Fax (02) 8218 5233

Wednesday, 9 January 2002

EWON Ref: 9588 & 13230

Dear Ms. Miller and Ors,

Re: Integral Energy and EWON

I am this evening in receipt of your fax dated 8 January which was sent last night at 8:29 PM. Strangely enough we attempted to attend your office in person at about 7:30 PM. Unfortunately the timing of your fax coincided with our attendance at the NSW Supreme Court in direct relation to these matters. I feel a lot of the items you have written are again incorrect, misunderstood or seemingly made up. I understand that sometimes your perception varies, however I tend to be very literal in my statements and they should not be "interpreted" to mean anything other than exactly as I state them.

Again, let me quote your comments and hopefully without having to quote my own letter to you, clarify the issues you raise.

The points you summarise are evidently clear enough. We need not dwell on these.

Itemised point 1 "Disputed electricity account and impending disconnection"

"As discussed, at EWON's request Integral Energy agreed to hold any disconnection action until Thursday 10 January 2002."

I strongly disagree with this. Had this been the case my telephone conversation with Mark Aitken, which caused me to depart to the courts, would not have been undertaken. Fortunately I had a third party independent witness here at the time and the telephone call with Mr. Aitken was recorded. At no time yesterday was I informed that disconnection would not occur until Thursday.

Mr. Hans Wesseling, from the Ministers office, was urgently trying to contact us after I informed Mr. Aitken that we were going to the courts. It seems pointless trying to advise more delays by Integral and EWON after I have been forced under Duress to take a legal litigation motion.

Mr. Aitken confirmed to me in our telephone conversation at 15:22 that there was no way to avoid disconnection unless we paid the bill.

Last night at around 6:20 PM, Ms. Hansen, Judges Associate to Justice Simpson contacted Integral Energy and arranged for the disconnection to be avoided until after hearings were held in the Supreme Court tomorrow, giving Justice Simpson a chance to hear what we have to present. I have no doubt that the Walsh Report will ensure that the matter proceeds quickly.

"The extension was to allow the opportunity for a check meter reading to be taken by either you or Integral Energy, and for EWON to consider the reading as part of our investigation."

As I stated to EWON, there would be no extension on the matter of a check reading. My terms were clear. That Integral Energy provide an undertaking that the supply would not be disconnected until the matter of 1 February 2001 was settled in agreement by all parties. At not time have I claimed that we have been inaccurately billed. I have however claimed that the consumption of energy is excessive and clearly caused by the damaged equipment on the premises that has not been replaced by Integral after the admitted careless and reckless negligence on 1 February 2001. EWON refuses to acknowledge this point after the fifth written time.

"I note that you have not provided a check meter reading to EWON to date."

This is inaccurate. I have provided you with one digit. I explained why only one digit was provided and what EWON was required to do to obtain further digits. This is in line with the manner in which EWON has constantly treated this matter. EWON constantly provides no resolution to me, so I am unable to provide a lot of resolution to EWON. I am also concerned that EWON might release the reading to Integral Energy without our consent. I refer to the matter of March 2001 where EWON provided a web address to Integral Energy which was documented in a letter clearly marked "Commercial in Confidence" without our consent.

"you are unwilling to remove the lock from the meter box to allow Integral Energy to take an un -supervised meter reading without receiving either an indemnity of $10,000,000."

Almost correct. I am not prepared to commit a contributory negligence by allowing un-supervised access to the meter box. Upon our receipt of an undertaking from Integral Energy that they will pay an undisputed amount of $10 million should any power interruption occur after the removal of the lock, I will happily remove the lock and provide a new right of Trespass onto the property.

It is very important this point is not slurred or incorrectly stated. I gave extensive reasons and justifications for the purpose of this undertaking in previous correspondence and I reiterate one important point now. If Integral is so certain that there will be no future negligence or carelessness then the undertaking is worth nothing. However if Integral fears that future carelessness might occur, then the undertaking protects my two children aged 1 and 3 and my family.

"I understand that you would be willing to supervise a meter reading taken by Integral Energy if EWON pays you $396 per hour to be present, or if Integral Pays you for four hours at $396 per hour plus an amount of $234,000 in advance."

This is so wildly inaccurate it's making me laugh!

I explained to Mr. Aitken who clearly is unable to take accurate notes, that as the time for negotiation had gone beyond the 11^th hour, that being 8 January the day of Disconnection, I was no longer negotiable.

I explained to Mr. Aitken that if EWON wished to attend the premises and take a check meter reading, I'd be happy to supervise your attendance, but would be required to charge you my standard commercial rate of $396 an hour. Normally I charge this in four hour blocks, but I am always negotiable if it helps people.

Mr. Aitken suggested Integral Energy could come out on either Tuesday the 8^th in the afternoon, or Wednesday the 9^th in the morning. I stated that I was going to the District Court (later ending up at the Supreme Court) at 2 PM and no one would be available to supervise or gain access to the meter box. I further stated that if Integral wished to pay the $396 an hour, they would also be required to pay the outstanding invoices issued to Integral as we consider Integral a very serious defaulter. Once Integral paid an amount of $234,000, plus the $396 for one hour on site supervision, I'd be happy to allow them to read the meter.

Unfortunately neither EWON nor Integral took up either offer nor attempted to negotiate any other options they might choose. Sadly this has been our ongoing 11 month dealing with EWON and Integral.

You will recall yesterday I asked you why you did not provide me with other options for energy supply. As you know, and it's indicated later, there are other options as the power industry is now deregulated. Was it remiss of you to actually pose this as an option to me or were you deliberately and non-independently ensuring that Integral retained it's duress and extortion over us?

"I am unable to arrange for Integral Energy to take a check reading on this basis."

Clearly I understand why. You failed to listen to the options being provided. I understand sometimes having two options to choose from can be very difficult. I have come to realise this even more so in recent days which is why I have provided only one finite and definite position from our view. It causes unnecessary stalemate, but this matter has been going nowhere fast for 11 months, so I conclude it is time I stood by my principles and my ground.

Perhaps if you have considered my charge of $396 to EWON, you could have had a check meter reading. I understand that Integral pays EWON for it's work and activities. I understand that should EWON present Integral with a large bill, the Integral Board member on EWON's Board of Directors may wish to invoke changes to EWON that would in future lessen Integral's liability to EWON and I also suspect that Integral might seek support from other Board members to have various EWON employees responsible for the unfortunately equitable damage, ousted from their jobs.

I have constantly questioned your independence and integrity and you have constantly shown that your employment with EWON is more important that resolving this exponentially growing dispute. (You being Ms. Petre, Ms. Miller, and EWON in general.)

"I understand from your discussions today with both myself and Mark Aitken (title), that you do not want me to arrange a check meter reading or meter test."

I fail to understand how you come to that conclusion when my statement was upon receipt of $396 I would happily supervise a reading and testing. Clearly you have decided to be as far from independent as possible. At no time have I refused or declined the opportunity for EWON or Integral to make a meter reading. I have constantly stated verbally and in writing that I would happily reschedule my appointments as much as possible to accommodate said reading appointments.

"At this point, the most likely explanation for the disputed account appears to be that the account is higher than normal because it "catches up" several accounts which Integral Estimated,"

Now that shows a total lack of independence again. I have provided several other reasons which again you have failed to acknowledge.

1. The meter was damaged by the carelessness and recklessness of the Integral Officer on 1 February 2001. You refuse to even consider this.
2. The consumption of electricity has increased due to the damage caused by high voltage transients through the weakening and degradation of the components in the electrical appliances. This comes almost directly from Dr. Walshe's report. You also refuse and have failed to acknowledge this.

I have at no time disputed the accuracy of the meter based on the fact that the meter is probably damaged and that the appliances on the premises are most definitely consuming more than the manufacturer's specified consumption due to the damage.

I have however disputed that the energy has, and under normal circumstances, would have been consumed.

I have also stated that I am happy to pay the undisputed portion of the bill, however I require an accurate account showing exact energy consumption that does not conflict with points 1 and 2 above.

It doesn't matter whether the meter is read once a month or once a year. It's going to turn it's little wheels with the same accuracy, at least in theory. The only advantage of regular readings is that should a leakage fault or excessive consumption occur, it can be detected faster.

I have always offered Integral supervised meter readings since 2 February 2001. Integral has refused to accept this offer until 26 October 2001. I can not mitigate their losses and damages if they are not prepared to cooperate. I note that the same request has been made to you to arrange an appointment monthly for Integral to read the meter, but EWON refused to forward the request.

"Integral Energy has informed me this afternoon that a payment of $300 is required on your account by close of business Wednesday 9 January 2002 to stop disconnection procedures being put in place on or after Thursday 10 January 2002."

Apart from the fact that we are in the Supreme Court seeking orders for a range of things, there is no way as a consumer I could ever agree to make a payment under these conditions.

The Duress you are imposing upon us borders on extortion. Even if the amount has been reduced from $630 to $300, Integral has no way to proving legitimate and reasonable consumption over the period, recalculated or not, in question.

We are happy to pay Integral Energy a $300 amount provided a bank cheque is made out to us for the amount of the outstanding invoices no later than close of Business Wednesday 9 January.

Your point "2. Transfer of your account to Energy Australia"

We won't worry about this for the moment, simply because I am reticent to allow Energy Australia to read a potentially faulty meter with exponentially consuming damaged equipment. The liability for energy consumed on the premises will remain with Integral Energy. At a future point in time, it will be found the consumption was greatly higher than it should have been and Integral will be held totally responsible for failing to mitigate their own losses.

I have something I'm really itching to tell you, but because we have been forced to enter into the Supreme Court, I just can't bring myself to give you information that will harm both EWON and Integral's arguments. Perhaps had the payment of $234,000 been made before today, information I hold as evidence against Integral could have freely been provided to Integral to benefit their position. I have to admit I am surprised that through all the things I have written you haven't picked up on the matter, however, the surprise is diminished by the fact you refuse and fail to acknowledge my statements accurately.

Your point "3 Your claim against Integral Energy"

"Finally, with regard to the resolution of your claim for physical damage. I understand you have been unwilling to meet with the experts proposed by EWON and allow them to directly access the items and loss."

I have to clarify this yet again, because you failed again, to acknowledge my reason. So far each of the "experts" EWON has proposed, has been or is, or will be in the future contracted to Integral Energy as a consultant or assessor. In fact the resumes of each of the experts constantly shows Integral and other power companies as their pride employers.

I fail to see how a person could ever make damningly opposing report against their current or future employer. You will note that "Quick Fix" from Penrith, the chosen "expert" by Integral Energy, reported that equipment "required only routine maintenance." I am so looking forward to the examination in the Supreme Court and of course a court appointed "expert" to examine the same equipment. I have other evidence that will be presented in the court.

"I understand Mr. Aitken has informed you today that we are unable to agree to your proposal at this time."

This is not the first proposal I have submitted to you. It seems the response to any proposal I submit, EWON "are unable to agree to your proposal at this time." This begs me to ask, what proposal could I submit to EWON that would be agreeable at any time?

"However, I am happy to reopen my file on this matter and to request that the Australian Charted Institute of Loss Adjusters nominate a further two qualified loss adjusters …"

How about this. I'll make contact with the ACILA and ask them to send out an adjuster. Will you agree to that? This will enable me to be sure that the matter is fully independently handled. I have nothing to gain if they return a report not unlike that of Quick Fix. This seems very reasonable to me.

I note that I have offered to undertake this approach in the past and you have refused this option too. I fail to understand why there is an issue with me making the approach and why it's so important that you arrange the assessor? Is it because as you will be paying the bill (which in turn is paid by Integral) and they no doubt do a lot of work for Integral, the report might be different for the Statute employer than a private consumer? Is there a question of Independence deficit here too?

I shall request of the Court that I be permitted to arrange an appointment with the ACILA as part of the orders I seek.

As to reopening your file, you were never asked to close it. In fact the last correspondence on 9588 was that Mr Campbell Anderson was to seek out more people with whom I might agree to allow to inspect the property. This was in August 2001 and I've had no correspondence nor any submissions from EWON or Mr. Anderson.

I can only suspect that the independence of Mr. Anderson is in question. Perhaps during the court proceedings the matter of Mr. Anderson's past employment and regular clients might arise and perhaps we might find that Mr. Anderson does undertake contract to assess matters relating to Integral Energy under instruction from Integral.

Anne, I can only surmise that your intent was to "treat me mean" in order "to keep me keen" because had Integral and EWON attempted any offer to settle this matter in March 2001, it would have been accepted graciously and warmly. However, as a frustrated consumer dealing with this for more than 11 months, I can only say if you keep kicking a dog, it will eventually bite back.

Should you have any questions regarding this notice, please direct them in writing with urgency to Mr. Todd by fax (02) 8825 6199.

Fax (02) 8218 5233

Tuesday, 8 January 2002

EWON Ref: 9588

Dear Ms. Miller,

Re: Integral Energy and EWON Contributory Negligence

I have now been granted postponement of application and filing fees under Section 7 of the District Court Rules.

I am writing to place EWON on notice that should Integral Energy Australia interrupt energy supply at any time to the property subject to EWON complaint 9588, a claim will be made against EWON for contributory negligence to wit EWON's failure to resolve or make a decision on the dispute within 21 days of the lodgement of the complaint.

I also wish to advise that Interlocutory Application will be made at about midday today in the Parramatta District Court seeking orders that EWON make an equitable and sound decision in relation to the complaint 9588 within seven days pertaining to the evidence provided by the Walsh Report.

Fax (02) 8218 5233

Monday, 7 January 2002

EWON Ref: 13230

Dear Ms. Miller,

Re: Integral Energy complaint 13230 now included as 9588

I refer to your latter received by fax today. Your second paragraph states:

"I understand that you have placed a lock on your meter box, which prevents Integral Energy from undertaking check meter readings unless they make an appointment with you. I understand that the locked meter box also prevented Integral from taking regular meter readings, and led them to issuing estimated electricity accounts for the period of December 2000 and October 2001."

I'd like to clarify this before my power is disconnected tomorrow:

I have written to you several times previously and spoken to you on the phone (recorded) on numerous times regards the padlock. The lock has been installed under instructions from Mallesons Stephens Jaques (Integrals Solicitors) who indicated I must do anything necessary to ensure I did not contribute to any future negligence.

Integral was told that due to the negligence committed on 1 February that should they not remedy the matter within a reasonable time period, they would be issued with a Trespass warning. Integral has been told to STAY OFF THE PROPERTY unless they have an appointment and are issued with a Trespass licence by the property occupier. This ensures that we can not be held accountable for any future contributory negligence accusations.

Integral has never been prevented from taking a reading of the meter. They have been informed since February 2001 that any time an officer wishes to read the meter they need only make a phone call and arrange an appointment time with me. The appointment will be video taped from the time the officer walks onto the property until such time as they leave the property. Integrals Cooperation has always been sought to ensure a smooth and timely reading.

Integral has NEVER been prevented from taking any meter readings at any time. I stress again, Integral has always been invited and given access to the meter box at any time it chooses.

In the last week I have offered access to the meter box to EWON and Integral at any reasonable time, indicating I would reschedule any appointments necessary to meet at the time requested by either party. EWON has flat refused to attend the premises and make a check meter reading. EWON has refused to arrange an appointment for Integral at any time.

As such I can not supervise a meter reading or access upon the property without the cooperation of EWON and Integral Energy.

"I understand that you are now prepared to provide EWON with a check reading of the meters that you have taken, providing Integral Energy agrees not to disconnect your property on Tuesday 8 January 2002."

This is incorrect. You have failed to understand the significant aspect of this matter.

I made a check meter reading on January 2 when I received your fax. I contacted your office and indicated that I was concerned about the reading. I indicated that EWON or an independent party should come and read the meter to gain a third point of independent reference. EWON declined the offer to attend the property and read the meter.

I stated to you that there is a high chance that the meter has been damaged from the incidents of 1 February when the Integral Engineer was negligent. I stated that under the circumstances it is impossible to pay the alleged consumption charges as they were significantly higher than the previous two years. I also stated to you that the Walsh Report (your independent investigator) stated clearly that the negligence would cause increased consumption and damage equipment. Dr. Walsh does not in his report eliminate the fact that the meter itself could and would have suffered damage from the incident on 1 February 2001.

As such, I requested a replacement meter. EWON has refused to negotiate this matter with Integral Energy and as such Integral has not replaced the faulty meters.

I stated to you and Mark Aitken that upon written confirmation that the supply would not be disconnected until the matters of negligence on 1 February 2001 is settled, I would not provide a check meter reading myself. I have always offered EWON and Integral the ability to attend the property and take their own readings. Both parties have declined.

It is not for the consumer to prove that the supply is faulty but for the supplier to prove that the goods (or services) are in fact suitable and not faulty.

I note that you are unable to actually make a firm decision or commit to any cause of action. Ms. Petre has consistently neglected to resolve the February 1 issue, now running into 12 months. It seems EWON is unable to make statements or decisions as has been documented in our recent telephone conversations. As such I'm unable to commit or make a full statement either. I will provide you with a portion of the meter reading, you can have the Left most digit: 3.

Incidentally if you feel I'm a little frustrated and annoyed, consider that this matter is now close to 12 months running. Please indicate to me exactly why this matter has not been resolved?

Please note that the dispute is now not an issue of "billing" or "threat of disconnection" but in fact the claim I make is that the meter itself or the readings it is making is faulty or it's readings relate to faults on the premises that did not exist prior to 1 February 2001. As such the bill itself is directly and only related to the original claim, your reference number 9588.

This is not a claim of incorrect billing nor specifically a claim of a meter being faulty on it's own merits, but the that the meter is faulty due to the negligence and contributory negligence of Integral Energy. I note that EWON will suffer contributory negligence claims as EWON has failed in it's mandate to resolve this matter in a "timely and efficient manner"

Once I receive a notice that Integral will NOT disconnect supply to the property until the matter of 1 February is resolved and settled, I will supply the remainder of the check meter reading.

I will no longer be held under duress and threat.

Please note that the occupier of the property consists of two children aged 1 and 3. Integral should be doing everything possible to ensure that the children are not affected by their actions. Should anything occur to the children in any way at all for any reason that is not in line with the parenting attitudes of the parents, Integral and EWON will be held contributory and totally responsible.

"I would then request your cooperation in removing the meter box lock …"

As indicated before, I will remove the meter box lock upon a $10 million liability assurance from Integral Energy. This was documented in a recent letter to you dated January 2002. I won't copy or recant the content. Providing Integral feels confident enough to access a meter box without causing any further negligence or misadventures, then removing the padlock under the Liability assurance won't be an issue because no claim will ever need to be made.

In the mean time, Integral is welcome to read the meter at any time they wish, providing an appointment is made with me. The appointments will be video recorded.

"Integral has requested that you pay the undisputed amount …"

I request that Integral pay the compensation for their misadventure admitted by them in March 2001. Upon receipt of the payment, replacement of all appliances on the property, and a new meter being installed, bills will no longer be disputed.

At this point in time, any and all usage of energy is disputed until such time as Integral makes good on it's compensation obligations and replaces all appliances on the property and replaces the meter(s).

All claims relating to meter readings are disputed on the bases of equipment, including appliances and the meters, caused by Integral Energy negligence on 1 February 2001.

There is no doubt, and you have admitted this yourself that the "average daily consumption" has increased considerably. This leaves no doubt that unambiguous damage has been caused to something on the property that is causing higher readings or increased consumption. Until such time as the matter is resolved, all claims against Integral are directly related to 1 February 2001 and any bill issued by Integral is considered fraudulent and deceptive. I refer to the Fair Trading Act of NSW for further reference.

If you have any further questions regarding this document, please feel free to itemise them without becoming ambiguous and misunderstanding the issues.

Fax (02) 8218 5233

Thursday, 3 January 2002

EWON Ref: 13230

Dear Ms. Miller,

Re: Integral Energy and complaint 13230

I reply to your fax dated today, received by me this afternoon at 4:41 PM with regards to EWON complaint number 13230. I wish to ensure that a full-clarified understanding is made on the issues as it seems you have incorrectly interpreted many. I hope that I won't be required to use quote and reply in future correspondence.

You claim the amount of $630.58 allegedly due to Integral is for non payment of an outstanding account. However I make claim under Section 58 of the Fair Trading Act that the amount is a claim for unsolicited supply of goods. Further I claim the charges are fraudulent.

The alleged amount of $630.58 relates to Integrals reading of our meter on or about 26 October 2001 (the reading is on video tape date and time stamped) more than 9 month after Integral caused insurmountable damage to all electrical equipment on the property through their own negligence.

Integral was notified that they had no further right enter the property without an appointment and a notice has been affixed to the meter box with clear instructions. These instructions were faxed to Richard Powis, CEO of Integral Enegry and Greg Walker (who had been in the job for a month and left in August 2001) on February 2, 2001.

Mr. Steve Tutil called in September 2001 to request a reading. He later followed, for the first time, the customer instructions on how to gain access. This was conducted and a reading was made and recorded.

At this time, Keith Withers (Complaints manager) wrote attaching a new invoice. His letter states that all previous "estimate invoices have been revoked" and a new invoice with new charges has been made. He notes that the variation between the estimate invoices (an average of $250 per two months) was insufficient to cover the charges for the reading period and that a $630.58 difference was outstanding.

I wrote to Mr. Withers and referred to the now 10 month running claim for compensation. I referred to the report by EWON independent investigator, Dr. Keith Walsh. Dr. Walsh states clearly that on 1 Ferbuary 2001 an Integral Engineer had a "misadvanture" and was negligent in his course of action. This resulted in a number of high voltage transients. Dr Walsh went on to write that the result of these transients would be earth leakage and damage to insulation. He stated that this would also cause wear on equipment and consequently use more electricity. He also indicated that some equipment would in the future just stop working. Dr. Walsh indicated the only commercial responsible thing to do is to replace all electrical equipment on the premises.

Mr. Withers, like Steve Tutil, Simon Draper, Greg Walker and other Integral staff have consequently ignored these statements and findings. Strangely enough EWON has also ignored the facts founded by their own independent investigator. EWON has under it's constitution the power to make a binding decision to an amount of $20,000 without consultation to the member (in this case Integral Energy) or up to $50,000 with consultation with the member.

In August 2001, I reported to EWON that the home business costs exceeding these limits. The cause of this mitigating excess is attributed to Ewon and Integral's inaction over the 7 months. Temporary measures were still in place trying to avoid any further loss of business, as was instructed by Simon Draper on 2 February 2001.

I further instructed that EWON make a determination on the property of Ms. Brook only. Assets that allow her to care for her two children at the minimum standards that are expected to exist under State Laws.

EWON has however neglected to make any decision that would have provided a partial resolution and the replacement of damaged white goods to Ms. Brook, her two children aged 3 and 1.5. I note particularly that this all occurred during a very cold winter period.

I gather that these issues are not so much about ensuring a mother can look after her children but how much liability can be denoted or eventually given up upon by the poor individual customer. I note that Integral prides itself in it's children related community sponsorship, however the hypocritical actions of Integral leaves many to wonder the real truth.

The amount of $630.58 is NOT outstanding. It is being claimed by Integral and is clearly as you have noted yourself, extravagantly higher than any previous period. Take into account specifically that many electrical appliances that were previously being used are now in the garage as they are inoperable, unsafe to operate or partially dysfunctional.

Your letter goes on to "confirm the following" and lists several points allegedly from our (recorded) telephone conversation this afternoon. I wish to correct you on a number of these points.

1. Yes I contacted EWON with regards to the high bill by fax on 11 December 2001. However you failed to note that you have done nothing to resolve it on more than two months.
2. You did not discuss with me that fact that you agree the increase of electricity consumption is in fact higher. You also fail to acknowledge that this was suspicious. You also failed to acknowledge my supposition that the increased usage is directly related to the actions of the Integral Engineer of 1 February 2001 as documented in the Walsh Report. However you seem to have stated in your letter that the increase is due to our direct and knowing consumption of electricity. We did not discuss any of your points above on the phone. However I provide my comments in this paragraph for your explanation and reply.
3. You indicated the next step in your investigation is to obtain a check meter reading. You indicate that you understand I have done as you requested in your fax dated 31 December (received by me today.) You note my comments that my reading raised my concerns. You add that the concern is with regards to the accuracy of the October 26 reading, however my concern is not regards the reading as such. I merely provided that as an option, one of three options. This seemed to be the most obvious and simplest option, however upon further investigation by me, I provided two other options, that the meter was faulty, caused by damage on 1 February 2001 by the Integral Engineer through the high voltage transients, or that if the meter was correct that equipment that was normally operating prior to 1 February 2001, was now damaged and reacting as described by Dr. Walsh. You make no reference to these two other options. Can you please explain to me why this is so? Dr. Walsh writes that I have extensive electrical knowledge, yet you seem to look for the answer I have already told you is wrong.
4. I note that you indicated you had spoken to Integral regarding me removing the lock on the meter box. However you do not in your letter state that my reason is due to the claim of Contributory Negligence being made against me by Mallesons Stephens Jaques (Integrals Solicitors0 for not taking all and absolute actions to ensure that Integral is not able to cause damages or negligence. The purpose of the lock is to ensure that any access to the meter box is fully supervised and video recorded so that any accidental or further misadventures can be avoided and that I will be protected from any further contributory negligence claims. You failed also to confirm that I had stated that upon receipt of a $10 million indemnity from Integral for unrestricted access I would remove the lock. I will unconditionally remove the lock upon receipt of a suitable indemnity agreement. This is a mere formality as clearly Integral will never have to worry about such an indemnity coming into force, as they will never misadventure again. Is the failure by Integral and EWON to provide such a document indicative that either a planned or deliberate misadventure is yet to come or will eventuate? Is Integral concerned they will not be able to avoid any negligence?
5. I note you claim I stated I see no point in any further meter readings being made. Again I refer you above where I stated Dr. Walsh's comments about my expertise and also that Integral will have to make an appointment. I note that I did offer to you on the phone, and that you have not noted this in your confirmation, I will be happy to accommodate Integral at any time they wish to read the meter should they wish to make an appointment. Consider me a fence that needs to be opened to gain access to the property. My Lock is simple to use, dial 8825 6122 and nominate a date and time. This is clearly not too hard for Integral to do as Steve Tutil has managed to carry out this procedure previously.
6. I note you claim you are unable to continue your investigation or hold Integral from disconnecting the supply next week without additional information that the check meter reading will provide.

Can you confirm to me that once I provide the check meter reading to you that you will instruct Integral Energy by decision under Section 6.1 of the EWON constitution meet 6.1 (a) ii to provide the energy service, and 6.1 (a) vii not to threaten or disconnect the supply until this total dispute is settled to the satisfaction of all parties.

Upon confirmation in writing of the above, I'll provide to you the readings being taken each day.

I note that you indicate unless we follow YOUR procedures that you can not carry out any further investigation. I'd like a written copy of ALL EWON procedures so that I can review that these are in fact being followed and in fact exist. It's all to easy to say "I won't do this unless you jump through my hoops." I have my own hoops. I've jumped through all EWON and Integral hoops for more than 11 months, Integral has jumped through only one of mine, and only because they legally had no recourse. I have placed a hoop in front of you to provide me with all Energy related procedures. This will enable me to move swiftly and assist you in doing you job, rather than us going back and forth endlessly because your course of action seems to change every five minutes.

I will advise you now that a matter is being lodged in the NSW Fair Trading Tribunal with regards to the fact that supply is being threatened and that a mother of two children under 5 is being placed under extreme duress to comply with endless demands of EWON and Integral yet neither EWON or Integral are prepared to meet the any requests made by the customer or resolve the disputes at hand. It is noted on the Tribunal application that more than a month passed with no contact being made by EWON or Integral with the customer. It is further noted that EWON and Integral have never posed options or alternative solutions.

The Tribunal has been requested to hear the matter ex-parte urgently to issue orders that the energy supply not be disconnected without orders of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has been advised that documents and reports are to form part of the evidence. This includes all letters, recorded telephone calls and the Walsh Report as supporting the ex-parte claim. The Tribunal advises that it will be several weeks before a hearing date can be provided but that all parties should try and seek resolve before that date.

I note that in the 11 months these disputes have been at hand, at no time has EWON been negotiable or taken the role of arbitration or mediator. I note that EWON has never devised nor presented any options of resolution to the customer, other than "pay the bill" which doesn't seem to be resolving the initial dispute. EWON is however good at providing single choice options. This doesn't however seem appropriate in light of the fact that the customer has been at disadvantage for such a long period.

I note that Integral has never at any time changed its stance of bully tactics, threat, and duress of termination of supply. I note also that at no time has Integral ever attempted to offer a resolution, any form of compensation or to come and talk to the customer to seek, devise or negotiate a resolution.

This is appalling behaviour from a State Government organisation who clearly contravene every single one of the advertised customer care standards created by themselves.

This document will be forwarded to the Fair Trading Tribunal along with several references against EWON and Integral under the Fair Trading Act. It is the intent of the customer to see reversal of the charges and penalties against Integral and EWON under the Act. The customer is also claiming 11 months personal compensation for loss of living standards.

Further matters will be directed to the NSW District Court, again seeking ex-parte injunction orders using the same evidence. If you wish, I can notify you of the hearing date and time which will be either Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning.

Fax (02) 8218 5233

Thursday, 3 January 2002

EWON Ref: NOT PROVIDED

Dear Ms. Petre,

Re: Integral Energy and Relationship with EWON

There are several pending matters relating to Integral Energy that commenced on 1 February 2001. Your office was brought to the attention of the first of these matters in early February 2001.

Since that time, over 11 months ago, EWON has failed to resolve as a third party arbitrator, the issues at hand. EWON has failed to make a ruling or decision based on the damning evidence against Integral Energy provided by EWON's own "independent" investigator, Professor Keith Walsh.

Several times, EWON has been asked to make a decision. EWON has neither accepted nor rejected the claim.

EWON has attempted on several occasions to send what EWON calls an "independent" assessor to assess some or all of the damaged equipment on the property. Upon investigation of the background of the "independent" assessors each has failed to be accepted by us on the basis they have an ongoing commercial interest in dealings with Integral Energy or other associated companies.

One could hardly expect someone who derives their annual income to make a multi million dollar assessment report against their employer. Therefore this can hardly be considered Independent.

EWON has consistently failed to resolve issues without additional cost to ourselves.

I now call upon EWON to make a decision by 3 PM today. Failure by EWON to make the decisions shown below will result in action being taken in the Fair Trading Tribunal and the District Court of NSW against EWON joined with Integral and a claim being made under the Trade Practises Act of collusion, misleading and deceptive practices and various contraventions of Corporations Law.

The Ombudsman is to make the following fair and equitable decisions by 3 PM Thursday 3 January 2002:

1. In accordance with EWON Constitution Section 6.1 (a) (i) and the evidence from the Walsh Report EWON is to determine that the member (Integral Energy) is to pay compensation to the complainant; and
2. In accordance with EWON Constitution Section 6.1 (a) (ii) EWON is to direct the member (Integral Energy) to provide a continuous and uninterrupted supply without threat or otherwise to the complainant until clause 1 above is settled in full; and
3. In accordance with EWON Constitution Section 6.1 (a) (iii) EWON is to direct the member (Integral Energy) to amend the invoice with over $600 in excess charges with a full credit and equal future credits of the same ratio plus an additional 2% against all future invoices issued by Integral Energy to the complainant; and
4. In accordance with EWON Constitution Section 6.1 (a) (iv) EWON is to direct the member (Integral Energy) to supply good and services the subject of the complaint and undertake any necessary corrective or other work to resolve the complaints; and
5. In accordance with EWON Constitution Section 6.1 (a) (vii) EWON is to direct the member (Integral Energy) to cease threatening disconnection, to replace and repair all property on the premises to the satisfaction of the complainant, to ensure that energy supply continues uninterrupted.

The notice forms part of the papers to be submitted to the Fair Trading Tribunal at 3:30 PM Thursday 3 January 2002.

Fax (02) 9583 6024

Tuesday, 3 July 2001

Dear Mr. Tutill,

Ref: ST: Your Fax dated 28 June 2001

I note that on 27 June 2001 we formally requested that you conform with legislation regarding notices for disconnection of a service. Previous to our written request and notification to the Energy Ombudsman, you were bullying, demanding, arrogant and unconscionable.

I am very disappointed it took so many people four days to actually cause you to follow the legal obligations you are bound by under your licence. I have no doubt you treat all customers in this manner and find it in complete opposition to your advertised position on Customer Service and Performance. I have obtained these documents from your office and will be spending a sufficient amount of time dissecting the documents to find all your failings. This will form the basis of our future claim.

I wish to state for the record that you are still unconscionable. In three telephone conversations you demanded an amount of $265.60 be paid "immediately" with threat of disconnection from the distribution system if it was not done. Upon a search of our records we show that there were no notices, reminders or otherwise issued prior to your telephone conversation with me on 26 June.

You were not open to any negotiation to resolve the amount, nor were you open to accept part payments on a payment program as an option. I made several offers, whereas you said the only option was immediately. This seems to contradict your obligations under the Act and under your own advertised policy to do everything possible to resolve an issue. Everything possible does require negotiation by both parties, not one party and as I moved from $5 a week to $265.60 upon proof, you were still not satisfied. Even after I’d agreed with you. Clearly a bully tactic and unacceptable under law.

That telephone conversation and the following were recorded under previous notifications and you were aware that the conversations were and would be recorded. At no time did you demand payment of more than $265.60.

After a complaint to EWON about your unconscionable conduct, you sent a formal letter dated 28 June 2001 now demanding more than had previously been subject to negotiation or complaint.

We have not received any notices on the second amount claimed, and no doubt you will be demanding payment of the third amount the day after it falls due.

FORMAL COMPLAINT

In reply to your letter dated 28 June, I note that you state the supply with be disconnected on 12 July, yet you provide 28 days for a written complaint from ourselves. These two dates appear in my opinion to contradict each other and as your legal obligation is 28 days for a written complaint, I thus expect that your disconnection will not occur prior to that date.

It would appear to me that if you were to disconnect inside that 28 day complaint period, it would be futile for the customer to waste time dealing with Integral and best be seeking recourse through the Ombudsman. However in instances as present where the Ombudsman is already involved, it seems the only recourse would be Court Action either on the 12^th of July, or wait until you disconnect then seek Interlocutory relief. You would then be ordered to come back and reinstate the supply an hour later and also become liable for $8,000 in Supreme Court costs plus obviously other costs, not to mention the fact that a legal question on how you are operating under your licence might apply. This could lead, in a legal challenge in the Supreme Court to the Court revoking your licence.

Q1. Is this your intention?

ISSUES OF COMPLAINT AND RESOLUTION OPTION

As such, I am extending you the opportunity of this one and final offer to meet the obligations of

Section 40 (2) (b) of the Regulations. I find I need to be demanding and very limited in my approach, as this is all you seem to understand. I have previously extended options to you, whereas you have never extended any options to me. This does not seem reasonable to most people.

This is my final offer prior to seeking legal recourse:

1. I will make good a payment of $265.60 on 12 July in person at your Huntingwood Drive office; and
2. you will not interrupt the electricity supply to the premises; and
3. you will not demand payment of $261.42 (May Account) until the date upon which Integral Energy settles the first part compensation claim made by Ms Brook in writing sent by Registered post on 13 June 2001 to your CEO, Mr. Powis.
4. You will not demand payment of the $262.46 of the June 8 account until settlement of the second part claim for compensation for damages.
5. prior to any payment on the May or June Accounts you will, in accordance with the Trespass licence issued under Common Law to protect the interests of the customer, request a date and time, not exceeding 15 minutes to gain access to read the electricity meter and gain an accurate reading. This reading will be divided by two and will replace the values on the May and June Account and become due for payment as described in 3 and 4 above.

I find your action in relation to the handling of this now 6 month long matter to be in contravention of the following sections of the Fair Trading Act: 43(I), 44(a), 44(I) and 55. I also find your actions in contravention with the following sections of the Trade Practices Act: 51AA, 51AB(1), possibly 51AD, 52(I).

Should you not agree to these terms, or fail to meet these requirements or extend no negotiable options, I will instigate immediate action through the NSW District Court seeking orders, compensation and damages. I will also make a formal written complaint to the ACCC in relation to unconscionable conduct and breach of State Regulations which form part of that conduct.

If you agree to these terms, you may sign a copy of this letter and return that signed copy by facsimile to (02) 8825 6199 no later than Midday 9 July 2001.

As you can see, I am dissatisfied with your letter dated 28 June. You should not however consider this letter a "formal complaint" for being dissatisfied at this time. I’ll provide a written response to your letter as a complaint in the near future.

This letter is merely a further extension of my reasonable attempts to negotiate a mutual and beneficial solution to this problem. A process by all records, your corporation has failed at every turn to attempt to try even though you clearly advertise such Customer Relations. To quote "a responsibility to deal in a fair, open and honest way with our customers."

I’m trying at this time to find ‘fair’, against the six months of inaction by your corporation.

I’m trying to find ‘honest’ when you have said and written two different things, both on record.

I’m further trying to find ‘honest’ when you have doubled your original demands in the space of one day.

Q2. Can you see my Fair Trading and Trade Practises dilemma?

Q3. Can you explain to me how your corporation has been fair in the entire dealings with this customer? ALL dealings as it is only a one customer and one supplier relationship.

I can’t extend you 28 days to reply to questions two and three. I need an answer by the 11^th of July please.

Fax (02) 9583 6024

Wednesday, 27 June 2001

Dear Mr. Tutill,

Ref: ST: Your Fax dated 27 June 2001

I acknowledge receipt of your fax dated 27 June 2001 received at 3:43 PM. I am concerned about the accuracy of the contents.

I understood from out telephone conversation you were to send to me documents relating to an amount claimed of $265.60. The documents are part of your notice of disconnection policy to which we have no records.

EWON has advised me that you should provide to me the following:

1. Reminder notice for an amount of $265.60
2. Notice of Intention to Disconnect for outstanding $265.60
3. 7 Day Notice for outstanding $265.60

These must be provided with sufficient time to process and arrange suitable payment. It is your intention to provide these documents or am I on the understanding that your policy now is to telephone a customer demand money by the end of the day or disconnect them?

I also note that our recorded telephone conversations have related to the amount of $265.60. Whereas your letter received by fax indicates an amount I’m not aware of.

Can you also provide notices in accordance to the disconnection policy for these other amounts so they too may be processed accordingly.

It is my intent that should the appropriate notices regarding the out standing amount(s) not be provided (in accordance to policy) by 2 July, I will file for relief, damages, losses and seek orders for ongoing supply in the NSW District Court. I have spoken with a Magistrate and a tentative hearing time has been made available for me on Monday 2 July.

It is our intent to pay the $265.90 once the appropriate notices are received. I will not be bullied or blackmailed into payments on the whim of agreements that change between agreement and confirmation. The fact that you changed the "verbal" notice, which is recorded and will be published on the web site along side your letter is a serious concern and further damages what credibility Integral has left.

I wish to further advise that your operator on 25 June 2001 did NOT speak to Ms Brook, nor did the operator provide any details with regards to the purpose of the call. The operator she indicated I was not authoritative for this account. The operator refused to provide your details, spell your surname, take a message for you to contact me or to refer the matter to Mr. Burke with whom original agreements had been made.

I have great concern that you could notify EWON that an operator spoke with Ms Brook. This is documented in a fax from Ms Petre I received at 2:03 PM today.

Written false statements tend not to be a good practise, and defrauding the truth of events is certainly not acceptable. Ms. Brook has been asked to provide a Statutory Declaration indicating the events of Monday 25 June 2001, and I will also do the same. It is my intent in the future to pursue this matter.