Question: Our strata manager charged us to affix the common seal to a section 184 certificate, on top of the statutory fee already paid for that certificate. Is this charge legitimate or double dipping?
Our strata manager applied a charge of $65 to our admin fund for affixing our common seal to a standard section 184 certificate completed for the sale of one of the units in our complex.
We’re disputing the charge, since the person who requested the certificate already paid the statutorily prescribed fee of $119.90 for its preparation, sealing and delivery. As a section 184 certificate can’t legally be issued without the common seal being applied, we don’t believe a strata managing agent or committee can charge an additional or separate fee to execute or affix the seal to the document.
While the strata manager maintains this charge is legitimate and common practice, we feel that it’s a case of “double dipping” and potentially a lucrative source of income for the business.
Is the strata manager acting in accordance with the regulations? Which authority can investigate the strata manager to determine the extent of this practice?
Answer: This is not double dipping. These are two separate transactions with two different payers.
There are two separate transactions here, with two different payers. Once you separate them, most of the confusion falls away.
The prescribed fee is paid to the owners corporation
Under section 184(2) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (the Act), a request for a strata information certificate “must be made by written notice given to the owners corporation (OC) and be accompanied by the fee prescribed by the regulations.” Schedule 4 of the Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 sets that fee at $109 for an initial request, plus $54 for a further certificate covering a garage, parking space or storeroom. The $119.90 you’ve seen is that $109 plus GST.
Two things follow. The fee is paid to the OC, not the strata managing agent. And the duty to produce the certificate within 14 days sits with the OC, not the agent (section 184(7)).
The agent’s fee is a different thing, and the OC pays it
Section 184 says nothing at all about what a strata managing agent may charge for doing the work. That is governed by the agency agreement, and by section 55 of the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002, which provides that a licensee “is not entitled to any commission or expenses” from a client unless the services were performed under a signed written agency agreement complying with the Act.
Most agents set their certificate charge at the same figure as the prescribed fee. Nothing requires that. An agreement could provide for a higher figure, or for a certificate fee plus a separate charge for executing documents under seal. The fee is whatever the agreement provides.
For context on why document work tends to be priced separately: the prescribed fee has sat at $109 since 1 July 2015. It hasn’t moved in eleven years, while the systems that generate the certificate and the professional review behind it haven’t stayed at 2015 prices.
So is it double dipping?
Not in the way you’ve framed it. Nobody has paid twice for the same thing. The applicant paid the OC the prescribed fee. The agent charged the OC under its agreement. Different payers, different transactions.
The proposition that a separate fee cannot be charged for affixing the seal because the certificate cannot be issued without it doesn’t hold either. The prescribed fee governs what the applicant pays the OC. It places no limit on what an OC agrees to pay its agent for that task or any other. Section 273(4) of the Act provides that an agent who affixes the seal is taken to have done so under a delegation from the OC, so what you are really looking at is the agent exercising a function of the OC, priced under the agreement.
Where your instinct is worth following
The sharper question isn’t legality, it’s value. If the OC receives $119.90 and pays out a certificate fee plus $65 for the seal, the administrative fund is worse off on every sale in the building. That is a fair point to raise with the committee, but it’s a commercial conversation about the agreement rather than a compliance one.
Start by asking the committee for the agency agreement, particularly the schedule of additional or fee-for-service charges. If a fee for affixing the common seal is listed there, the charge is authorised, and there is nothing to dispute. If it isn’t listed, the agent has no entitlement to it under section 55, and the amount should be credited back. Either way, it’s the OC, not an individual owner, that is the agent’s client, so the committee is the right body to raise it.
This post appears in the October 2026 edition of The NSW Strata Magazine.
Tim Sara
Sara Strata
E: tim@sarastrata.com.au
P: 04 8500 7960
Leave a Reply