1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
5

Financial Ombudsman Service
info@fos.org.au
Cc:

7-11-2014

ACCC
Westpac C/o G. Bonello gbonello@westpac.com.au
Ref; 20141107-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to ACCC Re complaint ID 400024413 -FOS Case Number 369877

10

Sir,
further to my previous correspondences I may state that I view the FOS has been used like an
utter fool by Westpac.
Let me explain:

15

On about 31 October 2014 my wife received in the mail a Mastercard, which provided
instructions how to activate it, as secondary card to my account. On Wednesday 5 November
2014 (after the long week-end) I attended personally to Westpac Rosanna branch to active my
wife’s secondary account. This was refused by Westpac staff claiming that my wife would have
to come personally and sign in front of staff. There are 3 reasons at the very least why this is
sheer utter nonsense. One is that I am the master card principle card holder and ultimately liable
to pay any charges incurred by my wife’s secondary Mastercard. Secondly, I am the Attorney of
my wife and the bank all along has an Enduring Power of Attorney document that my wife’s
solicitors endorsed, way back in 2000. Thirdly, Westpac indicated that the card can be activated
via a telephone call, and as such any requirement of signing in front of staff clearly defies what
Westpac itself dictated.
But, we now seem to get further to the issue. You see my request on 28 July 2014 was for my
wife to be issued with a signature card. Westpac staff then merely stated that my wife would
need a medical certificate for this. Later, much later, Westpac wrote that my wife can be issued
with a Westpac secondary “signature” Mastercard without the need for a medical certificate.
Then, much later it wrote (see also my statement of 9 October 2014 below, I required to fill in
documents to permit my wife a secondary “signature” Master card. Hello, am I dealing with
morons/idiots, as I came into Westpac Rosanna branch for this on 28 July 2014 and was then told
only a medical certificate was required.

20

25

30

35

40

45

QUOTE 9-10-2014 correspondence

It appears to me that Mr Gary Bonello seems to try to trick me into signing the statement
he drafted as to undermine the FOS ability to investigate matters appropriately. Perhaps Mr
Gary Bonello was hoping that if I signed the statement and then discovered that the
“signature” card was not working and so worthless then nevertheless the statement would
have served for Westpac its purpose that my complaint to the FOS had so to say been
railroaded. I consider this is a very serious matters. Albeit that is precisely what I all along
suspected would be likely the tactic by Westpac. And this is of concern to me that they
may have used this kind of legal trickery with other customers also, and so undermine the
very purpose for which the FOS was created. One thing is clear from Mr Gary Bonello
email of 8 October 2014, by seeking me to sign the statement as he dictated he clearly
p1
7-11-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series, E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

2
has or must be deemed to have indicated that the matter before the FOS Case
Number 369877 is still alive and has not been resolved.
Obviously, as I also seek compensation it seems to me Westpac is now willing to pursue
any dirty trick. Again, to me this is of concern.
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

END QUOTE 9-10-2014 correspondence

Westpac required both myself and my wife to sign the statement (which I received via the FOS)
for a card issue but I would in it acknowledge that the complaint to the FOS was completed, this
I refused.
As a (now retired) Professional advocate I used to even represent a lawyer who was a solicitor
and barrister for 22 years with the High Court of Australia, and I can assure you a lawyer
wouldn’t seek me to represent him if I was some utter fool. As such with Gary Bonello asking
me to sign something I immediately suspected that there was something behind this.
The FOS however didn’t see it that way, and as I indicated it is in my view bias in favour of
Westpac.
The FOS then as I understand it seemed to rely upon that the ACCC approved the usage of the
PIN cards, this I understand was gross deception by the FOS (Financial Ombudsman Services)
this as the ACCC advised me that the application related to a “cartel” issue and not to approve
the enforcement of a PIN number to be used.
While the FOS claims the complaint has been disposed off Westpac however still demands I sign
a statement that the complaint is settled or it will not issue me a “signature” card.
I have refused to sign such statement as demanded by Westpac. Not it is Westpac and not
Mastercard who requested this.
As I indicated in previous correspondences Westpac deceived both customers (card holders) as
well as merchants that the PINwise was be cause of “legislation”, yet so far has refused my
repeated request for details of such alleged “legislation”. PINwise is nothing more but an
advertising gimmick purportedly providing a “mandate” as if I can claim that it is the consensus
by the public that the FOS must pay a complainant $1,000 when filing a complaint, because of
“legislation”. Surely the FOS would question where is this purported legislation? Well, why not
so with Westpac? Because the FOS is bias towards Westpac and in my view seeks to railroad my
complaint, not realizing I am not that easy giving up. And my readers of my books published in
the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues with interest
are following this matter.
Anyhow, on Wednesday 5 November 2014 after returning from Westpac Rosanna branch my
wife receive d in the mail another letter from Westpac making known that my wife now is
provided with a PIN number and she has to remember this and then destroy the letter.
Moment, on 28 July 2014 I specifically went into Westpac Rosanna branch for a “signature” card
for both my wife and I, and the FOS and Westpac both claimed my wife would receive one, but
in the end all she got was a “PIN card”.
Now, I wrote to Westpac previously that I didn’t want the secondary Mastercard for my wife to
be forwarded via Australia Post because it dumped at times the mail onto the street. As one
Female posty (Australia Post) made clear she does this at many places.
I had personally requested at Westpac Rosanna Branch, when I signed the authorization for my
wife’s secondary “signature” Master card that the card be collected from Westpac Rosanna
Branch citing the deli very problems with Australia Post, but was advised I had to do so in
writing to Westpac. While I wrote to Gary Bonello previously that I desired the “signature”
Mastercard to be collected from Westpac Rosanna branch and he indicated that he could not
accept this written request (citing obvious security reasons) and it should be done personally. So,
here we have that there is an internal conflict of how to deal with matters.
Can’t they just employ staff with Westpac that can communicate with each other one has to ask?
p2
7-11-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series, E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

3
But now the point comes that in my view the real reason Westpac wanted my wife to activate the
card and refused me to do so, is that they could swindle/deceive my wife in using a “PINcard”
instead of a “signature card”.
That is also why I suspect Gary Bonello insisted I sign a statement that the complaint with FOS
was settled, so that then I couldn’t afterwards raise the matter with the FOS again once I were to
discover this elaborate swindle.
.
And so to say to top it off my wife on Thursday 6 November 2014 received another letter from
Westpac that I must first activate my card. Now, considering that I do not use a “PIN card” but
continue to use the original “signature” card and specifically refused to activate it with a PIN
number, then is this now another trickery by Westpac to deny my wife to use her card, even the
now issued “PIN card” unless I first activate my card for “PIN” usage?
Whatever might be going on I am using my Mastercard without a PIN and have been using other
forms of payment when the merchant declined to accept my Mastercard without a PIN.

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

The ACCC did make known to me that if the conduct of the bank was in violation of legislation
(Disabled Discrimination Act 1992 and/or Age Discrimination Act 2003) then I can file a
complaint with the Human Rights Commission, as it certainly didn’t authorize any breaches of
laws but only dealt with a “cartel” issue.
.
After more than 14 weeks (since Monday 238 July 2014) my wife still doesn’t have her (so
called) “signature” card and neither do I. My original “signature” card no longer is accepted by
Merchants for signature, and as this was the banks doing based upon a deceptive claim that
“legislation” required this, then clearly the banks and not I caused this problem.
.
The refusal by Westpac to have the secondary card for my wife to be collected from Westpac
Rosanna branch also must be of concern, where I clearly indicated problems with Australia Post
deliveries. For the record this is documented by Australia Post, where the posty refused to
comply with the directions of Australia Post management to place mail articles in the A$
Australia Post approved mailbox. Also for the record management inspected my mail pillar and
found it was appropriate for mail deliveries.
In my view, where a customer request Westpac not to send a card through the mail but to be
collected, and again I did make this request in person at Westpac Rosanna branch when signing
the authorization form for the secondary card, then I view Westpac should have accepted this as
binding, where I had also previously stated this in writing.
It should be understood that my original (old dirty) “signature card” was to have been replaced
with a clean card so the signature ion the card was clearly to be seen but was without my
knowledge or consent changed to a PIN card! I refused to activate the PIN card but still
discovered it can be used for up to $100.00 at the time. I found that with a purchase of over
$100.00 one can split the charges to below $100.00 and then still use the card without activation
of the PIN.
.
Meaning, any person who collects someone else mail can use it unauthorized for purchases
without needing to activate the card whatsoever.
It means that the issue of security cited for the published PINwise system actually doesn’t exist at
all, because now anyone can used a card without needing to activate the card with a PIN.
.
When it comes to the disabled and other who have difficulties, now anyone can use their card
without needing any signature for spending $100.o00 or less and so without the knowledge of the
p3
7-11-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series, E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

15

20

4
card holder. Many carers previously restricted to do so, but having easy access to such a card
now can used it without knowledge of the card holder.
And you consider this is better security for card holders?
In my view you must be a complete moron if you accept that to facilitate the ability to rob a
person is better security
I kept photographic evidence how Australia Post over a period of many months dumped my mail
onto the street, including Westpac bank correspondences/statements even so my A4 Australia
Post approved mailbox was empty, and Australia Post itself acknowledge it is on the appropriate
placed, the property boundary. One of the excuses by the posty was that due to scrub he was
prevented to get to the mailbox. But Australia Post, upon inspection discovered there was no
scrub at all and acknowledged that in writing to me.
.
While the FOS has basically done absolutely nothing to resolve this matter in an appropriate
manner, I have in the meantime been exploring the security of the alleged “PINwise” system and
it is clear it placed cardholders in more danger.
The argument that staff at merchant’s terminals are not signature experts is to me a lame duck
excuse as after all they have been using this system for decades. It is for the cardholder to insist
the card is inspected as I did over the decades. And, I would thank the terminal staff for checking
my signature.
In my view the FOS should never close an active case merely because it goes along with
deceptive/misleading claims by the respondent, in this case Westpac Bank because as now shows
Westpac so to say made utter fools of the FOLS staff.

25

30

35

40

Despite all the assurances of Westpac in the end my wife was denied the “signature” card and not
the FOS but myself has to pursue this matter further. One then has to ask if having the FOS is
merely so to say having fat cat public servants who are incompetent to appropriately deal with a
complain? Perhaps, I wonder, the FOS lacks staff with even a minimum of intelligence to do the
job appropriately, as surely no one could accept that you can close off a complaint when the
complainant
Will the FOS now finally so to say get of its lazy backside and earns its keeping?
Eventually I do intend to file a complaint with the Human Rights commission, but I view I
should seek to explore to the maximum the FOS so it cannot be argued later that I should have
gone back to the FOS.
The FOS gave me the understanding that the ACCC approved the PINwise system, which I
understand from the ACCC it never did as such, but merely was dealing with a “cartel” issue,
then clearly the FOS itself is involved in my view in deceptive/misleading a complainant.
When contemplating to email this correspondence I came across the following email:
QUOTE
Subject

RE: Mr G Schorel-Hlavka

Sender

Bonello, Gary

Recipient
Date

admin@inspector-rikati.com
Thu 08:20

Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka

45

The card you received is a PIN enabled card – Please destroy this one. As stated in my email
yesterday you will receive the signature enabled card within 7 business days.
Yours sincerely
p4
7-11-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series, E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

5

10

Gary Bonello
Review Manager,
Complaint Review Service
Westpac Banking Corporation T 02 9952 2250 F 02 99521080 E-mail gbonello@westpac.com.au GPO
Box 5265 Sydney NSW 2001
From: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. [mailto:admin@inspector-rikati.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2014 10:22 PM
To: Bonello, Gary
Subject: RE: Mr G Schorel-Hlavka

Gary Bonello,
END QUOTE

15

20

25

30

.
This underlines there was a “PIN” card issued, and obviously due t\o my complaints about this
Gary Bonello now seems to address this issue, but as like in the past time will tell.
But, why was the PIN card issued and via Australia Post, and so the PIN number also?
In particular with the dumping of postal articles onto the street, I view Westpac was blatant
ignorant to security.
If I had not collected the mail than anyone else could have used the card without my wife and I
being aware the PIN card was issued, and can be used by anyone unauthorized without needing
to be activated with a PIN.
To me this has exposed various problems with the alleged PINwise security being in the interest
of customers where in reality is only is what I view aiding and abetting criminals in fraudulently
accessing cardholders accounts.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
Our name is our motto!)

(
Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

p5
7-11-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series, E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati