A strata committee meeting can become contentious long before anyone raises their voice. A delayed repair, an unexplained invoice or a decision made without consultation can quickly affect property values, living conditions and the confidence owners have in their scheme. The top causes of strata committee disputes usually arise from governance failures rather than a single difficult personality – although personality can certainly intensify the problem.

For NSW owners corporations, committee members and managing agents, the practical issue is not merely whether disagreement exists. It is whether decisions are being made within proper authority, recorded transparently and directed to the interests of the owners corporation as a whole. Where that discipline is absent, an operational disagreement can become a costly dispute before NSW Fair Trading or the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT).

Top causes of strata committee disputes

1. Repairs, maintenance and building defects

Repairs are one of the most persistent sources of conflict in strata schemes. Owners may disagree about whether an issue is common property, whether work is urgent, which contractor should be engaged, or whether the proposed scope and cost are reasonable. Water ingress, concrete spalling, façade issues, fire safety defects and failed waterproofing can create particular pressure because delay may cause further damage or expose the owners corporation to liability.

The difficulty is often compounded where the building is relatively new and there may be a claim against a developer, builder, insurer or consultant. One group of owners may favour immediate rectification, while another wants to preserve funds or pursue recovery first. Both concerns can be legitimate, but the committee must assess the evidence, its statutory duties and the commercial consequences of delay.

A committee should avoid treating technical building questions as matters of opinion. Clear expert reports, properly defined scopes of work, documented tender processes and advice about potential claims can reduce the scope for later allegations that a decision was uninformed or improperly motivated.

2. Levies, special levies and financial transparency

Few decisions attract closer scrutiny than requests for money. Disputes commonly arise when owners believe levies have increased without adequate explanation, capital works planning is inadequate, or a special levy has been imposed to address an expense that should have been anticipated.

Financial disagreement is not always about affordability alone. It can concern the accuracy of budgets, access to records, the allocation of expenses, payment arrangements, debt recovery and whether the committee has adequately explained why expenditure is necessary. Owners who receive short or incomplete information may assume that decisions have been made behind closed doors.

Committees should ensure budgets, motions, meeting minutes and financial records provide a coherent account of the decision. There is a practical difference between simply having records available and communicating enough information for owners to understand the purpose, urgency and likely financial impact of the proposed work.

3. Conflicts of interest and perceived favouritism

A conflict of interest does not require dishonesty. It can arise where a committee member has a personal, financial or professional connection to a contractor, managing agent, lot owner or proposed transaction. Even where the outcome is objectively sound, a failure to disclose the connection can undermine confidence in the process.

Common examples include recommending a contractor connected to a committee member, supporting works that particularly benefit one lot, or participating in a decision involving a personal dispute with another owner. Perceived favouritism may also arise where certain owners receive faster responses to maintenance requests or greater access to committee information.

Disclosure should occur early, be recorded in the minutes and be handled in accordance with the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) and the scheme’s circumstances. Depending on the issue, the appropriate response may be for the interested member not to participate in discussion or voting. The correct approach depends on the nature of the interest and the decision being considered, so a formulaic response is not always sufficient.

4. Decisions made outside committee authority

A strata committee has an important role in administering the scheme, but it does not have unrestricted power to make every decision on behalf of the owners corporation. Some decisions require approval at a general meeting, a particular form of resolution, or compliance with statutory procedures.

Disputes arise when a committee approves substantial works, enters into significant arrangements, changes access rules or deals with common property in a way that owners say should have been put to a general meeting. The issue can be especially sensitive where the decision affects the use or value of particular lots, such as parking, storage, short-term letting, renovations or exclusive use of common areas.

The safest course is to identify the source and limit of authority before a commitment is made. A decision that appears commercially sensible can still be vulnerable if the process is defective. This is particularly so where contracts have been signed, funds spent or owners have acted in reliance on the decision.

5. By-law enforcement and uneven treatment of owners

By-laws are intended to support orderly shared living, yet their enforcement is a frequent source of personal and legal conflict. Noise, pets, parking, smoking, rubbish disposal, renovations and use of balconies can all become flashpoints. The underlying issue is often not the by-law itself, but whether it is being applied consistently and fairly.

A committee that takes swift action against one owner while overlooking similar conduct by another can face allegations of selective enforcement. Conversely, a committee that fails to respond to repeated breaches may be criticised by affected residents for neglecting its responsibilities.

Effective enforcement requires evidence, a measured process and appropriate correspondence. Committees should distinguish between an isolated inconvenience and a persistent or serious breach. They should also avoid making accusatory findings without sufficient information. A considered response protects both the scheme and the rights of the lot owner concerned.

6. Communication failures and poor meeting procedure

Many strata disputes begin with a communication gap. Owners may not understand why a decision was made, whether a concern was considered, or how they can raise an objection. Committee members, meanwhile, may feel overwhelmed by constant emails, competing demands and criticism from people who are not involved in the daily administration of the scheme.

Poor meeting procedure magnifies these pressures. Inadequate agendas, unclear motions, incomplete minutes, informal voting by email and decisions made in private conversations can create uncertainty about what was actually resolved. Once trust has been lost, even routine administrative decisions may be challenged.

Committee meetings should be purposeful and properly documented. Minutes need not be lengthy, but they should accurately record resolutions, declared interests, significant reasoning where appropriate, and any authority given to spend funds or instruct contractors. A reliable paper trail is often the best protection when a decision is later questioned.

7. Personal disputes becoming governance disputes

Strata living brings together people with different financial interests, lifestyles and expectations. A disagreement between neighbours can become a committee dispute when it affects voting, by-law enforcement, repair decisions or access to information. In smaller schemes, where a small number of owners hold committee positions, personal conflict can effectively stall the administration of the entire building.

It is tempting to treat these disputes as merely interpersonal. That approach can be costly. Personal allegations, hostile correspondence and informal campaigns to remove committee members can distract from the legal and practical issues that require resolution. The committee must continue to act for the owners corporation, rather than for individual alliances or grievances.

Where relationships have deteriorated, an independent legal assessment can help separate the legal merits from the emotion of the dispute. It may identify a procedural solution, a properly framed motion, an appropriate records request or a pathway to mediation before positions become entrenched.

Managing a dispute before it escalates

Early action does not mean avoiding difficult decisions. It means making them with proper authority, evidence and process. Committee members should obtain advice before committing to high-value works, responding to serious defect allegations, enforcing a contentious by-law or taking steps that may materially affect an owner’s rights.

Owners should also be careful about the remedy they seek. A request for records, a challenge to a meeting process, a concern about an unauthorised expenditure and an application for orders each require different evidence and procedural steps. In some matters, mediation may offer a practical outcome; in others, urgent legal advice is required to preserve rights or prevent further loss.

For committees facing entrenched conflict, the objective should be to restore lawful decision-making, not simply to win the next vote. Clear advice at the point where a disagreement first becomes a governance issue can protect the scheme’s funds, reduce personal exposure and give owners a defensible path forward.