Fax (02) 8218 5233

Monday, 2 April 2001

Dear Ms Petre,

Re: 9588 – Your letter dated 29 March 2001.

It greatly concerns me after speaking to you at length on 27 March 2001 at 1:38 PM, that you make such misleading and deceptive statements in your letter.

You claim that I requested you cease further investigation into the claim. However this is not correct. In fact it’s far from the truth. You stated that should legal proceedings be commenced you will have to cease investigations. Are you aware of any court filings at this time? No. Therefore you are unable to cease investigation as there are presently no legal proceedings commenced by us.

You then state you confirmed on the basis of my request you will formalise the matter and send a report. Again, I never confirmed that legal proceedings were commenced, and nor did I confirm that you were to cease investigating.

I did however suggest a Due Process option for you to use, as you seemed to have no options of your own.

My recommendation was that you provide a report, in the usual course of your procedures, without a loss assessment, which was requested by Integral Energy and not me, for a monetary value of $1.

You stated that such a decision, which should I accept it, would be binding and unfair to me as the victim. I then suggested that you pick any value you felt was a fair value for making your binding determination, as I clearly had the choice to reject such a decision and pursue other alternatives anyway.

We also discussed the quantum of the claim. It was pointed out that you are already in possession of duplicate invoices sent to Integral Energy for an amount exceeding your maximum binding of $50,000. These stand-by rate invoices were dated to 19 February. A further 5 weeks have passed since then, so you can triple those invoices to bring forward a compensation claim amount.

You also agreed with me, that the cost of replacement of all equipment in line with Dr. Walsh’s recommendation and the cost of installing, testing and securing the resources would exceed $384,000 in engineering costs. Again far exceeding your maximum of $50,000.

I note that I have on multiple occasions offered to settle with Integral for up to the Maximum in a compassionate and generous speedy resolution. They have rejected our claim, denied liability and even today, still not accepted liability even after the production of your report and the summary of Dr. Walsh’s report.

Sadly I find your cover letter and report smarmy. It is misleading. It is deceptive. It attempts to create a personalise characterisation of myself, which is not relevant to the facts of the investigation.

In a telephone conversation on Friday 2 February 2001 at 9 PM, I was told by Simon Draper (Integral Energy Customer Care General Manager) that there was no option but to negotiate with them or go away. When I asked if there was an ombudsman or third party arbitrator, Simon Draper stated there was not.

Under instructions from Simon Draper, who stated the matter would be resolved quickly, I was told to do everything necessary to mitigate the losses to our business and selves. We did. We activated 24 x 7 stand by engineering which has been in constant use since. Integral have been negligent in so far as not attempting to mitigate the damages and costs against them.

After finding out about EWON in our Sydney Water Bill, I telephoned your office on 7 March 2001. I requested that you investigate Causation and Admission of Liability. At no time did I ask for any quantum of damages to be assessed or included as part of the report. I did indicate it was an option that would at all times be considered, providing the investigation was completed in a reasonable time frame.

You claim the investigation has taken a significant amount of your time and resources, yet send me a chronology of twenty dates relating to activities that would generally take in my opinion not more than 5 to ten minutes at a time. However, when asked to provide more detail on your chronology, such as the start and end time of each activity listed, you stated that you did not record such details. You also stated that you didn’t record whether it was you making the contact with the party or the party making contact with you.

Twenty minor activities which could be simple 5 minute phone calls, over a period of 60 days, does not in my opinion constitute "a significant amount of our resources."

In response to the particular matters about your investigation addressed in your cover, I note each one relates to me personally. You make no comments in particular about Integral and their actions, or lack thereof. Again this leads to discredit of your report and questions your independence.

I’ll respond to the three bullet points you raise:

On 27 March, you stated it would be inappropriate for Integral to negotiate a settlement with me during your investigation. I fail to see why? Are you saying that settlements can’t be reached between parties whilst more serious disputes resolution processes are under way? Are you stating that the process of settlement is restricted only to final outcome of an arbitrator? Then can you explain to me how "out of court settlements" can be reached if it’s "Inappropriate" for a settlement to be reached whilst an investigation is being undertaken?

I would have thought it extremely appropriate that Integral to do everything possible to mitigate the ongoing costs in this claim. Especially as Richard Powis is well aware of the claim.

Integral could have settled with me privately for far less than the potential binding amount you might include in your report. This was the most likely option initially.

Your "clarification" leads me to believe there is collusion between Integral and EWON, rather than independence. It would have been in Integral’s best interest at any time to reach a settlement. Their action clearly indicates they continue to deny liability and causation and that your independence is of question as Integral is using you, and paying you, to find a resolution that is in their interests. This is pretty undeniable as your report very strongly provides characterisation of myself. As if you are trying to get the first punch in so that anyone reading your report in a future court related proceeding will have something to chew on.

You have shown you lack of independence by not stating definitively causation of the alleged damages. What damage was caused or not is irrelevant in my complaint. Your task in this complaint was to assess if the alleged power interruptions on 1 February at 16:26 occurred, not the value of the damages. You are neither qualified nor as you state capable to assess quantum without an independent loss assessor being appointed. However, I have to question the integrity of any loss assessor you might appoint at this time.

You have therefor not completed your investigation, nor have you provided a report that simply answers the question: Did Integral Energy negligently interrupt the supply of power to the premises on 1 February 2001.

I also recommend EWON pay for my choice of Loss Assessor and my consultancy to supervise that Assessor to complete your investigation.

With regards to your offer of putting directors of the companies at ease by your conversing with them about your independence, they are certainly not interested in hearing more talk. I wrote to you on 29 March in a letter clearly marked confidential, not that it was important as I was told under no circumstances would EWON discuss any part of any document or material I provided with Integral.

On 30 March I personally received a notice from Mallesons, the solicitors for Integral Energy about the web site I had created. The only reference to the address used in the letter to EWON, was in that letter of 29 March. I deliberately established a path of referral of use of the address and you happily passed the details to Integral without seeking first, my permission. My server logs show this unquestionably.

When I asked you for a copy of the letter that was sent by Integral to you rejecting my requirement of consultancy charges paid in advance of the assessors appointment, as we can no longer extend any credit to Integral because they are considered a serious credit risk and bad debtor, you refused stating the letter was confidential.

Your independence on this alone is very seriously questioned. I have no hesitation raising this in a court proceeding in the future when I personally claim damages from EWON for releasing confidential information supplied only to EWON for the purpose of your records. Be aware that should Integral summons me on this matter, I will join EWON to the action without hesitation. Confidentially submitted documents provided in confidence to EWON are suppose to remain that way, however you seem to operate under made up rules and procedures.

I again reiterate and confirm that I did NOT ask EWON to cease it’s investigation into this claim at any time. Until such time as a summons is served upon Integral for this explicit matter, you are required to continue your activities, complete the investigation and report on the matter.

I have no question that your misrepresentation of my words regarding any future legal action is in response to the lack independence and breach of confidence you have consistently shows. There is no question that EWON could and has the ability to continue to investigate a matter, whether legal proceedings are commenced or not. Your comments indicate that Integral does not wish to pay EWON an ongoing fee as EWON is paid by Integral it is within your interests to keep good will with Integral rather than the consumer who is a victim. A very telling lack of independence.

To be honest I can’t be bothered commenting on the report you provided. It merely depicts further inaccuracies that conflict with much of which is documented previously in my letters to your office and certainly with the content of the video recording of the meeting held here on 19 March.

I further request a full copy of the report prepared by Dr. Walsh (for the third time) to be delivered to me by 4 PM Wednesday 4 March 2001.

As much as I’d like to provide you with a copy of the video tape, I now withdraw the offer as there is no question a legal investigation into the operation of EWON and it’s relationship with Integral Energy is required and this will without doubt form part of the evidence of that investigation. You can obtain a copy at the time such proceedings commence.

There is no commercial or otherwise agreement for me to provide you with a copy. Especially in light of the fact that you do not keep confidential material provided to you confidential.