Portfolio Profile
Lot Types
Residential 13,892 (97%)
Commercial 183 (1%)
Utility 210 (1%)
Other 36 (0%)
Scheme Size Distribution
Distribution of schemes by total lot count. Average scheme size: 21.5 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 2024.
Suburb Coverage
| Suburb | Schemes | Lots | % of Portfolio | Market Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Padstow 2211 | 134 | 543 | 20% | 56.5% | |
| Bankstown 2200 | 66 | 1,332 | 10% | 15.6% | |
| Revesby 2212 | 43 | 326 | 6% | 23.6% | |
| Condell Park 2200 | 21 | 152 | 3% | 11.8% | |
| Yagoona 2199 | 21 | 344 | 3% | 18.4% | |
| Panania 2213 | 19 | 221 | 3% | 30.2% | |
| Punchbowl 2196 | 17 | 144 | 3% | 7.5% | |
| Merrylands 2160 | 13 | 198 | 2% | 3.2% | |
| Lakemba 2195 | 13 | 155 | 2% | 3.5% | |
| Parramatta 2150 | 12 | 1,278 | 2% | 2.5% |
| Greenacre 2190 | 11 | 158 | 2% | 6.7% | |
| Bexley 2207 | 9 | 102 | 1% | 2.4% | |
| Wiley Park 2195 | 9 | 81 | 1% | 4.4% | |
| Riverwood 2210 | 9 | 75 | 1% | 8.3% | |
| Mascot 2020 | 8 | 1,081 | 1% | 6.0% | |
| Peakhurst 2210 | 8 | 96 | 1% | 4.0% | |
| Mortdale 2223 | 8 | 75 | 1% | 3.1% | |
| Ryde 2112 | 7 | 409 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Roselands 2196 | 7 | 85 | 1% | 7.8% | |
| Picnic Point 2213 | 7 | 77 | 1% | 18.4% | |
| Bass Hill 2197 | 7 | 60 | 1% | 12.5% | |
| Penshurst 2222 | 6 | 78 | 1% | 2.3% | |
| St Ives 2075 | 5 | 403 | 1% | 4.0% | |
| Lidcombe 2141 | 5 | 112 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Regents Park 2143 | 5 | 87 | 1% | 10.6% | |
| Sefton 2162 | 5 | 68 | 1% | 18.5% | |
| Belmore 2192 | 5 | 43 | 1% | 2.5% | |
| Narwee 2209 | 5 | 46 | 1% | 5.5% | |
| Burwood 2134 | 4 | 323 | 1% | 1.7% | |
| Auburn 2144 | 4 | 145 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| Chester Hill 2162 | 4 | 46 | 1% | 7.5% | |
| Pemulwuy 2145 | 4 | 80 | 1% | 33.3% | |
| Liverpool 2170 | 4 | 42 | 1% | 1.0% | |
| Hurstville 2220 | 4 | 32 | 1% | 0.8% | |
| North Parramatta 2151 | 4 | 31 | 1% | 1.4% | |
| Oatley 2223 | 4 | 23 | 1% | 2.3% | |
| Botany 2019 | 3 | 533 | 0% | 1.9% | |
| Strathfield 2135 | 3 | 104 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Baulkham Hills 2153 | 3 | 96 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Kingsford 2032 | 3 | 66 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Berala 2141 | 3 | 51 | 0% | 2.7% | |
| Guildford 2161 | 3 | 55 | 0% | 1.6% | |
| Dulwich Hill 2203 | 3 | 40 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Eastwood 2122 | 3 | 49 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Glenfield 2167 | 3 | 66 | 0% | 4.8% | |
| Caringbah 2229 | 3 | 21 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Campsie 2194 | 3 | 30 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Ingleburn 2565 | 3 | 33 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Padstow Heights 2211 | 3 | 17 | 0% | 12.5% | |
| East Hills 2213 | 3 | 13 | 0% | 9.1% | |
| Sydney 2000 | 2 | 702 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Carlingford 2118 | 2 | 275 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Hillsdale 2036 | 2 | 147 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Norwest 2153 | 2 | 274 | 0% | 2.9% | |
| Rosebery 2018 | 2 | 187 | 0% | 2.2% | |
| Fairfield West 2165 | 2 | 143 | 0% | 16.7% | |
| North Strathfield 2137 | 2 | 203 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Toongabbie 2146 | 2 | 148 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Georges Hall 2198 | 2 | 41 | 0% | 11.1% | |
| Marrickville 2204 | 2 | 39 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Carramar 2163 | 2 | 48 | 0% | 4.3% | |
| Granville 2142 | 2 | 41 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Stanmore 2048 | 2 | 52 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| St Marys 2760 | 2 | 52 | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Randwick 2031 | 2 | 42 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Greystanes 2145 | 2 | 35 | 0% | 5.1% | |
| Moorebank 2170 | 2 | 21 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Milperra 2214 | 2 | 20 | 0% | 7.4% | |
| Allawah 2218 | 2 | 27 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Strathfield South 2136 | 2 | 19 | 0% | 5.0% | |
| Canterbury 2193 | 2 | 21 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Beverly Hills 2209 | 2 | 13 | 0% | 2.2% | |
| Leichhardt 2040 | 2 | 11 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Sans Souci 2219 | 2 | 11 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Chipping Norton 2170 | 2 | 11 | 0% | 2.2% | |
| St Andrews 2566 | 2 | 10 | 0% | 25.0% | |
| North Rocks 2151 | 1 | 328 | 0% | 2.9% | |
| Turrella 2205 | 1 | 291 | 0% | 9.1% | |
| North Sydney 2060 | 1 | 228 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Castle Hill 2154 | 1 | 202 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Mount Colah 2079 | 1 | 94 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Homebush 2140 | 1 | 93 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Hornsby 2077 | 1 | 65 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Penrith 2750 | 1 | 61 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Beecroft 2119 | 1 | 56 | 0% | 2.3% | |
| Campbelltown 2560 | 1 | 56 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Killara 2071 | 1 | 40 | 0% | 1.2% | |
| Homebush West 2140 | 1 | 40 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Summer Hill 2130 | 1 | 34 | 0% | 0.7% | |
| Fairfield 2165 | 1 | 31 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Ermington 2115 | 1 | 26 | 0% | 2.0% | |
| Birrong 2143 | 1 | 22 | 0% | 10.0% | |
| Mortlake 2137 | 1 | 20 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Fairfield Heights 2165 | 1 | 18 | 0% | 2.9% | |
| Earlwood 2206 | 1 | 17 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Rosehill 2142 | 1 | 16 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Brighton-Le-Sands 2216 | 1 | 15 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Ashfield 2131 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Chippendale 2008 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Canley Heights 2166 | 1 | 14 | 0% | 5.6% | |
| Belfield 2191 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Croydon Park 2133 | 1 | 12 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Cammeray 2062 | 1 | 11 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Vaucluse 2030 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 0.4% | |
| Carlton 2218 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Hoxton Park 2171 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 20.0% | |
| Doonside 2767 | 1 | 10 | 0% | 2.4% | |
| Rockdale 2216 | 1 | 9 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| The Entrance 2261 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.5% | |
| Cecil Hills 2171 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 1.0% | |
| Cabramatta 2166 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Menai 2234 | 1 | 8 | 0% | 1.3% | |
| Dundas 2117 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 1.7% | |
| Bardwell Park 2207 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 9.1% | |
| Glebe 2037 | 1 | 7 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Caringbah South 2229 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 0.3% | |
| Waterfall 2233 | 1 | 6 | 0% | 100.0% | |
| Macquarie Fields 2564 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.9% | |
| Zetland 2017 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Five Dock 2046 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 0.8% | |
| Smithfield 2164 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Leumeah 2560 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 1.4% | |
| Revesby Heights 2212 | 1 | 5 | 0% | 20.0% | |
| Jannali 2226 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Arncliffe 2205 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 1.1% | |
| Holsworthy 2173 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 2.3% | |
| Hammondville 2170 | 1 | 4 | 0% | 5.6% | |
| Bellevue Hill 2023 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Rose Bay 2029 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Lugarno 2210 | 1 | 3 | 0% | 5.6% | |
| Gledswood Hills 2557 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 5.9% | |
| Chifley 2036 | 1 | 2 | 0% | 1.4% |
Tribunal & Court History
5
Total Cases
3
NCAT
2
Supreme Court
0.3
Adverse per 100 Schemes
0.7
Total per 100 Schemes
5 cases since 2022. Of these, 2 resulted in substantive orders. The remaining 3 were dismissed, withdrawn, settled, or involved the OC as applicant.
Orders Made 3
Dismissed 2
Compulsory appointment 1
Agent conduct 1
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
SP76317
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 costs order, arguing the tribunal erred. The Appeal Panel agreed, finding the original costs order was unreasonable, and decided each party would bear their own costs. The Tribunal also granted the appeal.
COSTS — Party/Party — Self represented litigant at first instance – Costs’ Discretion Miscarried – not reasonable and plainly unjust – no special circumstances warranting costs’ order
Before
D Charles, Senior Member N Kennedy, Senior Member
Hearing
27 February 2025
File Numbers
2024/00406655
Matched Strata Plans
SP86382
Parties
Lot Owner v Managing Agent
Representation
Hub Lawyers (Appellant) Bannermans Lawyers (Second Respondent)
Orders
(1) Westside Management Pty Ltd is joined as a respondent to the appeal proceeding. (2) Appeal Allowed. (3) In substitution of Order 2 made by the Tribunal on 4 October 2024, order that each party bear their own costs of the Interim Orders Application proceeding constituted by case no 2024/00328189.
The Owners Corporation and Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd were involved in a legal dispute. The applicant sought to have a separate question removed to the Court of Appeal. The tribunal dismissed the application and allowed the main hearing to proceed with all the issues.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – UCPR 1.21 – Reconsideration of the Court’s conclusion that an order for determination of a separate question be revoked - Application for removal of proceedings on the separate question to the Court of Appeal – Where Court is of the view that the separate question is...
Before
Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Hearing
28 November 2024 and written submissions
File Numbers
2018/00174519
Matched Strata Plans
SP90832
Parties
Owners Corporation v Developer
Representation
Counsel: J Hutton SC w S Murray (Plaintiff) R Cheney SC w A Cameron (Third Defendant) Solicitors: Sarvaas Ciappara Lawyers (Plaintiff) Wotton Kearney (Third Defendant) McCabe Curwood (Fourth...
Orders
Application for removal of the separate question to the Court of Appeal dismissed
The Owners Corporation sought to have a separate question answered regarding whether the third defendant carried out construction work. The court decided that the separate question was not appropriate and would not help resolve the main issues. Therefore, the court revoked the order for a separate hearing.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Design Act ss 36 and 37 - Certifiers Act ss 13 and 14 – Proceedings by Owners Corporation against the third defendant accredited certifier for breach of the duty of care imposed by s 37 of the Design Act on the footing that the third defendant carried out construction...
Before
Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Hearing
14 November 2024
File Numbers
2018/00174519
Matched Strata Plans
SP90832
Parties
Owners Corporation v Third Party
Representation
Counsel: J Hutton SC w S Murray (Plaintiff) R Cheney SC w A Cameron (Third Defendant) Solicitors: Sarvaas Ciappara Lawyers (Plaintiff) Wotton Kearney (Third Defendant)
Orders
Order for determination of a separate question revoked
An applicant sought the appointment of a compulsory strata manager due to alleged mismanagement of a strata scheme. The tribunal ultimately denied the appointment of the compulsory strata manager and the appeal panel upheld that decision, finding no error in the original reasoning.
Compulsory manager sought but refused: The tribunal found the respondent was undertaking measures to rectify deficiencies and that a compulsory appointment was not warranted.
APPEAL – Strata schemes – claim for appointment of compulsory strata manager resulting from breaches by owners corporation in the administration of a strata scheme – whether Tribunal erred in its discretion to decline to appoint compulsory strata manager.
Before
The Hon D A Cowdroy AO QC, Principal Member L Wilson, Senior Member
Hearing
16 May 2022
File Numbers
2022/00070582
Matched Strata Plans
SP87837
Parties
Lot Owner v Owners Corporation
Representation
Appellant (self-represented) T. Dick (Agent)(Respondent)
Orders
1. The appeal is dismissed; 2. The stay granted on 14 March 2020 is lifted.
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!”