NSW: Unauthorised works on common property and an intimidating committee member

Question: Our strata committee has a long-serving member authorising works on common property for their own benefit and intimidating anyone who raises concerns. Do we go to NCAT, or is there a better way?

We have uncovered that building work, tree removal, and expenditure have taken place on common property without approval at a general meeting. One long-serving committee member acts as though they own the scheme and makes decisions that appear to enhance their own private section of the common property.

They also patrol the common grounds and threaten and intimidate residents, particularly tenants, who, as a result, are reluctant to formally complain. Do we go to mediation, engage a solicitor, or go to NCAT with the evidence?

Answer: Three distinct problems are occurring. Unauthorised works, a self-interested committee member, and intimidation. Start inside your scheme, build the evidence, and escalate methodically.

There are actually three distinct problems bundled into this question, and they don’t all follow the same path. Sorting them before you act will save you a lot of time and legal costs.

Problem 1 — Unauthorised works and expenditure on common property.

Under section 108 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (the Act), any addition to, alteration of, or new structure on common property requires a special resolution of the owners corporation passed at a general meeting before work is done, where the work is for the purpose of improving or enhancing the common property. That qualifier matters. Genuine maintenance and repair under section 106 constitute a separate category and don’t require a special resolution. So, for example, removing a dead or dangerous tree is maintenance. It doesn’t require a section 108 resolution. Removing a healthy, established tree to open up a view or “tidy up” an area near someone’s lot is an alteration to common property and absolutely does require a resolution. The distinction is worth getting right, because it determines which works in the scheme were unlawfully carried out and which weren’t. A committee does not have the power to authorise section 108 work on its own, and an individual owner certainly does not. Funds spent on works that were never authorised are also a problem in their own right. The owners corporation can only spend in accordance with its approved budget and the Act.

Problem 2 — A long-serving committee member acting in self-interest.

Since 1 July 2025, section 37 of the Act has set out clear statutory duties for every strata committee member. They must act honestly and fairly, exercise due care and diligence, act in the best interests of the owners corporation, and not misuse their position. A committee member who is directing decisions that enhance their own portion of common property is, on the face of it, in serious breach of those duties.

Problem 3 — Intimidation of residents and tenants.

This is not a strata dispute. Threatening behaviour on common property is a matter for NSW Police, and depending on what’s been said and done, may warrant an application for an Apprehended Personal Violence Order (APVO) by the affected residents. Tenants have the same right to live peacefully in their home as any owner-occupier, and their landlords (the investor-owners) should be made aware of this so they can also raise it with the agent or directly. Don’t let this issue get folded into the strata governance process. This sits separately, and it’s the one most likely to keep escalating if left alone.

Where to start: the order of operations

You’ve asked whether to start at mediation, a solicitor, or NCAT. The honest answer is: none of those first. The first lever, and the most powerful one available to you, sits inside your own scheme.

Step 1: Remove the committee member at a general meeting

Under section 238 of the Act, an owners corporation can remove a member of the strata committee by ordinary resolution at a general meeting (this was reduced from a special resolution under the 2023 reforms, which makes the threshold much more achievable. A simple majority of votes cast).

To get there:

• Any owner is entitled to submit a motion for inclusion on the agenda of a general meeting. The question is whether a general meeting will be convened in the first place. It’s the secretary of the owners corporation who decides to convene general meetings, not the committee. If the secretary won’t convene one, a group of owners holding at least one-quarter of the aggregate unit entitlement can requisition a general meeting under Schedule 1 of the Act, and the secretary must then convene it.
• The motion needs to be specific, and the supporting material needs to set out clearly why removal is being sought: the unauthorised works, the self-interested decisions, the breaches of section 37. Owners will only vote for removal if they understand what’s at stake and what the evidence actually shows. Be very careful with the wording. The person drafting the motion and explanatory material needs to stick to the facts and to what can be proven. Descriptions of the chairperson’s conduct that go beyond the evidence can expose the author to a defamation claim, and that’s a real risk that has caught owners out before. Stick to documented conduct, frame breaches by reference to the relevant section of the Act, and avoid characterisations of personality or motive.
• A removed member is ineligible for re-appointment or re-election to that committee for 12 months from the date of the resolution.

This is the most direct, lowest-cost route, and it sends an unmistakable signal to the rest of the committee that the scheme is taking governance seriously. To borrow an analogy: some people obey parking laws, and others ignore them until they see a ranger walking the street. A successful removal vote is your ranger.

Step 2: Deal with the works themselves

Separately to the removal vote, the owners corporation needs to decide what to do about the unauthorised work. Broadly, there are three options:

• Retrospectively authorise it by special resolution under section 108. Only appropriate if the work is genuinely in the scheme’s interests and the cost is acceptable. This is the most contentious path because it rewards rule-breaking.
• Require restoration or reinstatement. This is the appropriate response where the works only benefit the individual, or where trees have been removed without authority. The owners corporation can resolve to require the responsible owner to reinstate common property at their own cost. If they refuse, NCAT can order it under section 232 of the Act.
• Recover costs spent on unauthorised work where an individual owner directed and benefited from that expenditure.

Step 3: Mediation, then NCAT (if needed)

If the internal process at Step 1 doesn’t get there, for example, the member has enough numbers among owners to survive a vote, or the scheme can’t reach a workable resolution on the works, mediation through NSW Fair Trading is compulsory before most NCAT applications can be made (sections 226 and 227 of the Act). It’s free, and even where it doesn’t resolve the dispute, it forces both sides to articulate their position in writing, which is invaluable preparation for NCAT.

From there, NCAT has the power under:

• Section 232 to make orders settling the dispute or requiring rectification of the works;
• Section 238 to remove a committee member or office bearer where the member has failed to comply with the Act, failed to exercise due care and diligence, or engaged in serious misconduct.

NCAT does not remove committee members lightly. The case law (Lockrey v Rosewall [2022] NSWCATCD 27; Vojkovic v Savva [2023] NSWCATCD 141) makes clear that it reserves removal for the “clearest of cases” backed by substantial evidence, not personality clashes. A pattern of unauthorised works, self-dealing, and intimidation, properly documented, is exactly the kind of “clearest of cases” the Tribunal contemplates.

Step 4: When to bring in a solicitor

A solicitor adds the most value when:

• the evidence is complex and needs to be properly assembled into a chronology;
• you anticipate the matter ending up at NCAT regardless of mediation;
• there’s potential for personal liability of a committee member acting in bad faith (which falls outside the section 260 good-faith protection); or
• you need formal correspondence sent that carries weight. Sometimes a single letter on a law firm’s letterhead achieves what twelve months of internal complaints could not.

You don’t necessarily need a solicitor at Step 1. You may very well need one by Step 3.

Evidence — the part that determines the outcome

Whichever path you go down, your case stands or falls on the evidence. Before anyone votes, mediates, or hears the matter, you want:

• A chronology of the unauthorised works (what, when, who directed it, who paid).
• Photos, before and after, with dates.
• Invoices, bank statements, and minutes (or the absence of minutes. That’s often the most powerful evidence).
• Any committee correspondence showing decisions being made outside proper meetings.
• Written statements from residents who have experienced the intimidation, even if they’re nervous about going public. Tenants can give statements through their landlords if they prefer.
• A clear map of which parts of common property the member appears to be treating as their own.

The intimidation evidence is also relevant to the strata case, even though the police are the right forum for the threats themselves. Conduct of that kind goes directly to whether the member has engaged in “serious misconduct” for the purposes of section 238 and breached the duty under section 37 not to unreasonably affect others’ enjoyment of their lots and the common property.

In summary

Mediation, solicitor, NCAT are all tools you may need, but they’re rarely the first move. Start inside your scheme. Build the evidence, call a general meeting, and put a properly drafted removal motion to the owners. If the scheme can’t or won’t act, mediation, then NCAT under section 232 and section 238 are the next escalations. And keep the intimidation issue separate. That’s a Police matter, not a strata one.

The single most important thing you can do right now is stop treating this as one big problem. Three problems, three tracks. Sort them, evidence them, and move on the first one.

This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Owners should check their scheme’s registered by-laws and seek independent legal advice on their specific circumstances. Where intimidation or threats are involved, contact NSW Police directly.

This post appears in Strata News #796.

Tim Sara
Sara Strata
E: tim@sarastrata.com.au
P: 04 8500 7960