131228-To Ombudsman Victoria COMPLAINT Etc-Re GWMWater - Re 2305224 Creditcollect 369335

8/13/2019 131228-To Ombudsman Victoria COMPLAINT Etc-Re GWMWater - Re 2305224 Creditcollect 369335

1/15

Page 1

Page 1 28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.INDEPENDENTConsultant (Constitutionalist)

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1stedition limited special numbered book on Data DVDISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI seriesby making a reservation, by fax0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail [email protected] also www.schorel-hlavka.com

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Energy and Water Ombudsman Victoria [email protected]

5Cc: Chairman Peter Vogel (And other members of the Board of Directors) GWMWater

[email protected] Ref: 2305224Credit Collect [email protected] 369335

Sir,10I have been involved in an ongoing dispute with GWMWater regarding my property at 10

Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock and address myself to you with my complaint(s).

As a single parent, at the time full time caring for my 1 year old daughter, but later for up to 5 ofmy children, I had then already a dispute as while I was a single parent and entitled to15concession, GWMWater failed as I recall it to provide the concession entitlement. Phoning themwas generally a sheer waste of time, being told they had no record of previous calls and as suchneither of the content of conversations held, including the concession issue, where this up to 28March 2001 was my principle residential address and as such where for the duration of residinguntil there I was the concession card holder entitled then to a concession. GWMWater responded20simply to make clear to charge interest for failing to pay the bills and as such I held they

blackmailed me to pay no matter what. Where GWMWater takes it upon themselves to chargeinterest over outstanding monies then I view the interest charged over the concession it refused to

allow was also unlawful. Indeed, I view it should not only repay the concession entitlements andthe interest it charges on it but also pay me interest over all those monies it wrongly claimed.25If it is held that GWMWater is operating under delegated powers by the State government tocharge for water, etc, then I view it also must be held to act as a delegated power to applyconcession entitlements provided for by the same State Government. This, clearly GWMWaterfailed to do. It cannot argue that because it no longer is my principle residential address since 28March 2001 then I am no longer entitled to the concession as what the criteria is if at the time30those bills were claimed by GWMWater I was then entitled upon it.

As referred to below, my son Richard also as a concession card holder should have been entitledto concession deductions which I understand he was not provided with. The same previously

with my daughter Gabrielle when she remained to reside at Berriwillock as a concession card35holder when I moved out she should have had concession entitlements as a concession cardholder regardless I paid the bills for her, as I had moved out on 28 March 2001 due to marriage.

Basically it seems to me GWMWater has no proper system to ensure that concession cardholders are alerted to their rights of concession entitlements, and I view it should be held40accountable for this. The same is with the issue that it holds that it can charge the registered

property holder for the water accounts. My friend Ray Vella and his partner Alice purchased afew months ago a property in Cobram and do not have any water bills. Clearly, if the Water Actwas to place a legal responsibility upon preregistered property holders then it should apply to alland not merely which GWMWater may elect to charge.45
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/15

Page 2





.Already while my principle residential address was at Berriwillock, I had an issue with thequality of water. Again, GWMWater (under whatever identity it acted previously) would thenlater claim it had no records of previous phone calls and it was its way, as I view it, to ignorecomplaints.5

From onset I should make clear that to assign or to transfer an account to me has differentmeanings. To transferI view that the person to whom the account is transferredthen is the

contracting personwith GWMWater and I had no rights in their contractual arrangements northen can be held or deemed to be liable for any failure buy either or both to comply with10contractual arrangements between themselves. For Richard, he may have understood to contractGWMWater to supply water for him and his children suitable for domesticandhouseholdpurposes, whereas GWMWater knowing it wasnt providing this or couldnt or didnt want to

provide this (despite of the Desalination plant or other water sources available) then may nothave entered in to a contract. Consider alsoDonoghuev Stevenson[1932] UKHL 100 regarding15DUTY OF CARE.

When Richard moved into onto the property I had made the arrangement with Richard that hewould pay all incoming bills. GWMWater however sent out a bill to both Richard and a copy to

myself, that resulted that both Richard and myself paid the same bill. Richard held this was a20violation by GWMWater of his privacy and GWMWater then recommended to transfer theaccount from my name to Richard and to stipulate I would not be provided with any copies, this Idid. Richard made his arrangements with GWMWater and as result the account was transferredto R S Schorel being my son Richard S.B.M.V. Schorel. As I understand it Richard as a single

parent of 2 daughters would at times stay with his mother and then back in Berriwillock again.25Recently I was able to make arrangements with a neighbour to let me know when Richard is

back on the property and on 23 December 2013 I received an email that Richard again is back onthe property. For so far Richard may be aware of the account with GWMWater is and remainedon his name R S Schorel and obviously where GWMater hads disclosed his details to me, inviolation to the arrangements they made with Richard as not to do so, then this I view is a breach30

of the Privacy Act. Moreover, irrespective if GWMWater for whatever reason may hold I am theperson accountable despite that it transferred the account to R S Richard, I view it was in breachof the Privacy Act to give credit collect my details in regard of an account that was overdue inregard of R S Schorel. (See attached bills also)While in November 2011 I then accepted to pay water usageit nevertheless cannot be deemed35to cause the transfer of the account from R S Schorel to G Schorel merely by a unilateral decision

by GWMWater. I didnt make any arrangements nor requested to have the account transferredfrom R S Schorel to G. Schorel nor would I desire to do so as since 29 March 2001 I am usingthe surname (by marriage) Schorel-Hlavka, as also listed on my tax file, my driver licence, etc,and as such any transfer of any account, if I had desired to do so, this I didn t and neither40concede having done so, would have to have been in my married surname. For GWMater to

purportedly charge $50.00 for it to consult a lawyer was/is in my view a breach of myagreement/undertaking to pay for usage and hence my agreement no longer stands asGWMWater by its own conduct undermined this agreement/undertaking.While it might be unusual for a male to have a surname change/alteration by marriage45nevertheless it is discrimination by any government department or by any entity exercisingdelegated powers of the State Government or any private company not to accept a lawful usageof a surname by marriage. The mere fact that the property may still be registered under thesurname as I was then doesnt alter the fact that GWMWater was well aware, and indeed forexample uses my married surname on its 28 February 2013 correspondence, of my lawful usage50of my married surname.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html


3/15

Page 3





Where the Commonwealth of Australia through taxation, concession card as a senior citizenhaving issue my pension card using the surname Schorel-Hlavka and so did the VictorianDepartment of Human services with its concession cards previously since my marriage, then Iview the discrimination by GWMWater against me not to consistently use it cannot be allowed to

be tolerated.5Besides the fact that GWMWater has disclosed my details to Credit Collect having in my viewacted in violation of the Privacy Act also it may have resulted that Credit Collect may now haverecorded against my name (whichever surname it used) a bad credit. This is of concern to me.I may state that while Credit Collect did contact me and subsequently a person personally attendto my residence in Viewbank, it has refrained from any further harassment seemingly realising10that this was not a straight forward non-payment but rather one where GWMWater itself mayhave acted incorrectly/unlawful.A company like a debt collection agency such as Credit collect obviously may not be aware ofthe full history of the matters and so may have acted in good faith to contact me but again sincethe personal attendance by one of its staff I have had no further contact from them, albeit I deem15it important to keep them aware of what is going on, and this might also be why they refrain fromany further contact, well aware that GWMWater itself may be a culprit.Credit collect (when their representative attended but claiming to act for GWMWater) asked me

then if I knew Richards current address, this I informed him off IU didnt know. And as such forCredit Collect acting for and on behalf of GWMWater clearly Richard was still the person liable20as otherwise it couldnt have requested me for his current residential address.I must make it very clear that the male person who attended to me was very courteous andnothing in this complaint should be seen as if he acted inappropriately towards me, just as I viewit, he attended in good faith and while it distressed my (now 81 year old) wife that he attended, Iunderstand that in the circumstances he did what was deemed appropriately for a debt collection25agency. The problem rather is that I view GWMWater should never have disclosed my details toCredit Collect and avoided this problem in the first place.Because of the past that GWMWater would claim not to have records of calls I prefer to placematters in writing to avoid it to repeat the same nonsense and so I have a record also of what was

written.30

I will now quote some of my writing to the then Premier Mr Ted Baillieu of 28-1-2013 andwhich was then subsequently quoted in my 28-10-2013 correspondence to Premier Napthine.Also a copy of my 19 December 2013 correspondence to Mr Peter Vogel Chairman ofGWMWater to which no response was received35

QUOTE 131028-G H Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier Napthine Re FIRE-WATER-TAXES-etcQUOTE 130128-G H Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier TED BAILLIEU Re FIRE-WATER-TAXES-etc

There ought to be no question about it that todays Australia so to say was resulting from the back of thesheep. It was the farmers, the growers and those residing in the county who were ensuring that prosperity of40Australia succeeded. Yet, in todays age we seem to disregard their rights in general. We do not have aGovernment for all people but just a government seeking to appeal to those it can expect to vote for it to get

back into Government at the cost of many Victorians rights, in particular those residing in small towns, etc..

We had this gigantic dispute about the north-south pipeline from the Murray to Melbourne which at all cost45somehow had to be build disregarding the rights of property holders. It was so essential that people protestingabout the violation of their rights were even imprisoned. Yet, now that it was build and badly needed it is notused at all. The reason being that it is not needed for the purpose of transporting water from the Murray toMelbourne but needed for the reverse that is to bring drink water to the county, the farmers, the growers andthose residing there in the numerous small towns. We had a desalination plant build at a tremendous huge50financial cost and have it now dormant as allegedly not being needed, that is for Melbourne, but reality is thatit is needed but for those in the country areas.Yes, while Mr Ian White can be fighting fires with his crew and each time places his life on the line doing so,he cannot even get a single drop of drink water from his water supplied by GWMWater as its bills shows:


4/15

Page 4





Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparations withoutfurther treatment

(The red colour is on the bill in black)

While I was in the country I noticed that despite receiving every quarter a bill for more than $90.00 for water5services the bill actually discloses:

Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparations without

further treatmentSo, without using a single drop of water I am charged more (on a quarterly basis that is) than a carregistration, or even my council rates!10

So any new born baby/toddler needing to be bathed in water cannot be done so using the water supply byGWMWater, as is! What on earth is this corporation for if it cannot even manage to provide for the basicneeds of human consumption? Why do we have a government if it cannot even manage a basic, indeedessential need for human consumption? We have aborted ministerial responsibility for so called better service15

by private corporations? Where is the National Party (the former Country Party) where it cannot bother tolook after those voting for it?

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTSand LIBERTIESprinciples embedded in the Constitution;

HANSARD 17-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates20QUOTEMr. CLARK.-

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen isentitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.

END QUOTE.25HANSARD18-2-1898Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its

Constitution,END QUOTE30

For sure, the water issue was ongoing on the mind of the Framers of the Constitution and they held that aperson owns the water that falls on his land but when it leaves then it belongs to anyone. So, what areGWMWater and other such corporations doing to charge not just myself but people like Mr Ian Wright forwater services when not a drop of drink water is provided?Most people may not be aware of it but general charges by water corporations include the upkeep of zoos35and parks. So, we are more concerned that some people are able to go to a zoo then to provide drink water tofellow Victorians? Well, it seems to me at least the Victorian Government has this mentality.Premier Business Card


5/15

Page 5





Banner

END QUOTE 130128-G H Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier TED BAILLIEU Re FIRE-WATER-TAXES-etc

END QUOTE 131028-G H Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier Napthine Re FIRE-WATER-TAXES-etc

5END QUOTE 19-12-2O13 CORRESPONDENCE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Chairman Peter Vogel 19-12-2013

(And other members of the Board of Directors) GWMWater

[email protected] Ref: 2305224Cc: creditcollect

[email protected] 369335

Sir,15There is an ongoing dispute between GWMWater and myself and it is time this is terminated.

Perhaps you may wish to write it off or whatever but it has gone on for too long..In 1987 I commenced to purchase a property Lot 10 and 12 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock.Each lot had a water meter and supply. I requested than the water supply and so its meter to be20removed from Lot 12, and this than eventuated, albeit this is the Lot upon which the residentialhouse is located, whereas Lot 120 had nothing but large sheds on it without any need for watersupply. A large water tank provides for water to the house.Some years ago, one of my sons (Richard Schorel) wanted to move into the property with 2 ofmy granddaughters, and I accepted this provided he would pay all incoming bills (including25water bills) relating to the usage. He was never a tenant as such nor was required in any way to

pay rent. GWMWater started to send out bills to both myself and my son and I discovered weboth were paying the same bill. I assumed it was sent to me because Richard had failed to pay.Being at the time the account holder I held that it was then appropriate for GWMWater toforward me the bill to get it paid. Richard however complained that he should be the account30holder and wanted his privacy and didnt want this to be interfered with by GWMWater
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


6/15


7/15

Page 7





The problem remains that unsuspected people who are to use water from a tap, including smallchildren and visitors, may not be aware of the warning and no warnings are provided on

properties themselves where the water meter is provided and hence I view GWMWater is andremains negligence in its DUTY OF CARE..5It is not my duty to provide signage as it is GWMWater who provides the unsuitable for humanconsumption water. I have no need for being supplied not for human consumption water and soview GWMWater is charging for the supply of a connection, water supply, etc, by

false/misleading/deceptive conduct.After I purchased the property commencing 1987 I then began to pursue that water usage should10

be charged ass I became aware neighbours leaving the tap running unchecked, while I hardlyever used any water, yet we all were charged the same. However, in the end that added chargesto a water account undermined totally what I pursued to achieve and that was a fair charge forusage. The usage now is generally nullified by the other cost charged for.Recently, I attended to friends property at Cobram, they recently purchased and was given the15understanding they had no water charges. Moment, GWMWater has been going on about entitledto charge property holders for water connection, etc, and now it seems that the same legislation itrelies upon actually doesnt at all binds all property holders but seems to be merely the making of

what GWMwater seeks to make out of it..20I have personally no need for water supply certainly not water not fit for human consumption tothe property, (known as 10 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock) and if in case of fire there is a needfor water, well we are paying a fire levy on our rates that the Fire Brigade is to have access towater. Generally it takes it from the town centre.I did not request to transfer the account back into my name, and the unilateral decision by25GWMWater to do so may also be a legal issue, as well as that it had/has no right to discloseoutstanding charges of Richard, as this was precisely he didnt want to eventuate and for which

GWMWater at the time agreed to transfer the account in Richards name. While I have been given the understanding that GWMWater has no legal position to transfer anaccount into the name of a person not being the property holder, this too seems to be30

questionable as people who rent from the Ministry of Housing are billed in their own name andnot that the Ministry of Housing is billed, being the delegated entity of the government propertiesI understand that my son Richard is currently enjoying a stay at one of Her Majestyaccommodations, however prior to that I provided GWMWater with his residential address inHorsham. As such I sought to cooperate but found GWMWater to be totally ignorant to reality.35I have been yet again been issued with an account as to alleged outstanding chargers and quitefrankly this has to stop. I request that my payments made of recent times are all refunded and thatthe account is simply held as a write off, in view that no legal authority existed for GWMWaterto unilaterally alter the account from Richards name to mine.

40Despite my ongoing campaign to expose GWMWater for failing to provide suitable drink water

to its customers, GWMWater seems to appear to me to take a position to stand above the law. Itclearly acknowledges in its statement reproduced above that as shown below again:

QUOTE

45


8/15

Page 8





END QUOTEQUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B

domest ic and stock use, in relation to water,means use for(a) household purposes; or5

END QUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B

QUOTE

END QUOTE10

QUOTE

END QUOTE15

It must be kept in mind that for many years I carted for up to 5 of my children on the propertyand then as I recall it was never advised about the water not being suitable for human

consumption! In my view this was a serious breach of DUTY OF CAREby GWMWater.My late father actually was working for the Rotterdam Drinkwater (The Netherlands) and

pointed out how critical it was that water coming through the taps in households must be fit for20human consumption. In my view the ability of GWMWater to obtain suitable drink water cannot

be claimed not to exist where we have the Wontaggi Desalination Plant idle, but nevertheless atconsiderable cost to taxpayers. As such, it appears to me that it might be rather that GWMWateris in breach of legislative requirements not willing to obtain suitable drink water for humanconsumption, which may perhaps be because of the cost associated with it.25Here we are providing suitable drink water for human consumption to 3 rdworld countries at ourexpenses but we cannot bother to do the same for our own.In my view, as long as GWMWater fails to provide suitable drink water for human consumption

then it cannot acting in breach of law, while at the same time seek to rely upon enforcing otherparts of law that it may elect to rely upon. What we have is that customers are forced to pay30charges and on top of that then incur additional charges to obtain suitable drink water. In myview this is totally unacceptable and GWMWater seems to me not being credible to providedrink water and should not be in the business of water supply.Where is any agreement GWMWater entered into with the State Government was it thatGWMWater was to be exempt from compliance to legislation it would not want to comply with?35Indeed, considering that GWMWater itself acknowledges to be does not meet accepted

Victorian Government standards then it acknowledges by this implied or otherwise, that it failsto comply with what is required?


9/15

Page 9





To me GWMWater is insulting the people living in country areas that while their monies is whatthey are after it cannot care less about the health of those same customers.QUOTE 6-8-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

GWMWater [email protected]

Ref: 2305224

Cc: [email protected] 36933510

Sir/Madam,I received a correspondence recently referring to the Tenancy Act, and it should be

clarified that my son Richard never was a tenant. he moved in as a de facto owner, hence he

was to pay all incoming bills regarding the property, including rates, which he neither did, and as15the nomination for GWMWater wasnt working instead the account was transferred to him.

English is not my native language and neither did I have any formal education in the Englishlanguage but to me you can for example nominate a person as a driver for insurance purposes,

this doesnt give the person ownership of a vehicle. You can transfer a vehicle to another

person which ordinarily gives them ownership of the vehicle.20

As you may recall I wrote in the past:.QUOTE 21-3-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

Well that may be your choice, but I can assure you I am going to campaign for the human rights of peopleliving in the GWMWater service area, as well as others denied the same right of access to suitable drink25water!GWMWater may not consider the human value relevant, and merely interested to make a buck fromstruggling farmers, and others, disregarding their human rights, but I can assure you I am not a person goingto drop this issue.

.30

.END QUOTE 21-3-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE35GWMWater 17-2-2013


10/15

Page 10





[email protected]: 2305224

Cc: [email protected] 369335

5Sir/Madam,

further to my 23-12-2012 correspondence I noted that as yet you failed to respondappropriately, that is to me, as to refunding to me the monies which GWMWater overcharged fornumerous years. Obviously, I also seek interest for the falsely claimed and obtained monies byGWMWater, and to consider that the many of the bills that were on account of and addresse to10and forwarded to Richard Schorel and later to myself refer to:

Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparation without further

treatment.END QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE15

As I understand it, we have such a thing as a Victori a's Charter of H uman Rights and

Responsibilities, and that has been in existence for some years now..With GWMWater seeking to rely upon legislative provisions then consider also that you are20

bound by the correct interpretation of the legislation. Hence, any discrimination is unlawful. Sowhere the legislationQUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B

domest ic and stock use, in relation to water,means use for25(a) household purposes; or(b) watering of animals kept as pets; or(c) watering of cattle or other stock; or

(ca) in the case of the curtilage of a house and any outbuilding, watering an area not exceeding12 hectares for fire prevention purposes with water obtained from a spring or soak or water30from a dam; or

(d) irrigation of a kitchen gardenbut does not include use for dairies, piggeries, feed lots, poultryor any other intensive or commercial use;

END QUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B35

Clearly the legislation provides for Domestic and stock usewhich includes household

purposes, whereas the bills provided to Richard as well as to myself provides for:QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparation without further40 treatmentEND QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

I therefore seek further and better particulars regarding the qualification of what constitutesdrink water household usage domestic usage, etc.45

Why indeed can the legislation purportedly applying to all Victoria have a different applicationin different parts of Victoria? After all, in Melbourne my water bills do notdiscloseQUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE


11/15

Page 11





Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparation without further

treatmentEND QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

5Therefore, it appears to me that there is a discrimination going on between city residents andthose in the country. And this while the Wanthaggi desalination plant is not used to supplysuitable drink water. it is beyond me why GWMWater has not sourced water from this idledesalination plant to ensure it wouldnt discriminate against citizens in country area;s.

10You cannot pick and choose which parts of the legislation you selectively seeks to rely uponwhile blatantly disregarding others.

What was/is the strategy of GWMWater to provide suitable drinking water to all Victorians thatare served by it?15Why indeed, should Victorians have to purchase drink water from other sources and incur a hugecost in addition to what GWMWater already is charging?.

There are such a things the National Groundwater Action Plan - Victorian Projects,Environment Protection Act 197070-8056a172 and Sustainable Water Strategies to name a20view, and my wifes late husband Mr Jaroslav Hlavka M.I.E. Aust CP ENG extensively wrote

about how groundwater could be in a sufficient manner used for supplying all Victorians withdrink water, this while he was employed with Melbourne Water (as it then was called)..

As for concession issues, let make it very clear I took the Department of Human Services to the25Supreme Court of Victoria when it unlawfully had obtained a warrant to arrest my 2 year olddaughter and defeated them in court. In fact the trail judge made clear the warrant was unlawful,as it sought to undermine earlier Supreme Court of Victoria court orders. As such, theDepartment of Human Services all along was aware I was entitled to concessions because it

provided the concession card to me in the first place, in 1986! and it was on the Berriwillock30 address, until 28 March 2001, being then my principle residential address. And as far as I recall itGWMWater was at the time notified about the concession card, but seemingly ignored to takeappropriate action about it. I do not run the office in GWMWater and so do not hold meaccountable for its errors and failures, as I have no ordinary access to its files anyhow to checkup what it has or hasnt on the files documented. Safe to say that GWMWater to my35understanding overcharged me for year after year and where GWMWater seems to chargeinterest on overdue monies then likewise a customer wrongly overcharges is entitled oncompounding interest. and those overdue monies are coming rightfully to me and not to beconfused with Richards contract with GWMWater and any overdue payments by him to

GWMWater.40

Neither do I agree with the reference of the section of the Water Act that somehow the bills(Richards Account Holders Bills) can be put against me, as the section doesnt pursue it as such,

rather that you are taking it out of context.45

I will try to use a simplified example:

By Victorian laws one must wear a seatbelt when one is driving a motor vehicle, albeit when reversing onecan have the seatbelt unbuckled, as it can interfere with ability to reverse when trying to turn around..50So, you sit in your driveway and your partner ask you to more the vehicle 2 metres, so your partner can freelymove along it. You do so. A police officer then comes to you and issue an infringement notice on the basisyou were moving the vehicle without wearing your seatbelt and that is unlawful. You make clear that you are


12/15

Page 12





on private property in your own driveway and so it doesnt apply. What do you expect from the policeofficer, to withdraw the Infringement Notice because he has it wrong? Well you may so but why not thenapply the same reasoning to the alleged water bills?

.

Do not hesitate to provide me with copies of documentation you seek to rely upon as to why you5hold that GWMWater can provide water to Victorians unsuitable for human consumptionwhereas other Victorians in, for example, Melbourne have suitable drinkwater provided to them.Again do not ignore the Victoria's Charter of H uman Rights and Responsibi li ties, which I

understand the Supreme Court of Victoria held was applicable to Victorian legislative provisions.10You may provide any extensive material both in print and on a CD/DVD so I can peruse it all,and we can take it from there.Recently I published articles as to how the Infringement Act 2006 is misconceived. TheInfringement Act 2006 refers to lodging but it also relies upon the Magistrates Court Act 1989

which refers to filing. the difference is that a document submitted to the registry is lodged15and doesnt become filed until the court accepts it for filing. At times the court refuses to accept

documents for filing even so it was lodged. What I am trying to point out is that since 2006numerous court cases were conducted regarding Infringement Notices and somehow all thoselawyers seemed to have assumed that lodging in the Infringement Court was as if it was filed.Reality is, that nothing was seemingly ever filed in the Infringement Court and so as it operates20as part of a Chapter III of the constitution court (Kable) then clearly all litigation failing to bealso an open court are invalid..

You see lawyers often assume things and for years ago along with this as if it is the law. This iswhy lawyers do not declare the law, but they give their opinion and no more. If 100 cases are25to be decided by the court and each party has legal representation (and that involved 200 sets oflawyers) then 50% of them will be found to be wrong. If the same was to be applied to doctorsthat 50% of their patients would die in operations they would likely be called charlatans.So, GWMWater charged $60.00 for legal advice, and did this lawyer really consider at all someof the points I referred to? I doubt it! In the Colosimocase more then 20 years were involved in30the litigation and the message was clear that Mr Colosimo had to purge his contempt, etc. Well,Mr Colosimo, placed under administration then decided to get rid of his barrister and have merepresenting him as a Professional Advocate. I provided my services (as always) FREE OFCHARGE. And I proved that all those lawyers involved (including the judges) had it all wrongfrom onset, and the administration orders were set aside and the contempt proceedings were no35more. Actually, I discovered that despite 6 contempt hearings the transcript proved the judgeshad failed to formally charge him. Even that not a single lawyer seemed to be aware of is a legalrequirement before you can seek to punish a person.

Actually, even so I am retired, there are still lawyers requesting me to represent them as I did40with James a solicitor and barrister for 22 years, in Legal Service Commissioner v Harold JamesJohnson. While I do not propose to accept such requests, nevertheless it may underline that legal

practitioners value my knowledge and understanding in constitutional and other legal matters.

Therefore, as I alluded upon before, where GWMWater provides me with the relevant material45why it should be accepted as to providing water not suitable for human consumption within theframework of the Water Act 1989 and other information it deems may explain matters, includingany contractual arrangements it may have with the Government of the State of Victoria, then Ihave every intention to consider it all and respond upon it.

50Again, do refrain from harassing us (my wife and myself) about overdue bills incurred onaccount of Richard, as I requested so often in the past. GWMWater may unilaterally change thename of the account holder but that doesnt make it lawful! Richard became the account holder


13/15

Page 13





as it was transferred to him. I am not aware that since then there was any formal transfer of the

account to my person to which I agreed with!

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to deal with all relevant

issues and neither refers to matters in any order of priority.5

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL(Our name is our motto!)END QUOTE 6-8-2013 CORRESPONDENCE10Here you are sending out correspondences about the appointment of a new board member KateVinot, but what can she achieved where the other board members so far miserably failed inensuring that people who are customers with GWMWater are all provided with the same suitablefor human consumption drink water. People do not need more or a revolving door system of

board members at huge cost when in the end they cannot provide any suitable for human15consumption drink water to customers. All the so called experiences by any board member has azero meaning, if they continue to fail to provide suitable drink water for human consumption. If

GWMWater desires to remove the water meter and supply to my property because of its realaccount holder (Richard Schorel) failing to pay the bills then so be it, as I do not take anyresponsibility for it. I have no need for non-suitable water for human consumption and neither20would want to be held accountable that someone may drink from the water and fall ill. Hence, Iseek you to prevent this kind of water to be supplied. Failing GWMWater to do so then it is to beheld responsible for any harm that may flow from it.I do not accept that as a customer for water supply in Melbourne under the provisions of theWater Act 1989 I can somehow have the right of being provided with drink water suitable for25human consumption and yet somehow under the same act not in Berriwillock, not any of otherresidents there or in the area. As I understand it, we have such a thing as a Victori a's Charter ofHuman Rights and Responsibil iti es, and that has been in existence for some years now.

I am just wondering if GWMWater were to pursue to litigate against me and by this others arealerted to GWMWater failure to comply with the State Governments water standards, what class30action then may follow, where those who suffered ill health by inadvertently having beendrinking this water not suitable for human consumption then may seek to sue for damages. Afterall, I view GWMWater has not shown any action to ensure drink water suitable for humanconsumption will be provided and as such I view continues to fail in its DUTY OF CARE.

Perhaps GWMWater may have to consider to have a special drink water line to supply just35drink water suitable for human consumption, and another recycle water pipe line for those

who may require such for supply other water (recycled or otherwise) for farming, etc.

For the above I urge you to write of the alleged debt, and to make sure my name and so my credit

rating is not harmed as GWMWater may then find itself legally accountable/liable for such40further harm it may have caused. And again my monies paid are refunded, as clearly GWMWatermade absolutely no attempt, despite my good intentions, to seek to adequately resolve the matter.


MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL(Our name is our motto!)45

END QUOTE 19-12-2O13 CORRESPONDENCE


14/15

Page 14





The document reproduced below is actually the first such notice I am aware of having beenprovided besides the in black notification GWMWater sent out on its water bills.

QUOTE

Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparation without further treatment5END QUOTE

In my view this is insufficient in explanation as an ordinary person may assume that the watercould be used for bathing baby, etc, and also perhaps one can boil it. This, whereas the

notification showing:10QUOTE

END QUOTE

QUOTE15

END QUOTE

Is an clear admission that GWMWater fails to comply with Victorian Government Standards.20

QUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B

domest icand stock use, in relation to water,means use for(a) household purposes; or

END QUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B25

As the Water Act clearly refers to household purposesthen I view GWMWater fails to complywith this and as such cannot on the one hand, not that I concede it can do so in any event, claimto rely upon the provisions of the Water Act 1989 and then on the other hand fails to complywith it to provide water for domesticandhouseholdpurposes.30Washing a baby in water is I view a normal domesticandhouseholdpurposes. And babies

ordinary do get water in their mouth, when being washed.In my view there is a blatant disregard by GWMWater to its DUTY OF CARE to providesuitable drinking water through its drink water pipelines. In my view the water it provides may

be best described as recycled waste water and should be provided in so to say grey pipe35linesdistinct from ordinary water pipes that carried drink water.It would be absurd to expect ordinary persons who reside for example in a city and travelling to acountry area to be aware that properties served by GWMWater do not have drink water throughits drink water pipes or pipes ordinary associated with drink water supplies. It is in my view alsoa breach of its DUTY OF CARE failing to have at each water meter a notification in clear40readable writing for anyone to be able to read that the water provided through this water meter is


15/15

Page 15





not suitable for human consumption. It is absurd to expect a property owner or resident to standguard at every water outlet to warn possible visitors not to touch water taps for purpose ofdrinking it. Often visitors may arrive unannounced or when one is not at home and as suchGWMWater besides a notification at the water meter also should have provided a warning sign atthe entrance of a property to warn any visitor of using water for drink water purposes from any5water lines attached to the water meter. In my view GWMWater could have arranged for watersupply for domestic and household purposes to be provided from the (mothballed)Wantoggi Desalination plant or other sources and kept its water pipes purely for drink water and

provide so to say grey water pipesfor any recycled grey water usage.People should have confidence in that pipes ordinary associated with drink water actually carry10water suitable for domestic and householdpurposes and so to drink as water and beingable to wash a baby in this water. Indeed, it is a discrimination to deny people access to ordinarydrink water and force them to pay water related charges and other charges where in fact the water

provided is of no use, indeed dangerous for domestic and household purposes and sohouseholds have to purchase and transport (at their own additional cost) additionally water for15domesticandhouseholdpurposes. In my view this is not what Parliament intended when it

provided for the Water Act 1989 nor when it sold of water rights as clearly GWMWater itselfacknowledges to failing to comply with Victorian Government Standards. In my view the in

black notification was totally insufficient and not prominent enough. In my view the warningshould have been with a red circle and a red stripe to make it stand out. After all its bills are in20colours and so no additional cost would have been there to just provide the red for this. It seemsto me that colouring the footing is less justifiable then having coloured the water warning tomake it more obvious. The question obviously also is how long did GWMWater (or its

predecessor) fail to comply with Victorian Government Standards and why was this left as such?Has the above July 2013 pamphlet been produced only as a response because I filed a complaint25with the then Premier Ted Baillieu on 28 January 2013 about the lack of proper notification and

proper water services? In my view this is a very serious health issue also and I view GWMWatershould be taken before the courts for having failed to provide water as per Water Act 1989requirements. If ordinary people can be held legally accountable for any breach of law then I

view so should then be a corporation like GWMWater. In my view, as a property owner I am30entitled to have a water connection that provides for water suitable for domestic andhouseholdpurposesand this clearly is denied. I have no need for water that is not suitable fordomesticandhouseholdpurposesand do not accept to having to pay for any water chargesor related charges where GWMWater admits it doesnt provide water for domestic andhouseholdpurposes, this apart of the issue of whos account really is the real account. Hence35the writing off of the alleged debt is the correct way and also the refunds of overcharges, etc.Corporations should not be allowed to stand above the law! They must suffer the legalconsequences as anyone else has to when acting in defiance of the law. GWMWater itself

previously made known I could place the matter before the Energy and Water Ombudsman,however, I held it more appropriate to first obtain further details before lodging a complaint, and40

the admission by GWMWater now provided to me to fail to comply with Victorian governmentStandards underlines what I held all along a failure to provide water suitable for domesticandhousehold purposes and considering Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 regardingDUTY OF CAREI now hold it appropriate to file a formal complaint(s), as I do hereby.

45


MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL(Our name is our motto!)
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html

Documents

131228-To Ombudsman Victoria COMPLAINT Etc-Re GWMWater - Re 2305224 Creditcollect 369335