There are times when you really regret the demise of a sane sensible civil service in this nation. 

I sent a letter to the Melbourne address of the ACCC.  It contains a complaint from me as a consumer against what appears to me to blatantly anti-competitive behaviour that affects and harms about one in four Australians.  Its text is set out below – without the schedules.

Why did I entrust Australia Post with this task?  Because in the year of Our Lord 2023, this body that is there to look after us consumers against greedy corporates does not see fit to hand out on its website email addresses to those who want to help it do its job. 

Well, that is not quite true.  They trust the press to communicate with them by email – but not mugs like you or me.  So I twice sent the letter to the press email address and asked them to see it got to the proper person.  I got no response to either.  Perhaps I should have produced a press union card.

So, I go to my good Vietnamese friends at the Yarraville LPO, and get them to printout the letter and send it by registered mail.  Just half an hour out of my life.

It has just been returned to me marked: ‘Refused by receiver.  Must have a contact name on it.’

What kind of galah runs a shamble like this?  I was instantly reminded of the lady at ASIC who after I had told them of my change of address told me I had to fill a form in with the same information.  Did she want me to jump the counter and become a filing clerk for the afternoon?

What we have is a slow collective death of the mind brought to us by robots and the ACCC now going head-to-head with ASIC for the worst run department in Australia.

And don’t worry, I know better than to ask who is ‘responsible’.  That word is dead and buried.  Pentecostally.

Letter that the ACCC refused to accept

ACCC

Level 17, 2 Lonsdale St,

Melbourne, 3000

Dear ACCC,

Strata Community Association (SCA)

I write to state my concern about the activity of the SCA and one of its members The Body Corporate Collective Pty Ltd. 

The background is set out in my letter to the Minister CAV which is the First Schedule to this letter.

My post of 26 March, 2023 is in the Second Schedule.

The Third Schedule contains one form of the Appointment of The Body Corporate Collective by my owners corporation.  I can provide a true copy when I get an email address for that purpose.

This whole area is a legal minefield, but two questions arise that I raise with you.

First, did CAV approve the terms of the SCA standard form?  I await the response of CAV.

Secondly, is the SCA acting lawfully in endorsing this form of agreement and encouraging its members to use it?

I refer to my post generally, and in particular to the following.

Anti-trust law is not my strong suit, but consider this. 

A group of participants in a market have the power to dominate it to the point of holding a monopoly.  The market is controlled and rendered exclusive by government licensing.  The service providers combine to form standard terms of agreement between suppliers of their services and those wishing to purchase them.  The object and effect of one term is twofold.  It reduces competition between suppliers.  And it imposes hardship on purchasers by depriving them of basic common law rights in a manner that would not have been accepted by parties negotiating at arms’ length in a free market.

What do our competition laws have to say about this?

The issue may I suppose be clouded by the power of a tribunal under a state act to declare terms unfair, but I would not think it was appropriate for state or federal regulators to leave it to people to fight it out.  They could go mad or bankrupt in the process.

I may say that in my view there is a real issue about whether this document was ever validly executed.  I do not know if the owners got independent legal advice.  I suspect the response may have been ‘You can take it or leave it.’  I doubt if there was a resolution of the owners, and the Victorian act states the usual prohibition of delegation by a delegate.  Other parts of the act, which follows the old public company model, may give rise to technical arguments – which are for another day.

The only other thing I would say now is that litigating these issues is beyond the means of most owners and indeed at risk of being too hard for many courts and tribunals.

I am happy to discuss this further.  As I remarked to the Minister, a lot of Australians are affected by issues like these, and litigation has all the hallmarks of litigious misery – which is something I know about.

Yours truly,

Geoffrey Gibson

6/46 Fehon St,

Yarraville, 3013

18 September, 2023