Not all apartment amenities are immediately visible.

Swimming pools, gyms, rooftop terraces and residents' lounges have long featured on buyers' wishlists, but as the way Australians live has changed, so too have the features that make apartment living more convenient.

Increasingly, buyers are placing value on the practical aspects of day-to-day life. Fast internet, EV charging, secure bike storage, flexible workspaces and parcel management are becoming just as relevant as lifestyle amenities, reflecting changing habits and expectations.

Online shopping has been one of the biggest drivers of that shift.

Australians spent a record $82.6 billion shopping online in 2025, with almost one in every four retail dollars now spent digitally, making parcel deliveries a routine part of everyday life rather than an occasional convenience.

For apartment residents, however, receiving those deliveries isn't always straightforward.

Without someone home to accept a parcel, deliveries can be redirected to a nearby Post Office, left in building foyers or common areas, or require building management to temporarily store packages. As apartment living continues to grow across Australia's cities, parcel management has become an increasingly important consideration for both residents and developers.

Australia Post's Parcel Locker network is one response to that shift.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KPZ9j5FRdsQ?si=Qztc1dNP3ZvEIUhb" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Rather than relying on home delivery, eligible parcels can be directed to a nominated Parcel Locker, where they're securely stored until collected. Once a parcel arrives, residents receive a notification through the AusPost app or SMS and can retrieve it using a one-time code or QR code at a time that suits them.

The network has expanded to more than 1,500 locations nationwide, with Parcel Lockers positioned at Post Offices, shopping centres, supermarkets, transport hubs and, increasingly, within or alongside residential developments.

That growing presence reflects a broader change in how apartment buildings are being planned.

Developers are increasingly considering the operational side of apartment living alongside traditional lifestyle amenities. Just as secure mailrooms, bicycle storage and EV charging have become more common inclusions, parcel management is emerging as another feature that supports everyday convenience.

It also helps preserve the arrival experience within a building. Carefully designed lobbies and communal spaces can quickly become cluttered when deliveries accumulate, while secure parcel solutions reduce the likelihood of missed deliveries or parcels being left unattended.

For buyers comparing apartments, these everyday details are becoming part of the decision-making process.

Location, floorplans and finishes remain fundamental, but the features that simplify daily life are carrying greater weight than they once did. As online shopping continues to shape consumer behaviour, secure parcel delivery is increasingly becoming another amenity worth looking for.

Joel Robinson

Parcel delivery is joining the apartment amenity checklist

Inca Property Group has lodged a State Significant Development Application (SSDA) for Dawn, a 53-apartment oceanfront development overlooking Mona Vale Beach.

The proposal, at 35-39 Darley Street East, would replace an existing 18-apartment strata building with a new owner-occupier-focused development comprising 53 two and three-bedroom apartments, including nine affordable built-to-rent residences delivered under the State's infill affordable housing scheme.

Positioned on a 2,679 sqm elevated site around 280 metres from Mona Vale Beach, the development has been designed to maximise panoramic ocean views while responding to the site's sloping topography.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/inca-property-group">Inca Property Group</a> Managing Director Josh Thompson said the State Significant pathway provided greater certainty for projects of this scale.

"This State Significant pathway gives the team real certainty to progress <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/dawn-35-39-darley-street-east-mona-vale-nsw-2103">Dawn</a> through to completion," Thompson said.

"It allows us to acquire a one-off site, design it carefully and deliver the right offering for the suburb, assessed by the NSW Government's planning department."

The project is one of the first developments in the area to be assessed under the NSW Government's Low and Mid-Rise Housing policy, with the site sitting on the edge of the policy's designated inner area.

The proposal includes three basement levels providing 124 car spaces, alongside a range of resident amenities including a swimming pool, gym, sauna, wellness facilities and private plunge pools for selected ground-floor and penthouse apartments.

<img alt="Dawn" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="fc1a1daf-0ce4-4f12-9076-b1fa553c7a91" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-07-21%20at%208.42.11%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=4GZ9h.gpNkTljbxyAET8Jfhv51XUamDm" />

Thompson said Dawn had been designed specifically for owner-occupiers and downsizers, a buyer profile that has driven demand across Inca's recent Upper North Shore developments.

"The majority of buyers in our recent North Shore projects have been downsizers, and we are learning exactly what this market is looking for. Beyond the location itself, we have included resort-style amenities to deliver a genuine lifestyle offering," Thompson said.

Located within walking distance of Mona Vale Beach, the town centre, Mona Vale Golf Club and the Royal Motor Yacht Club, Dawn represents Inca's first Northern Beaches project following the sell-out of Tara on Park in Waitara and Ellis Residences, currently under construction in St Ives.

Construction will be undertaken by Inca's in-house construction arm, GOP Constructions.

Dawn is the latest major apartment proposal for Mona Vale, with the suburb emerging as one of the key beneficiaries of the NSW Government's new Low and Mid-Rise Housing policy.

New developer One Living, led by industry veteran Joseph Scuderi, recently secured a site on Mona Vale Road, on the border of Mona Vale and Pymble, where it is planning around 140 apartments.

IPM is also planning its third project in Mona Vale, significantly increasing the scale of its previous developments with an 82-apartment proposal at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/159-167-darley-street-west-mona-vale-nsw-2103">159-167 Darley Street West</a>, opposite Bayview Golf Course and less than 800 metres from Mona Vale town centre.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/one-living-enters-sydneys-new-apartment-market-with-northern-beaches-site-acquisition">One Living enters Sydney's new apartment market with Northern Beaches site acquisition</a>

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-ipm-plans-third-mona-vale-project">First look: IPM plans third Mona Vale project</a>

First look: Inca eyes Mona Vale with State Significant DA for Dawn apartments

Seasoned Victorian apartment developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/central-equity">Central Equity</a> has logged more than $400 million in sales in its luxury apartment project Palmera Residences at Northcliffe on the Gold Coast.&nbsp;

Central Equity Director Karl Kutner said the sales result reflected a combination of location, product quality and delivery certainty with the project already under construction by building powerhouse Multiplex.&nbsp;

"Surpassing $400 million in sales since launch is a significant milestone and an outstanding endorsement of <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/palmera-residences-gold-coast-18-garfield-terrace-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Palmera Residences</a>,” he said.&nbsp;

"We believe one of the key reasons for this strong result is the confidence purchasers have in knowing the project is under construction with Multiplex. Buyers are increasingly looking for certainty. They want to know that the project they commit to today will be delivered by an experienced team with a proven track record."&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365782]

Kutner said it was clear there was still high demand for luxury projects that offered certainty of delivery.&nbsp;

“We are in a market where many residential developments have faced delays due to rising construction costs, labour shortages and financing challenges,” said Kutner.&nbsp;

"But having construction underway has provided our buyers with resounding confidence backed by more than 40 years of development delivery by Central Equity combined with construction by one of Australia's most respected construction companies."&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365785]

Central Equity is one of Australia's most experienced privately-owned property developers. Over more than four decades, the company has delivered in excess of 85 residential developments including 10,000 apartments and many thousands of stand alone homes.&nbsp;

Located on Garfield Terrace at Northcliffe, between Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach, Palmera Residences occupies one of the Gold Coast's most sought after beachside locations. The development has been designed to appeal to owner occupiers seeking premium residences that combine generous living spaces and resort style amenities.&nbsp;

Palmera Residences will feature an exceptional collection of resort style amenities, including two swimming pools: a generously sized family pool with safe shallow zones for relaxed recreation, and a 20 metre lap pool positioned to maximise all day sunlight.&nbsp;

Residents will also enjoy exclusive access to wellness and recreational facilities including a magnesium pool, sauna, yoga studio, expansive fitted gymnasium, resident lounge, outdoor BBQ’s&nbsp;and indoor and outdoor dining areas, together with a dedicated concierge and luxurious hotel inspired entrance foyer.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365767]

A unique feature at Palmera Residences has been designed to enhance the Gold Coast lifestyle which includes both indoor and outdoor gymnasium facilities, together with thoughtfully designed indoor and outdoor dining and entertaining areas. A corner café has also been incorporated to provide residents with a destination for their everyday needs.&nbsp;

Kutner said buyer demand had been broad based with purchasers attracted from interstate as well as throughout South East Queensland.&nbsp;

"We're seeing strong interest from owner occupiers, lifestyle buyers and people relocating to the Gold Coast. Many purchasers have been searching for a premium beachside residence where quality, design and delivery are equally important."&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365771]

Kutner said the sales milestone was an important achievement, but the focus remained firmly on delivering an exceptional development.&nbsp;

"While reaching $400 million in sales is an important milestone, our priority remains delivering a project that exceeds purchaser expectations,” he said.&nbsp;

"Palmera Residences has been designed to become one of the Gold Coast's landmark residential addresses, and we look forward to welcoming our purchasers to their new homes."&nbsp;

There are a limited number of residences remaining in selected configurations with pricing from $2,950,000 to $8,950,000. Palmera Residences is also crowned by expansive penthouses with wrap around views.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=108274]

Construction certainty and strong buyer demand drive major sales result for luxury Gold Coast development

Palmera Residences fly out the door as sales pass $400 million

National property developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/goldfields-group">Goldfields</a> has appointed BINAH as its construction partner for Quartet, its new Brisbane apartment development in the undersupplied suburb of <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/milton-qld-4064">Milton</a>.

Located just two kilometres from the Brisbane CBD and moments from key 2032 Olympic precincts, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/quartet-milton-33-manning-street-milton-qld-4064">Quartet</a> will deliver 131 one, two, three, and four-bedroom apartments priced from $1 million to $4.2 million, combining elevated design with a wellness-focused lifestyle offering.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108736 project_image_fid=368000]

Goldfields’ Chief Executive Officer, Lachlan Thompson, said the appointment of <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/builders/binah-constructions">BINAH</a> marked an important milestone for the project.&nbsp;

“Bringing BINAH on board as our construction partner will allow us to bring our vision for Quartet forward with a team that has a proven track record of delivering high-quality residential projects,” Thompson said.&nbsp;

“We’ve taken a considered approach to progressing the site because we wanted to deliver the whole package. Buyers ultimately back great developers, great projects and great builders, and with Quartet, we’ve made sure all three line up.

“People want certainty, they want to know the project will be built, that the homes will be delivered as promised, and that the developer stands behind the quality of what they create. That’s something Goldfields has built its reputation on over many years.”&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108736 project_image_fid=367993]

BINAH’s Managing Director, Khalil Hafza, said the company was proud to be partnering with Goldfields to deliver Quartet.&nbsp;

“Quartet is an exciting project to bring to life, particularly given the level of detail in the residences and the extensive rooftop amenity planned for the building,” Mr Hafza said.&nbsp;

“Our focus is on delivering a high-quality build that brings that design vision to life and creates homes residents will enjoy for many years.”&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108736 project_image_fid=367999]

The facilities at Quartet have been feared towards the roof, with a&nbsp;25 metre lap pool, spa, sauna and cold plunge, and a communal barbecue area and alfresco.

Town planning was designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/rothelowman">Rothelowman</a> and brought to life by Melbourne-based architecture firm Cera Stribley.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/cera-stribley">Cera Stribley</a> Co-Founder and Managing Principal, Dom Cerantonio, said the project responds to both its riverside setting and Brisbane’s evolving urban character.&nbsp;

“Quartet has been designed to sit comfortably within its riverside context, offering a refined take on urban living through well-planned, generously proportioned residences that will stand the test of time,” Mr Cerantonio said.&nbsp;

“An emphasis on natural light, natural textures and carefully selected finishes from timber and marble to premium appliances, creates calm, considered interiors designed for comfort and long-term liveability.”&nbsp;

Construction of Quartet will commence in July 2026, with completion anticipated in Q4 2028.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=108736]

Construction to commence on 131-residence tower designed around wellness-focused living

Goldfields appoints BINAH for Quartet apartments in Milton

The first partnership between national developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/fortis">Fortis</a> and Adelaide-based developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/otello">Otello</a> has made a strong start, with the pair securing $21 million in unconditional sales at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/one-four-four-hutt-adelaide-144-hutt-street-adelaide-sa-5000">One Four Four Hutt</a>&nbsp;on the edge of the Adelaide CBD.

Over a third of apartments have been snapped up in the boutique 44-apartment project on the corner of Hutt Stret and Wakefield Road. Local downsizers and owner-occupiers wanting to remain in Adelaide's tightly-held southeast quarter have been the most prominent purchasers.

The DKO-designed, mixed-use development is one of the few new apartment projects in the precinct, an area where new housing supply has remained limited despite continued demand from buyers wanting to stay close to the CBD, Victoria Park and Adelaide's established east-end amenities.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=151233 project_image_fid=375378]

Fortis Head of Development SA Arthur Dendrinos said the early sales reflected both the strength of the local owner-occupier market and confidence in the Hutt Street location.

"The level of early commitment reflects the confidence local buyers have in the Hutt Street precinct," Dendrinos said.

"Many purchasers are long-term east-end residents who love the area and want to stay connected to the neighbourhood. They recognise the value of a well-designed, well-located development.

"Our partnership with Otello has been central to this success, and the number of unconditional sales at this stage only strengthens our confidence in the South Australian market."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=151233 project_image_fid=375379]

Otello Director Daniel Harris said the sales result also highlighted the lack of new apartment opportunities within the Hutt Street precinct.

"One Four Four Hutt has clearly resonated with buyers, with strong early sales reflecting both the appeal of the Hutt Street corridor and the lifestyle on offer," Harris said.

"The activated ground-floor retail has also been a key drawcard, with purchasers responding to the vision of a more vibrant and connected streetscape, not just the residences themselves."

One Four Four Hutt will deliver 44 one, two and three-bedroom apartments, alongside a collection of penthouses, above a ground-floor retail offering designed to further activate the Hutt Street precinct.

Construction is scheduled to commence in the third quarter of this year, with completion anticipated in 2028.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=151233]

Fortis Head of Development SA Arthur Dendrinos said the early sales reflected both the strength of the local owner-occupier market and confidence in the Hutt Street location.

Fortis makes Adelaide debut with Otello as One Four Four Hutt records strong early sales

Accc

<html><body>
The competition regulator has slammed the major banks for charging loyal customers too much for their mortgages.
<p data-gtm-vis-recent-on-screen-6236702_632="1544472956576" data-gtm-vis-first-on-screen-6236702_632="1544472956576" data-gtm-vis-total-visible-time-6236702_632="4000" data-gtm-vis-has-fired-6236702_632="1">The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has concluded there was  "synchronised" behaviour between the banks after the ANZ increased its interest only mortgage rates in 2017.
<p data-gtm-vis-recent-on-screen-6236702_632="1544472956576" data-gtm-vis-first-on-screen-6236702_632="1544472956576" data-gtm-vis-total-visible-time-6236702_632="4000" data-gtm-vis-has-fired-6236702_632="1">The big four banks have been accused of using the cover of regulatory intervention to lift rates on interest-only loans.
The report stopped short of accusing the banks of colluding, with Channel 10 network political editor Peter Van Onselen saying there had been no meeting between the banks.
<div class="_1665V undefined">
<a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/residential-mortgage-price-inquiry-final-report" target="_blank">The ACCC report</a> found existing borrowers who did not actively shop around for a better deal on a regular basis are the main losers.
The competition watchdog noted the bad bank behaviour was aided and abetted by the "oligopoly market structure." 
It says ANZ, which was the first to lift rates in June 2017, did so expecting all the others to fall in behind.
</div>
<div class="_1lC_G">An existing borrower with an average-sized residential mortgage who negotiated to pay the same interest rate as the average new borrower from 30 June 2018 could initially save up to $850 a year in interest, it has concluded.</div>
<div class="_1lC_G"> </div>
<div class="_1lC_G">“We consider that ANZ increased its rates, clear in its belief that, given the APRA limits, the other big four banks would follow its lead, and this expectation proved correct,” ACCC chairman Rod Sims said.</div>
<div class="_1lC_G">
The ACCC calculated that the rate increases by the five banks would have added, in the first year, about $1300 in interest charged to the average-sized owner-occupier interest-only standard variable mortgage.
“Such is the oligopolistic nature of banking that the banks all took the opportunity to increase rates on both new and existing interest-only mortgages, despite APRA’s measures only applying to new lending,” Mr Sims said.
</div>
<div class="_1lC_G">The size of the saving depends on the category of residential mortgage but could amount to 32 basis points, or 0.32 per cent.</div>
The ACCC report has exposed the big 4 bank's windfall since its repriced its lending for investors on interest only loans.
It has enabled a $1.1 billion revenue windfall in what could be viewed as synchronized pricing by the big banks.
<div class="page" title="Page 7">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The Residential Mortgage Price Inquiry is the first task of the ACCC’s Financial Services Unit (FSU) with the price monitoring period to finish on 30 June 2018.
The then Treasurer, the Hon Scott Morrison issued a direction in May 2017 requiring the ACCC to undertake an inquiry into the prices charged or proposed to be charged in relation to residential mortgage products by Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions (ADIs) affected by the Major Bank Levy.
Along with Macquarie, the inquiry noted combined, these five ADIs (the Inquiry Banks) held approximately $1.3 trillion in outstanding residential mortgages as at December 2017.
This was about 84 per cent of all outstanding residential mortgages held by all banks in Australia.
Macquarie Bank had the smallest residential mortgage portfolio of the five banks by a large margin.
The remaining Inquiry Banks—colloquially referred to as the ‘big four banks’—accounted for about 75 per cent of the value of all new residential mortgages approved by ADIs in the September quarter of 2017.
<div class="page" title="Page 7">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
There are over 100 other lenders, mostly ADIs, that also provide residential mortgages. The pricing of these other lenders was not the focus of this inquiry which found the opaque, discretionary pricing of residential mortgages by banks makes it difficult and time consuming for borrowers to shop around and stifles price competition.
The ACCC reports that about 11 per cent of borrowers with variable rate mortgages had the price of their current residential mortgage reduced by one of the five banks under review in the year to 30 June 2018.
“I encourage more people to ask their lender whether they are getting the lowest possible interest rates for their residential mortgage and, as they do so, be ready to threaten to switch to another lender,” Mr Sims said.
“I am afraid that the threat of switching banks will often be necessary to achieve a competitive mortgage rate.”
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

ACCC exposes big 4 bank's $1.1 billion windfall revenue after synchronised pricing of IO borrowers

<html><body>
Rick Otton, the Australian property spruiker posted 40 videos on YouTube giving potential clients insights on doing deals on the eve of being fined a record $6 million for misleading conduct.
Otton has been seeking investors to buy into overseas real estate, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jszV6gJs5bI" target="_blank">including Athens.</a>
The Federal Court has <a href="/news/18-million-fine-after-rick-ottons-property-mentoring-bootcamps-ruled-an-expensive-waste-of-money-federal-court">imposed­ an $18 million fine</a> on Otton’s company We Buy Houses Pty Ltd.
About 2000 people across Australia paid Otton $3000 to attend boot camps between 2011 and 2014.
Otton presents himself as a self-made multi-millionaire property investor and real estate consumer advocate.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/11/16/Ott3.jpg" alt="">
Some 700 people paid up to $26,000 each for individual mentoring.
They had been lured by Otton’s buyer of buying a home for $1.
Some $20 million­ was raised by Otton before the Rod Sims at the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission began legal action against Otton and We Buy Houses Pty Ltd alleging false or misleading conduct.
The Telegraph wrote he now spends much of his time travelling in the UK, Spain, and Greece.
“We will be bringing this judgment to the attention of authorities overseas,” Sims said.
Sims told 2GB's Ross Greenwood that Otton would raise up people’s hopes, then “dash them and left [sic] them out of pocket”.
His recent videos on YouTube includes a 2002 ABC documentary on him. 
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Property spruiker Rick Otton turns attention to investors in Athens Riviera

<html><body>
<div>
The Federal Court has imposed record penalties totalling $18 million against We Buy Houses Pty Ltd (We Buy Houses) and its sole director, Rick Otton, for making false or misleading representations about how people could create wealth through buying and selling real estate, following ACCC action.
The penalties of $12 million imposed against We Buy Houses, and $6 million imposed against Mr Otton personally, are the highest ever imposed for contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law by a corporation and an individual, respectively.  
The Federal Court also banned Mr Otton from managing corporations for 10 years in Australia and permanently restrained Mr Otton and We Buy Houses from further involvement in the supply or promotion of services or advice concerning real property transactions or investment.
“We Buy Houses and Mr Otton peddled false hope to people simply looking to get a foothold in the housing market or invest money in real estate for their future,” said ACCC Chair, Rod Sims.
"The record penalties imposed against both We Buy Houses and Mr Otton reflect their egregious conduct.”
“They have also effectively been permanently banned from any further involvement in real estate in order to protect consumers,” Mr Sims said.
“These record penalties demonstrate the determination of the ACCC to take strong and effective enforcement action against businesses and individuals who prey on consumers using the false hope of creating financial success. The judgement signals the Court’s condemnation of false and misleading property spruiking and get rich quick schemes.”
“This outcome also reflects a recent trend of higher penalties for Australian Consumer Law breaches. We can expect this to continue following recent law changes to increase maximum financial penalties under consumer law,” Mr Sims said.
We Buy Houses and Mr Otton taught real estate investment strategies via free seminars, and paid ‘boot camps’ and mentoring programs that claimed people could:
<ul>
<li>buy a house for $1, without needing a deposit, bank loan or real estate experience, or using little or none of their own money</li>
<li>create passive income streams through property and quit their jobs</li>
<li>build a property portfolio without their own money invested, new bank loans or any real estate experience, and</li>
<li>start making profits immediately and create or generate wealth.</li>
</ul>
In August 2017 the <a href="/news/court-rules-property-spruiker-rick-otton-has-broken-consumer-law-with-his-strategies-an-expensive-waste-of-time">Federal Court found these claims were false or misleading</a>, in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.
“In her judgement on liability, Justice Gleeson said the free seminars were a waste of time, and that the boot camps and the mentoring programs were an expensive waste of time," Mr Sims said.
The Court also found that Mr Otton had made false or misleading representations that he had successfully implemented the wealth creation strategies he taught. In addition, a book authored by Mr Otton, and websites operated by We Buy Houses and Mr Otton, included testimonials from ‘students’ claiming they were able to buy a house for $1, which the court found were false or misleading.
We Buy Houses had been conducting training programs including free seminars, boot camps and mentoring programs throughout Australia since around 2000. Between 2011 and 2014, We Buy Houses generated the majority of its $20 million revenue from conducting these training programs.
Otton is also renowned in the UK as the creator of ‘How to Buy a House for a Pound’.
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-accc-mr-release-number field-type-text field-label-above">
The ACCC instituted proceedings against We Buy Houses and Mr Otton in March 2015 following a coordinated investigation with New South Wales Fair Trading. On 11 August 2017, the Federal Court delivered judgment on liability, finding that Mr Otton and/or We Buy Houses had engaged in multiple contraventions of sections 18, 29(1)(f), 29(1)(g), 34 and 37 of the Australian Consumer Law.
 
 </div>
</body></html>

$18 million fine after Rick Otton's property mentoring bootcamps ruled an expensive waste of money: Federal Court

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The keenly awaited <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/restoring-electricity-affordability-australias-competitive-advantage" target="_blank">report on retail electricity prices</a>, released last week by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), has made some controversial recommendations – not least the call to wind up the scheme that offers incentives for household solar nearly ten years early.
The report recommends that the small-scale renewable energy scheme (SRES) should be abolished by 2021. It also calls on state governments to fund solar feed-in tariffs through their budgets, rather than through consumers’ energy bills.
The ACCC has concluded that offering subsidies for household solar was a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided policy. Solar schemes were too generous, unfairly disadvantaged lower-income households, and failed to adjust to the changing economics of household solar.
The lesson for policy-makers is that good policy must keep costs down as Australia navigates the transition to a low-emissions economy in the future. Failure to do this risks losing the support of consumers and voters.
Runaway rebates
Rooftop solar schemes were much <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/822-sundown-sunrise5.pdf" target="_blank">more popular than anticipated</a>. This might sound like the sign of a good policy. But in reality it was more like designing a car with an accelerator but no brakes.
Generous feed-in tariffs and falling small-scale solar installation costs encouraged more households to install solar than were initially expected. Premium feed-in tariffs were well above what generators were paid for their electricity production. Historically solar feed-in tariffs paid households were between 16c and 60c per kilowatt-hour, while wholesale prices were <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/mostly-working/" target="_blank">less than 5c per kWh</a>.
At the same time, <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/restoring-electricity-affordability-australias-competitive-advantage" target="_blank">installation costs for solar panels fell</a> from around A$18,000 for a 1.5kW system in 2007, to around A$5,000 for a 3kW system today. The SRES subsidy for solar installations was not linked to the actual installation cost or the cost above the break-even price. So the SRES became relatively more generous as installation costs fell.
As solar penetration increased, and network costs rose to cover this, it became <a href="http://energyconsumersaustralia.com.au/news/consumers-investing-in-solar-and-batteries-to-control-bills/" target="_blank">increasingly attractive</a> for households to install solar panels. In Queensland, the initial cost forecast for the solar bonus scheme was A$15 million. Actual payments were more than 20 times that in 2014-15, at A$319 million. And the environmental benefits weren’t big enough to <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/822-sundown-sunrise5.pdf" target="_blank">justify that cost</a>, as other policies have reduced emissions at a lower cost. The large-scale renewable energy target reduced emissions for A$32 per tonne, while household solar panels reduced emissions at a cost of more than A$175 per tonne.
In most states, premium feed-in tariffs and rooftop solar subsidies are funded through higher bills for all consumers. Everyone pays the costs, yet only those with panels receive the benefits. That means the costs fall disproportionately on lower-income households and those who rent rather than own their home.
The ACCC report recommends the SRES be wound up nearly 10 years ahead of schedule, because the subsidies are no longer financially justifiable. This would maintain the support for current solar installations but remove subsidies for new solar installations from 2021.
The report also recommends removing the direct costs of feed-in tariffs from electricity bills. Instead, state governments should directly cover the costs of premium feed-in tariffs. The Queensland government has already <a href="https://www.dnrme.qld.gov.au/energy/initiatives/powering-queensland" target="_blank">made this move</a>.
Of course, governments still have to find the money from elsewhere in their revenues, which means taxpayers are still footing the bill. But the new arrangement would at least remove the current unfair burden on households without solar.
Fixing the mistakes
How can governments avoid making similar policy mistakes in the future? The ACCC’s recommendations, together with the proposed <a href="https://theconversation.com/infographic-the-national-energy-guarantee-at-a-glance-85832" target="_blank">National Energy Guarantee (NEG)</a>, provide a solid foundation for Australia’s future energy policy.
First, the future is hard to predict, so good policy adapts to change. The NEG provides a flexible framework to direct energy policy towards a low-emission, high-reliability, low-cost future. Reviewing and adjusting the emissions target along the way will enable Australia’s energy policy to respond to new technologies and shifting cost structures, while maintaining consistency with economy-wide targets.
Second, it is hard to pick winners, so good policy creates clear market signals. The NEG provides the energy industry with clear expectations, but is technology-agnostic and minimises government intervention. This encourages the market to find the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions and ensure reliability.
The ACCC report also recommends simplifying retail electricity offers, which would make it easier for consumers to find a good deal, and in turn making the market more competitive.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99937/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Politicians have an opportunity to draw a line in the sand on narrow, technology-specific policies such the SRES. An integrated energy and climate policy should focus on good design, and then step back and let the market pick the winners.
This article was originally published on The Conversation and was written by Lucy Percival, Associate at the Grattan Institute.
</body></html>

Why the ACCC says household solar subsidies should be abolished

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has launched a public inquiry into the National Broadband Network (NBN). Already, Telstra and Optus have come forward, offering to compensate customers whose expectations of internet speed delivery were not met.
But it’s four years too late. The ACCC dropped the ball when it allowed Telstra, Optus and its competitors to launch their NBN services without specific rules concerning misleading and deceptive advertising, or an enforcement mechanism to hold the NBN company to account for connection delays, missing appointments and fault rectification.
Now we’re in a position where the problems with the NBN run deeper than what can be solved through an investigation or more monitoring. Bad decisions about the technology, lack of hard data on performance and a war of words by competing providers makes it hard to untie responsibility for the mess.
The stated aims of the ACCC public inquiry are to determine whether NBN wholesale service standard levels are appropriate, and consider whether regulation is necessary to improve consumer experiences.
The data released this week by the ACCC Wholesale Market Indicators Report shows that:
<ul>
<li>NBN Co is supplying more than three million wholesale broadband access services</li>
<li>there are 26 NBN Co retail and wholesale internet service providers (ISPs - also known as “access seeker groups”) directly connected to NBN Co’s network</li>
<li>the top four ISPs are Telstra, Optus, TPG Group and Vocus.</li>
</ul>
Optimism bias, and how we got here
In behavioural economics, optimism bias refers to the phenomenon that we think markets are going to work out well even when there is no rational basis for supposing so. A similar optimism bias is often seen in infrastructure projects.
In the case of the NBN there were a few strategic opportunities to reduce the chances of market failure, but optimism bias by policymakers let the opportunities slip by.
And now we’re in the position where – in common with energy retailers, deregulated providers of vocational education and financial services firms – ISPs have taken internet consumers and their regulators for a ride.
In 2013, when the NBN provided a Special Access Undertaking (setting out prices and terms of access to ISPs) to the ACCC, there was a great opportunity to require objectively verifiable disclosure of wholesale operating speeds. However, the government allowed NBN Co to negotiate the service level agreement with ISPs directly, and left the ACCC to watch from the sidelines.
Similarly, there should have been truth in advertising rules imposed on Telstra, Optus and their competitors to prevent false service speed claims.
The absence of enforceable regulation was taken as a green light for ISPs to continue to promise unrealistic and unattainable internet speeds, as they had done for years before in relation to price and package data allowances. Connection speeds have become the new wild west in communications.
In the case of the NBN, the failure by the government and the regulator to require an adequate transparency measure, or even to monitor wholesale services standards has allowed the deterioration to the current state of affairs.
Not all is lost
In relation to false and misleading claims about internet service speeds, the ACCC has established a broadband monitoring program to generate data about broadband speeds and performance.
Under the scheme (which is based on similar ones operating elsewhere), the ACCC will install monitoring equipment in 4,000 homes across Australia that are connected to fixed-line NBN services – including fibre to the node, fibre to the basement, fibre to the premises, and hybrid fibre-coaxial.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175122/original/file-20170622-3031-jt1gt9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Source: Various/The Conversation, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-ND</a>
FTTP = fibre to the premises; FTTN/FFTB = fibre to the node/basement; HFC = Hybrid Fibre-Coaxial
Real-time data will determine average fixed-line NBN speeds at various times, and is expected to be published at least in part by the end of 2017.
A trickier task will be to sort out the real culprit in cases of service failure or performance shortfall. At present we see a culture of passing the buck, where complainants to ISPs are shunted off to the NBN, while the NBN just as vigorously points the finger at ISPs.
NBN argues (with some justification) that the ISPs are scrimping on the amount of capacity or bandwidth they are buying to on-sell to consumers. According to NBN Co, they are being criticised for something that’s just not their fault. Sorting of this provisioning stoush will not be easy even with the panel data.
Following the ACCC inquiry into the NBN’s wholesale service standards, possible regulatory changes would include imposition of fines, and establishing a process through which consumers could seek compensation at a retail level when minimum whole service standards are not met.
Finally, in an attempt to control deceptive claims about the speed of networks, the ACCC has issued Broadband Speed Claims – Industry Guidance. This advises retailers how to advertise speeds for NBN broadband services, including clearly identifying typical minimum speeds during peak periods.
It is unclear whether the proposed measures are intended to solve the problems or just to be seen to be doing something and so reduce the clamour.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87095/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Sadly, it’s something we could have avoided if policymakers and regulators were just a little less optimistic.
Allan Asher, Visitor, Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet) &amp; Chair of Foundation for Effective Markets and Governance, Australian National University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-accc-investigation-into-the-nbn-will-be-useful-but-its-too-little-too-late-87095" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

The ACCC investigation into the NBN will be useful. But it's too little, too late: Allan Asher

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The <a href="https://theconversation.com/power-bills-can-fall-but-the-main-attention-must-be-on-affordability-accc-85734" target="_blank">preliminary report on energy prices</a> released last week by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) suggests that the consumer watchdog is concerned about almost every aspect of Australia’s electricity industry. It quotes customer groups who say electricity is the biggest issue in their surveys, and cites several case studies of outrageous price increases experienced by various customers.
The report is long on sympathy about the plight of Australia’s electricity users. But the true picture is even worse – in reality, the ACCC’s assessment of Australia’s energy prices compared to the rest of the world is absurdly rosy.
Australia has internationally high energy prices
The ACCC quotes studies from the Electricity Supply Association and the <a href="https://studylib.net/doc/6673393/category-analysis-rin---australian-energy-regulator" target="_blank">Australian Energy Markets Commission</a> (AEMC) to compare electricity prices in Australia with those in other OECD countries. But the ACCC’s comparison is based on two-year-old data, and badly underestimates the actual prices consumers are paying.
The AEMC’s analysis assumes all customers are on their retailer’s cheapest available offer. This is an obviously implausible assumption, and gives a favourable impression of the price that customers are paying.
As <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-household-electricity-prices-may-be-25-higher-than-official-reports-84681" target="_blank">previously pointed out on The Conversation</a>, the Thwaites review – which looked at customers’ actual bills – found that in February 2017 Victorians were typically paying A35c per kilowatt hour (kWh) – 42% more than the AEMC’s estimate. What’s more, we know that Victoria’s electricity prices are lower on average than those in South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales, and hence below the Australian average.
A part of this 42% gap – around 15% – is explained by the latest price increases that are not included in the ACCC’s comparison. But this still leaves a 27% gap between what the AEMC assumes and the evidence of actual prices.
This begs the question: why did the ACCC not recognise the widely known flaw in the AEMC’s analysis?
<h2>The real problem is overbuilt network infrastructure</h2>
The report estimates that rising network charges account for more of the price increase than all other factors put together. There is no doubt that network charges are a real problem at least in parts of Australia, although their significance relative to retailers’ costs is contested territory.
But why would distributors build far more network infrastructure than they need? And why have government-owned distributors built far more infrastructure than private ones, despite having no more demand?
The answer to this perplexing question is to be found in part in Australia’s “competitive neutrality” policy. This is Orwellian doublespeak for an approach that is neither neutral nor competitive.
Under this policy, government-owned distributors are regulated as if they are privately financed. This means that when setting regulated prices, the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) allows government distributors to charge their captive consumers for a return on their regulated assets, at the same level as if they were privately financed. That is despite the fact that private financing is much more expensive than government funding.
It’s no surprise that when offered a rate of return that far exceeds the actual cost of finance, government distributors have a powerful incentive to expand their infrastructure for a profit. This “gold-plating” incentive is a well-known in regulatory economics.
Regulators, the industry and their associations have explained higher spending on networks in a variety of ways: higher reliability standards; flawed rules; flawed forecasting of demand growth; and the need to make up for historic underinvestment.
But was there ever historic underinvestment? A 1995 article co-authored by the current AEMC chair concluded that distribution networks had been significantly overbuilt. That was more than two decades ago, government distributor regulated assets are at least three times bigger per customer now.
The chart below – based on data from the AER’s website – examines how the 12 large distributors that cover New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia spent their money on infrastructure between 2006 and 2013. This period covers the last five-year price controls established by the state regulators, and the first control established by the AER. It was during this time that expenditure ballooned. The monetary amounts in this chart are normalised by the number of customers per distributor.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191134/original/file-20171019-1072-1b07x7v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
 Distributor spending on infrastructure between 2006 and 2013. Author provided
The first five distributors from left to right (and Aurora) were owned by state governments and the others are privately owned. A clear pattern emerges: the government distributors typically built much more infrastructure than the private distributors. And the government distributors focused their spending on substations, which are much easier to build (or expand or replace) than new distribution lines or cables.
We also know that the distributors’ spending on substations far outstripped the increases in the peak demand on their networks. The figure below compares the change in the government and private distributors’ substation capacity (the blue bars) with demand (the red bars) over the period that most of the expenditure occurred. Again, the amounts have been normalised by number of customers.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191133/original/file-20171019-1075-d1dvow.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Substation capacity versus peak demand between 2006 and 2013. Author provided
The gap in spending between government and private distributors is stark. It is also obvious that in all cases, but particularly for the government distributors, the expansion of substation capacity greatly exceeded demand growth - which hardly changed over this period (and is even lower now, per connection).
To put it in more tangible terms, as an average across the industry, peak demand between 2006 to 2013 increased by the equivalent of the power used by one old-fashioned incandescent light bulb, per customer. But government distributors expanded their substation capacity by more than one 100 light bulbs, per customer. The private distributors did relatively better, but still increased the capacity of their substations by the equivalent of about 30 light bulbs per customer.
My PhD thesis included econometric analysis that shows government ownership in Australia is associated with regulated asset values that are 56% higher than private distributors, and regulated revenues that are 24% higher, leaving all other factors the same.
To some, this evidence supports a “government bad, private good” conclusion. Indeed it was this line of argument that the Baird government in New South Wales used to justify its partial privatisation of two network service providers.
But in international comparisons of government and private distributors in the United States, Europe and New Zealand, no such stark differences are to be found. The huge disparity between government and private distributors is a peculiarly Australian phenomenon.
<h2>How we got here</h2>
This Australian exception originates in chronic policy and regulatory failure. As far back as 2011, the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) heard a proposal that government distributors should earn a return closer to their actual cost of financing – a suggestion that would have reduced prices significantly and removed the incentive to gold plate.
In response, the AEMC said the regulations were consistent with the “competitive neutrality” policy. But this is not true: in the policy’s own words, it was designed to stop government businesses from crowding out competitors. Distributors are protected monopolies; they do not have competitors.
The AEMC also argued, somewhat bizarrely, that it was good economics for a regulator to assume that government distributors are privately financed.
This represents the triumph of an idealistic “normative” regulatory model in which regulators act on the basis of how the regulated entity should behave rather than how they actually behave.
But it would wrong to blame the AEMC alone for this failure. All of Australia’s key institutions and governments have agreed that government distributors should be regulated as if they are privately financed. For governments that own their distributors, this has been a wonderfully profitable fiction.
Therein lies much of the explanation for what is effectively, if I may call a spade a spade, a racket.
It is an indictment of Australia’s polity and so many of its economists that the 2011 Garnaut Climate Change Review stands alone, in a library of reviews, as stating this problem clearly. In fact, if you review last week’s report from the ACCC, you will not find a single distinction between the impact of government and private distributors.
And if you thought this was yesterday’s war, you would be wrong. Despite the mass of evidence, our regulators persist in the fiction that ownership and regulation should be independent of one another.
It is difficult not to lapse into despair about Australia’s energy policy morass. Despite the valiant attempts by many, a deeply entrenched culture of half-truths, vested interests, ideology and wishful thinking still characterises all too much of what emanates from the political and administrative leadership of this industry.
Some energy consumers – Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull among them – will buy their way out of this problem through solar panels and batteries. But the poorest households and many business customers will increasingly be left carrying the can.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86045/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Australians are angry about electricity. Not unreasonably.
Bruce Mountain is director of carbon and energy markets at Victoria University.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/energy-prices-are-high-because-consumers-are-paying-for-useless-profit-boosting-infrastructure-86045" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Energy prices are high because consumers are paying for useless, profit-boosting infrastructure: Bruce Mountain

<html><body>
The competition watchdog is taking a Perth home building company to court for allegedly setting up misleading review websites that were misrepresented as being independent.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has launched Federal Court proceedings against Perth-based Aveling Homes Pty Ltd.
Websites created by the company allegedly gave an impression they were affiliated with an independent third party consumer review website, Product Review, when this was not the case.
Aveling Homes is also alleged to have managed comments on the websites - Aveling Homes and the First Home Owner's Centre - to obscure or remove unfavourable reviews.
The watchdog has begun proceedings for alleged misleading conduct and false or misleading representations.
“We believe the potential for harm from the conduct alleged in this case is significant, as buying or building a home is one of the biggest purchasing decisions for Australians,” ACCC deputy chair Dr Michael Schaper said.
Dr Schaper said consumers were increasingly relying on online reviews and they should be able to trust that those reviews are independent and unbiased.
The ACCC also alleges Aveling's marketing manager, Sean Quartermaine, was 'knowingly concerned' in the company's conduct.
</body></html>

ACCC takes Aveling Homes to court

<html><body>
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has issued a draft determination proposing to deny authorisation to Property Media Group Pty Ltd (PMG).
PMG is seeking to collectively bargain and boycott suppliers of online and print real estate advertising, including realestate.com.au and domain.com.au.
PMG made the application for authorisation on behalf of itself and 170 real estate agents ranging from individual agents to representatives of large franchise groups.
“While the ACCC considers that collective bargaining and boycott action can be in the public interest in certain circumstances, we are not satisfied that the conduct proposed by PMG would result in significant public benefits,” ACCC Commissioner Roger Featherston said.
“The ACCC is particularly concerned by the potential size and scope of collective bargaining groups and boycott activities, combined with uncertainty about how PMG will ultimately conduct negotiations and implement any boycotts.”
PMG has sought authorisation for the conduct because it sees realestate.com.au and domain.com.au as having significant market power, charging excessive prices and essentially forcing real estate agents on to premium contracts.
However the ACCC considers that while realestate.com.au and domain.com.au have some market power, there is evidence of competition, both between each other and from other small and mid-tier players. The ACCC also received information which shows that real estate agents can and do enter into a diversity of contracts and listing types, including within the same region.
The ACCC is now seeking submissions from Property Media Group and interested parties in relation to its draft determination, before making a final decision, expected in October 2016.
Background
PMG seeks authorisation for proposed Australia-wide collective bargaining and boycott arrangements, which will commence within regions of Victoria. In particular, PMG seeks authorisation on behalf of a large number of real estate agents and franchisors of real estate groups to collectively negotiate terms, conditions and fees with any suppliers of online or print residential real estate advertising in Australia.
It also seeks authorisation for agents to boycott realestae.com.au or domain.com.au in certain circumstances.  A collective boycott involves two or more competitors agreeing not to acquire goods or services from a target supplier. In this case, PMG has indicated that a boycott may include agents agreeing not to acquire premium property listings, or participating agents in a region agreeing not to enter into contracts with a real estate platform. However, PMG would have broad discretion to select what kind of boycott activities for real estate agents to engage in, including the possibility of a national boycott of a real estate advertising platform by all of the participating real estate agents. 
The ACCC is now seeking submissions from Property Media Group and interested parties in relation to its draft determination, before making a final decision, expected in October 2016.
Further information, including a copy of the draft decision, is available from the ACCC’s Public Register: <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://registers.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1195336/fromItemId/278039" target="_blank">Property Media Group Pty Ltd - Authorisation - A91537 &amp; A91538</a>
Authorisation provides immunity from court action for conduct that might otherwise raise concerns under the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act (2010).
About the authorisation process:
<ul>
<li>Generally, the ACCC can grant authorisation if it is satisfied that the public benefit from the conduct outweighs any public detriment, including any lessening of competition.</li>
<li>The ACCC is required to publish a draft decision (‘determination’) in relation to an application. This is usually 3–4 months after receiving an application.</li>
<li>The ACCC will conduct public consultation with interested parties both before and after a draft determination.</li>
<li>The ACCC will generally release its final decision (‘determination’) 5–6 months after receiving an application.</li>
</ul>
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

ACCC denies PMG collective bargaining boycott on property website ads 

<html><body>
The consumer watchdog proceedings in the Federal Court against best-selling property investment author Rick Otton and his business We Buy Houses for alleged breaches of the Australian Consumer Law has had its initial directions hearing.
Otton is the author of How to Buy a House for a Dollar. 
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is seeking declarations, pecuniary penalties, permanent injunctions, corrective advertising and costs against We Buy Houses and Otton. The ACCC is also seeking a disqualification order against Otton.
The ACCC claims Otton made representations to consumers that by attending seminars and boot camps they would be able to buy a house for $1, buy a house using little or none of their own money and build property portfolios without their own money invested and without new bank loans.
The seminars and boot camps range in cost from $2,997 to $17,000 for a mentoring program. 
The ACCC claims the strategies do not enable consumers to buy a house for $1 but rather involve consumers acting as middlemen to facilitate property transactions between third party sellers and third party buyers.
Otton had provided a statement defending his business and book.
“It seems that the ACCC thinks that the public are fools, that they will take the title literally and think that they only need a dollar to buy a house,” he said.
“It’s a sad day when the ACCC thinks the Australian public is that foolish that they don’t understand that the dollar is just the start of the process.”
ACCC chairman Rod Sims said in a statement that the watchdog is concerned the strategies promoted by We Buy Houses and Otton “target vulnerable consumers who don’t qualify for bank loans or who are having difficulties meeting their mortgage repayments”.
Otton came under scrutiny in 2013 <a href="/news/wa/best-selling-property-investment-authors-wa-seminars-banned-department-of-commerce">when his seminars in Western Australia were banned by the Department of Commerce</a> on the basis of misleading advertising. 
The matter is listed for a case management hearing on 26 May.
</body></html>

ACCC's Rick Otton disqualification pursuit underway in Federal Court

<html><body>
Thousands of Australians were scammed out of a combined $89 million in 2013, according to report released by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission today.
The Targeting Scams report says while the amount of money lost through scams decreased by 5% last year, <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/technology/information-technology/32204-accc-report-shows-scammers-cost--93-million-last-year-five-lessons-for-your-business" target="_blank">compared to 2012</a>, the number of scam-related contacts reported increased by 10% to almost 92,000.
Persons aged 45 to 54 were the most common reporters of scams, and the amount of people aged 65 and over reporting scam contacts nearly doubled to 18%.
Delia Rickard, deputy chair of the ACCC, told SmartCompany the biggest threats to small businesses are false billing scams.
“It can take a whole range of forms: getting a bill from a domain name register saying it will expire if you don’t pay within 24 hours,” says Rickard.
“[Or] it could be one of the directory scams where you get a bill or false invoice for a Yellow Pages entry that you never ordered,” she says.
False billing scams made up 3,600 of all contacts reported last year, with 445 losses amounting to a total of almost $725,000— a 45% increase in reports, and a 28% increase in the amount of reported losses. 
“It’s really important to have systems in place to check whether the bills you are receiving are legitimate,” says Rickard.
“If something doesn’t look quite right, don’t trust it, and don’t use the contact details in the emails,” she says.
The Federal Department of Communications <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/technology/42256-small-businesses-warned-about-a-shocking-fake-power-bill-scam" target="_blank">warned small business owners earlier this month</a> to keep their eyes open for electricity and gas bill scams.
The email-based scam bills, which purport to be from Energy Australia, often have links to malicious websites and can automatically download the malware to victims’ computers.
The ACCC report suggests businesses receiving suspicious bills should verify them by contacting the companies directly, using contact details sourced independently through an internet search or a phone book.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.SmartCompany.com.au" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

Accc

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Accc

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News