adverse per 100 Schemes
2.3
Total per 100 Schemes
3 cases since 2024. None resulted in adverse findings — all were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or brought by the owners corporation.
An owners corporation sought a work order against the developer for building defects, including fire safety concerns. The tribunal found the developer liable, ordering rectification of specific defects and payment of the owners corporation's costs. The developer had not engaged in the proceedings, so the tribunal granted the applicant's requests.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) — Statutory warranty — Due care and skill BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) — Major defect – Major element
Before
R Collins, Senior Member
Hearing
16 December 2025
File Numbers
2024/55706
Matched Strata Plans
SP91959
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
T Bacon, Strata Title Lawyers – applicant’s solicitor K Wu – respondent’s director
Orders
(1) Whole Sun Property Developments Pty Ltd is liable to cause the following works to be carried out by 5 January 2026: (a) the scope of the works set out in the Expert Building Defect Report by Endeavour Engineering dated 27 June 2024 in the applicant’s tender bundle at tab 7 for the following items: (i) Cantilevered Glass Balustrades – section 6.2; (ii) Insufficient balcony drainage – section 6.3 and item UG06.2 of the Scott Schedule; (iii) Corroding door jams – section 6.4; (iv)...
The Owners- Strata Plan No. 100526 sought costs of the appeal. The tribunal determined that the application for costs should be dismissed. The tribunal found that the appellant did not demonstrate that there were special circumstances warranting an award of costs.
APPEALS – STRATA TITLE- costs of appeal - no special circumstances warranting an award of costs
Before
A Bell SC, Senior Member G Ellis SC, Senior Member
Hearing
On the papers
File Numbers
2024/00196929
Matched Strata Plans
SP100526
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: M Baroni (Respondents) Solicitors: Bannerman Lawyers (Appellant) Construction Legal (Respondents)
Orders
The application for costs is dismissed.
The applicant sought an order for the removal of unauthorized works on common property. The Tribunal initially dismissed the application, but on appeal, it was determined that the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to consider relevant discretionary matters. The Appeal Panel ordered a rehearing by a different Tribunal.
APPEALS – Error on a question of law – scope of discretion conferred by statute misconceived LAND LAW – Strata title – discretionary factors – impact on common property considered – discretion not confined to that impact CIVIL PROCEDURE – Inclusion of basis for claim in outline submissions...
Before
A Bell SC, Senior Member G Ellis SC, Senior Member
Hearing
17 October 2024
File Numbers
2024/00196929
Matched Strata Plans
SP100526
Parties
Owners Corporation v Lot Owner
Representation
Counsel: M Baroni (Respondent) Solicitors: Bannerman Lawyers (Appellant) Construction Legal (First Respondent) Construction Legal (Second Respondent)
Orders
(1) The appeal is allowed. (2) The orders made by the Tribunal on 29 April 2024 in proceedings 2022/00416316 are set aside. (3) The proceedings are remitted for reconsideration by a differently constituted Tribunal. (4) The Tribunal in the remitted proceedings may allow the parties to rely on such further evidence as the Tribunal considers appropriate. (5) In relation to the costs of the appeal, if either party wishes to seek an order for costs, it is to file and serve submissions (of not...
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!”