Posted on

An Open Letter to Veda

Loan Denied
Loan Denied

At the beginning of November 2013 Veda advised that they had a record of my change of address. Since I have been at the same address for more than 10 years I informed them of their error. BTW, the bank who gave the incorrect information to Veda (Bank of Melbourne, a division of Westpac) point blank refused to advise Veda of their error.

After 2 months Veda have corrected the address on their file for me. When writing to thank them I was reminded of how much they and their clients SUCK and decided to share my vitriol.

Hello Customer Relations Team:

Thank you for your reply. It’s a pity that you don’t apply the same degree of urgency to requests from poor punters as you do to requests from your credit thug clients. I’m sure that Telstra et al would not be too happy if you took over two months to reply to their requests for updates.

Well, no point in pissing into the wind – you will not make any change to your thuggery just because a mug like me complains.

Anyway, I tried to copy some text from my file to be told that I needed a password to do this. I entered the password that you supplied to be told that it was not correct.

Then I tried to print the file. Same outcome.

So, you have set a password on MY file that I do not know. Just another example of your High & Mighty attitude.

Please advise the passwords that I need to use MY information how I choose to. Preferably sometime this side of May.

BTW I, like about 20% of the people that you hold to ransom, use a Mac computer and do not have access to, and would not use even if I did, a Windoze boat anchor.

Just for the record, as both Telstra and Baycorp know, but refuse to do anything about, the Overdue account of $916 is included in the $2,362 Overdue account as Telstra sold the same disputed account twice.

Furthermore, Telstra has informed me that they have no details about the origin of either of these amounts and can provide no evidence of the supposed liability. Any attempts to garner such information is met by a simple statement, “contact Sensis” who, when contacted, say “contact Telstra”

So, I will be making no applications for credit until these false, unsubstantiated and malicious entries are removed by the passage of time.

Equally, I have blocked the phone number of Baycorp (your client) who, for 2 years, have made threatening calls to me on a regular basis and decline my offer to have the matter heard by a court of competent jurisdiction.

I can only assume that they are indeed aware that they have no supporting evidence for the claim and are hoping that I will need a loan before the 5 years is up.

Well, I had no intention of wasting my valuable time on you or the thugs you serve. But now I have spent the time I will send copies to the puppet claiming to ensure you behave ethically, and Baycorp.

All the best,

Nigel Ball

If you have ever borrowed money, or been late with paying a telco or utilities bill you should consider getting a copy of your personal credit file.

According to the Veda website you have to pay them an exorbitant fee (blackmail) of $70 to get a copy of the information that they hand out to any Tom, Dick or Harry financial thug.

But, they also have another website which is not referred to on their official site. There they set the scene of how they deal with us. They will send you a copy of your file 10 days after receiving your request. BUT, if you pay them $60 they will send it to you tomorrow! Blackmail and thuggery is an integral part of their corporate culture!

Posted on

Outrageously Bad Reporting

Authorities toughen laws for Victorian drivers

Outrageously Bad Reporting

Don’t get me wrong, I read The Age (digital version) virtually every day and always find one or more well researched and written articles. These provide insight into world and local happenings which make me think, inform me and often prompt a post or other sharing response.

Authorities toughen laws for Victorian drivers
Authorities toughen laws for Victorian drivers. Photo: Ken Robertson — The Age

But in today’s edition there is an article of mind numbing incompetence. Luckily for the writer, it is unattributed which probably means it was written by some PR hack with an axe to grind and has no place in the newspaper.

The first paragraph reads

Our mobile phone obsession has led authorities to toughen laws for Victorian drivers, amid fears texting and tweeting will lead to tragedy

Last time I checked “laws” are made by governments by way of parliament. Which “authorities” have the power to pass laws?

What fears? Who’s fears? It seems that in the world of The Age editors the unspecified fears of unidentified authorities are a sound basis for laws being made by unspecified institutions which profoundly affect their readers.

Remember too that the new laws will apply under a regime where you will be presumed guilty on the word of the reporting officer. And there is no room for degrees of guilt, even if you contest the charge in front of a magistrate. Thus, talking on a phone for 5 seconds while stopped in traffic is treated as the same offence as talking on the phone while travelling at 110 kph in heavy traffic – while it is raining.

And it gets worse. The article ends with this …

The changes will be submitted for approval this week.

Submitted to who?

And before wrapping up the following statement is made

Under the mobile phone crackdown, P-plate drivers will be banned from using their phones altogether.

Eh?

  • So non P-plate drivers can use their phones?
  • What if the car is stopped?
  • Turned off?
  • On a private driveway?
  • What if the device is an iPod or iPad – both can be used for messaging, or even for VOIP or video calls, but they are not phones

This is sloppy, lazy and irresponsible reporting in the extreme.

Just a couple of questions The Age might have posed to whoever issued the Press Release

  • what is the evidence that the current penalties have not deterred the antisocial behaviour?
  • what is the evidence that heavier penalties will have any impact on behaviour?
  • what are the justifications for a greater than 50% increase in the financial penalty?
  • why not a 40% increase? Or a 60% increase?
  • what evidence exists that drivers are breaking the current law?
  • if there is evidence that the law is being flouted, what is being done to enforce it?
  • who are the “authorities” increasing the penalties?
  • to whom are the authorities recommending the dramatic increase in penalties?
  • what are the views of independent experts on the recommendations?
  • how do the current and proposed penalties compare with those in other states?
  • what is the view of the Minister responsible for motoring laws?
  • what are the views of the appropriate shadow minister?

I could go on. In an age where Governments seem to be of the view that they operate in a vacuum, with no need to justify their actions, our only defence against incompetence, stupidity and entrenched party political beliefs is a strong and rigorous press.

In this instance The Age has let us, and themselves down. Badly.

Posted on

New Speed Camera Cash Grab by Victoria

Cash grab from speed cameras
Cash grab from speed cameras
Cash grab from speed cameras. Photo: Simon O’Dwyer – The Age

Covert Speed Cameras

The Victorian Government has announced that from last night speed camera operators can hide themselves, their cars and their equipment to catch speeding motorists. This is in addition to the fact that most of the camera equipped cars are unmarked. It also recognises the fact that the operators already do this anyway.

Remember too that many, if not most of the operators are in fact employed by corporations who are required to make a profit for their shareholders. Such profits arise from commission paid by the Government for each motorist entrapped by their equiplent.

To avoid outcry, the announcement made reference to the Commissioner for Speed Camera (Revenue) to attempt to appear “independent”. This is the same independent Commissioner who examined 116 complaints from the public about placement of cameras breaching the previous guidelines. He found in favour of the camera operator in every case. To be absolutely fair, he did find that the camera positions were in breach of the rules in 3 cases, but then decided that there were valid reasons for the breaches. He might be independent – but it’s a bit hard to see it!

Now for the funny part. The announcement then went on to claim that the move is required to protect mobile speed camera operators from “intimidation or threat in their workplace”. Official statistics reveal that none of the operators of the 100+ mobile cameras have actually been harmed in the course of their duties and that there have been a staggering 110 incidents where motorists have swerved towards the vehicle containing the operator and his gear. That’s about once in every 700 shifts.

In fact, given that nearly 85% of speeding tickets in Victoria are issued to drivers travelling less than 5 kph over the limit, coupled with the removal of restrictions on placing cameras at the bottom of hills, it would not be unreasonable to estimate that the additional annual revenue to the Government could be in exccess of $15 million.

Do you think it is reasonable to trust the decisions of a Government with such a vested interest in the outcome? I don’t.

And if you think I’m paranoid just remember that:

  • in NSW every speed camera is in full view and required to be signposted twice before you pass it; and
  • in South Australia the open road speed limit is 110 kph a full 10 kph higher than in Victoria

By the apparent standards of the Victorian Government politicians in those states must be little short of mass murderers. You and I both know that this is not so. The truth is that the Victorian Government is addicted to the revenue raised by its so called safety cameras. And it will use any means possible to protect that revenue.

Posted on

Reserve Bank of Australia – Cover Up

Reserve Bank of Australia – Cover Up

Reserve Bank of Australia - Cover Up
Reserve Bank of Australia – Cover Up

I have been following this story in The Age and have shared thoughts on the subject before.

But having just watched the Four Corners program on iView I am simply stunned to wonder just what the power brokers have to do before they are called to account. Clearly, being caught out as bare faced liars (as is the case of the RBA’s Glenn Stevens and his cronies) is not enough.

I have also made mention of the fact that the current head of ASIC (Greg Medcraft) bailed as Global Head of Securitisation at Société Générale to return to Australia to join ASIC. He left the plum New York job just before the GFC struck!

The US Federal Housing Finance Agency has alleged in a lawsuit that Societe Generale’s securitisation business – which Mr Medcraft oversaw – was negligent, did shoddy due diligence and seriously misled two American loan providers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
The Age – November 10, 2011

Medcraft continues to refuse to explain why ASIC has not even bothered to investigate claims of gross criminality by two independent whistleblowers against RBA directors and executives.

Anyway, next time ASIC throws its might and power at you threatening fines and worse if you don’t file their forms on time, seek comfort from the fact that the most powerful in the land can illegally throw millions at corrupt arms dealers and other criminals with impunity.