A landmark former orphanage site in Surrey Hills could be transformed into a new residential community under plans lodged by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/antipodean-land-developments">Antipodean Land Developments</a> that would deliver 76 apartments and townhouses while restoring some of the suburb's most significant heritage buildings.

The burgeoninng Melbourne-based developer has submitted plans for the 9,158 sqm site at 1 Kent Road and 24 Durham Road, home to the former St Joseph's Home for Destitute Children, a historic institutional complex dating back to the late 19th century. The proposal seeks to adaptively reuse several heritage buildings while introducing two new four-storey residential buildings set within extensive landscaped grounds.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/woods-bagot">Woods Bagot</a> and Kerstin Thompson Architects, the project has been conceived as a contemporary residential village embedded within a restored heritage precinct. The development team describes the design approach as "The Village in the Garden," with new buildings positioned among mature landscaping by OCULUS and significant heritage structures.

<img alt="First look: Antipodean Land Developments plans heritage-led apartment community in Surrey Hills" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="44ec8c1b-c0b6-44ae-859e-5811b3e6a023" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%281%29.png?VersionId=p.p1_KFh4iQoV4nisdnPfQBAsWNi7m79" />

The proposal would deliver 76 dwellings comprising a mix of apartments and duplex-style residences, significantly increasing housing supply on one of the largest privately held residential landholdings in Surrey Hills. The development includes 127 car spaces, 24 bicycle spaces and more than 1,000 sqm of communal amenity, with the existing chapel building earmarked for conversion into resident facilities.

According to the planning submission, the project centres on the restoration and adaptive reuse of the site's most significant heritage assets, including the original c.1889 St Joseph's building, the chapel designed by architect Augustus Andrew Fritsch, and the historic brick perimeter walls and entry gates. The proposal also incorporates the retention of other contributory buildings including the former infirmary and school building.

Tract Consultants, in the planning report accompanying the application, said the scheme had been shaped through extensive heritage analysis and design development.

"The shared vision for the Site by the project team has culminated in a scheme which successfully breathes life back into a historic site while delivering upon the objectives of Victoria's Housing Statement in a carefully curated and contextually responsive manner."

<img alt="First look: Antipodean Land Developments plans heritage-led apartment community in Surrey Hills" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="7263b7d8-95ea-400f-9531-6ca7d22c3c33" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%282%29.png?VersionId=4cR1tiWOsDpgxEOwZi5vVFcyvvOsYkIE" />

The proposal is being assessed under Victoria's Significant Residential Development with Affordable Housing pathway. As part of the application, three per cent of the project's residential development cost would be contributed to the Social Housing Growth Fund. The development would also provide a diverse mix of one, two and three-bedroom residences targeting a broader range of buyers than typically found in Surrey Hills' detached housing market.

Sustainability initiatives include an anticipated 66 per cent BESS score, natural cross-ventilation to 80 per cent of apartments, 28 per cent deep soil landscaping and a canopy cover outcome exceeding local planning requirements. The proposal also sets aside more than 1,083 sqm for communal indoor and outdoor resident amenity spaces.

<img alt="First look: Antipodean Land Developments plans heritage-led apartment community in Surrey Hills" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="33fad46f-fe26-4d0a-acfd-6b776e1c6a3d" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Untitled%20design.png?VersionId=D9F6WVSyYCtGvSUmith35LRp6R7PQkw_" />

Planning documents describe the property as one of the largest underutilised residential sites in Surrey Hills, arguing it presents a rare opportunity to introduce "missing middle" housing in an established inner-eastern suburb while preserving and revitalising a significant heritage precinct.

Antipodean Land Developments has built a reputation for design-focused residential projects across Melbourne, particularly in the medium-density sector. Previous developments include Neighbourhood in Brunswick East, delivered with Breathe Architecture, and Balfe Park Lane, designed by Kerstin Thompson Architects.

They've been very active in site acquisition as they build out their future development pipeline. They recently launched Thornubury House, 45 apartments above a mix of commercial, retail, and food and beverage tenancies, and have plans for a boutique project in Fitzroy and another <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/vic/antipodean-plan-apartments-for-deepdenes-missing-middle-on-whitehorse-road">"missing middle" project</a> on Deepdene's Whitehorse Road.

Joel Robinson

First look: Antipodean Land Developments plans heritage-led apartment community in Surrey Hills

Developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/auyin-property-development">Auyin</a> is the latest to turn to the Victorian Government's Development Facilitation Program in an effort to secure approval for its long-planned, mixed-use project in Elsternwick.

In 2018, Auyin lodged plans with Glen Eira City Council for a 14-storey building, however Council approved a reduced eight-storey scheme. A subsequent VCAT appeal in 2019 upheld the eight-storey height limit.

The project was later amended to nine storeys, but Auyin is now seeking to revive something closer to its original vision. The developer argues that the planning context has evolved significantly over the past decade, particularly within the Elsternwick Activity Centre, where higher-density development has increasingly been encouraged along Glen Huntly Road.

The proposal would transform the 1,239 sqm site at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/7-12-horne-street-elsternwick-vic-3185">7-15 Horne Street</a>, opposite Elsternwick Railway Station, into a 13-storey residential and retail development designed by CBG Architects, with 40 apartments

The site currently comprises three commercial properties.

<img alt="First look: 13-storey mixed-use tower planned for Elsternwick activity centre" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="5f465dd4-509b-4082-a669-0253b313914b" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/elsternwick%20podium.png?VersionId=72frWi0SmQ5AVJ3ARRhX5ILUYObhTm7x" />

The proposed apartment mix comprises 25 two-bedroom and 15 three-bedroom residences above 200 sqm of retail space at ground level. Residents would have access to a 90 sqm wellness facility, a 351 sqm communal indoor and outdoor terrace on the third level, and extensive landscaped areas throughout the development. A publicly accessible 135 sqm plaza would be created on the north-east corner of the site, providing seating, landscaping, and a new gathering space adjoining Horne Street.

The design adopts a four-storey podium that references the finer-grain character of the surrounding streetscape, with the upper tower recessed behind generous setbacks on all boundaries.

<img alt="First look: 13-storey mixed-use tower planned for Elsternwick activity centre" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="e637e763-2abc-4c34-a0aa-5c7ad36fae18" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/elsternwick%20open.png?VersionId=J1AoOpZgTyaF.KeeFSX6lMjEScX8KKRi" />

A key element of the proposal is the reconfiguration and widening of the surrounding laneways. Vehicle access would be retained from Lois Lane, with upgraded pedestrian connections linking Ross Street and Horne Street. The development would provide 58 residential car spaces, two retail car spaces, and 52 bicycle spaces across two basement levels and ground-floor facilities.

Architecturally, the building draws inspiration from the established character of Elsternwick Village. The façade combines dark charcoal brickwork, textured concrete, bronze-toned metal detailing, and extensive planting integrated into podium and tower levels. The design also incorporates a chamfered corner treatment and publicly accessible plaza intended to strengthen pedestrian activity around the station precinct.

Elsternwick's last new development completion was&nbsp;EVA Elsternwick by Pitard late last year. <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/milieu-property">Milieu</a> is working away on its nature-led neighbourhood, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/elsternwick-gardens-by-milieu-8-gordon-street-elsternwick-vic-3185">Elsternwick Gardens</a>, on Gordon Street, with its first stage expected to complete next year.

First look: Auyin seeks mixed-use apartment project in growing Elsternwick Activity Centre

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/otium-parkdale-123-125-como-parade-east-parkdale-vic-3195">Otium Parkdale</a>, the 13-residence boutique development by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/huxtable-property">Huxtable Property</a>, has entered its final stages of delivery, with completion expected within the coming month and more than half of the residences sold.

The Como Parade East project is nearing the finish line at a time when opportunities to purchase new apartments in <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/parkdale-vic-3195">Parkdale</a> remain exceptionally limited. Fewer than 10 per cent of dwellings in the bayside suburb are apartments, making developments like Otium a relatively rare addition to a market traditionally dominated by detached housing.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134974 project_image_fid=5427]

The three-level development comprises 13 residences, including ten two-bedroom apartments and three larger three-bedroom homes, all positioned above a secure basement car park.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/almeida-architects">Almeida Architects</a> with a strong connection to its coastal surroundings, Otium combines red brick, exposed concrete and dark metal detailing with integrated landscaping and greenery. Expansive glazing, generous balconies and terraces have been incorporated throughout the design to maximise natural light and reinforce indoor-outdoor living.

Inside, the residences feature engineered European oak flooring, natural and reconstituted stone benchtops, Bosch kitchen appliances, ducted heating and cooling, lift access and secure entry systems. The larger three-bedroom residences on the upper level have been designed with house-like proportions, while the two-bedroom apartments prioritise functionality, flexibility and low-maintenance living.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134974 project_image_fid=5421]

The project is now in its final stages, with <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/builders/labco">Labco</a> completing the remaining landscaping and external finishing works following the completion of the residences' interiors.

Otium's location within the heart of Parkdale continues to underpin its appeal. Residents will be just steps from local cafés, restaurants, shops and the newly elevated Parkdale Station, while the beach is less than a kilometre away.

With the project tracking ahead of schedule, buyers can currently secure a residence with a five per cent deposit and benefit from settlement terms of up to eight months. The advanced stage of construction also provides buyers with the opportunity to walk through the near-complete residences and experience the quality and finishes firsthand ahead of completion.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=134974]

Otium Parkdale enters final month before completion as rare apartment opportunity nears sellout

A new boutique apartment development is entering the market in <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/chermside-qld-4032">Chermside</a>, with Brisbane-based developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/ausdev">Ausdev</a> bringing 33 residences to a well-connected pocket of Brisbane's north.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/parkdrive-apartments-chermside-25-sammells-drive-chermside-qld-4032">Parkdrive Apartments</a>, at 25 Sammells Drive, will comprise a mix of one- and two-bedroom residences positioned within walking distance of Westfield Chermside, The Prince Charles Hospital, and Bradbury Park.

Established in 1989, Ausdev has a long-standing presence across both development and construction, with Parkdrive Apartments representing its latest residential project in Brisbane's northern suburbs.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152125 project_image_fid=363778]

The development has been designed around open-plan living and natural light, with residences featuring stone benchtops, timber cabinetry, BOSCH appliances, and private balconies that extend the living areas outdoors.

Kitchens are positioned as the centrepiece of the homes, incorporating natural material palettes and integrated appliances, while bathrooms have been designed with a focus on functionality and understated finishes.

Residents will have access to a communal barbecue and entertaining area on Level 3, providing shared outdoor space within the development. Secure parking and lift access are also incorporated into the building.

The project will deliver a limited collection of 33 apartments, with one-bedroom residences priced from $749,000.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152125 project_image_fid=363782]

Beyond the building itself, the location places residents within easy reach of several of Chermside's key amenities. Bradbury Park is around 350 metres away, while Westfield Chermside is approximately 1.3 kilometres from the site. The Prince Charles Hospital is located within 750 metres, and the Chermside Bus Interchange is around 1.5 kilometres away, providing connections across Brisbane.

Parkdrive Apartments adds to the growing residential pipeline in Chermside, a suburb that continues to evolve as a major retail, healthcare, and transport hub for Brisbane's north.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=152125]

Ausdev introduces boutique Parkdrive Apartments to Chermside's growing centre

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/skymark-group">Skymark</a>'s boutique Cronulla development Solis has secured a 10-year Latent Defects Insurance policy through Resilience Insurance, providing buyers of the 16-residence building on Ewos Parade with structural and waterproofing protection that extends a decade beyond the building's completion.

Currently under construction and due for completion in late 2027, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/solis-cronulla-8-ewos-parade-cronulla-nsw-2230">Solis</a> is one of a small number of new developments in the Sutherland Shire to carry Resilience LDI coverage, a distinction that carries increasing weight as buyer confidence in the off-the-plan sector continues to be shaped by how developers stand behind their product.

Latent Defects Insurance, which entered the Australian market in 2022 when Resilience Insurance was approved to offer the cover, protects buyers against major structural or waterproofing defects for ten years post-completion. Unlike traditional statutory warranties, it operates as a first-resort policy, if a covered defect arises, the insurer responds directly, without the buyer needing to pursue the builder or developer through a lengthy claims process.

Resilience Insurance CEO Corey Nugent has noted that the product addresses something fundamental to the new apartment market.

"The overarching feedback from prospective buyers in the new development space is that they want more confidence and assurances around the quality of the build," Nugent says.

"Resilience Insurance Latent Defects Insurance not only gives them complete peace of mind for 10 years, but it shows the developer they are buying from is standing by their product."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150499 project_image_fid=370898]

For Solis, the Resilience LDI policy adds a meaningful layer of accountability to an already considered project. The development comprises nine two-bedroom and seven three-bedroom residences, including one dual-level three-bedroom apartment, across a five-storey building on Ewos Parade, positioned between Shelly Beach and South Cronulla.

Garden apartments connect directly to private landscaped courtyards, while upper-level homes capture beach views to the east from level four and above.&nbsp;

All 16 residences include at least one balcony or courtyard, and select apartments on the upper floors feature bar areas and secondary flexible living spaces.

Hiba Sander, Managing Director of Skymark, says Solis offers a rare balance, nestled between the quiet beauty of secluded beaches and the lively charm of South Cronulla's esplanade.

"It's a place to choose your pace and live gracefully, seaside'," Sander says.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150499 project_image_fid=370900]

The architecture, designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/ida-design-group">IDA Design Group</a>'s Michael Trinh, draws from the natural erosion patterns of <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/cronulla-nsw-2230">Cronulla</a>'s sandstone headlands, translating the organic forms of the coastline into soft curves, pavilion-style massing, and a material palette chosen for longevity in a salt-tinged environment.&nbsp;

Textured natural stone, soft renders, and timber-look battens reference the tones of the surrounding cliffs, while the building has been oriented to maximise natural light and passive ventilation, with primary living spaces facing north and east to capture morning sun and sea breezes.

"At Solis, our aim was to create architecture that feels quietly confident, grounded in natural materials like stone and timber, and elevated by light and landscape," Trinh says.&nbsp;

"The buildings are designed to sit gently within their coastal surrounds, with expansive glazing and abundant greenery creating a seamless dialogue between inside and out."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150499 project_image_fid=370897]

Interiors by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/hot-black">Hot Black</a> carry the same material language through to every room. Kitchens feature integrated Gaggenau appliances, sculpted stone benchtops, and Lo &amp; Co joinery, while bathrooms feature natural stone, timber, and brushed metal finishes.&nbsp;

Hot Black Founder and Design Director Sophie Safrin describes the intent as one of considered restraint: "At Solis, every detail has been thoughtfully considered to create a timeless coastal retreat, calm, refined, and effortlessly liveable. From natural finishes to seamless indoor-outdoor flow, Solis offers a quiet elegance that's deeply connected to its surroundings.

The landscape, designed by Julian Brady of <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/landscape-architect/sitedesignstudios">Site Design Studios</a>, treats green space as an integral part of the resident experience rather than an afterthought.&nbsp;

"Gentle curves and layered native plantings mirror the ebb and flow of the ocean," Julian Brady says, "creating a serene connection between architecture and place."&nbsp;

Coco Republic has provided bespoke furniture packages tailored to the project's coastal palette.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150499 project_image_fid=370899]

Skymark has an established track record in the Sutherland Shire, with a portfolio spanning Cronulla, Woolooware and Burraneer that includes Isla, Sylva, Bask, Shells, Sula and Mist. Securing LDI on Solis reflects a broader shift in how the developer is positioning its buildings to buyers, at a time when Resilience Insurance expects the policy to become mandatory in New South Wales by 2028.

Sales at Solis are launching soon through Ray White Projects, with an official event scheduled for 11 June. Enquire for more information.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=150499]

Skymark takes out 10-year Resilience Insurance LDI at Solis Cronulla

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