Page 1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Energy and Water Ombudsman Victoria 5

ewovinfo@ewov.com.au

28-12-2013

Cc: Chairman Peter Vogel (And other members of the Board of Directors) GWMWater info@gwmwater.org.au Ref: 2305224 Credit Collect creditcollect@creditcollect.com.au Ref 369335 10 Sir, I have been involved in an ongoing dispute with GWMWater regarding my property at 10 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock and address myself to you with my complaint(s). As a single parent, at the time full time caring for my 1 year old daughter, but later for up to 5 of 15 my children, I had then already a dispute as while I was a single parent and entitled to concession, GWMWater failed as I recall it to provide the concession entitlement. Phoning them was generally a sheer waste of time, being told they had no record of previous calls and as such neither of the content of conversations held, including the concession issue, where this up to 28 March 2001 was my principle residential address and as such where for the duration of residing 20 until there I was the concession card holder entitled then to a concession. GWMWater responded simply to make clear to charge interest for failing to pay the bills and as such I held they blackmailed me to pay no matter what. Where GWMWater takes it upon themselves to charge interest over outstanding monies then I view the interest charged over the concession it refused to allow was also unlawful. Indeed, I view it should not only repay the concession entitlements and 25 the interest it charges on it but also pay me interest over all those monies it wrongly claimed. If it is held that GWMWater is operating under delegated powers by the State government to charge for water, etc, then I view it also must be held to act as a delegated power to apply concession entitlements provided for by the same State Government. This, clearly GWMWater failed to do. It cannot argue that because it no longer is my principle residential address since 28 30 March 2001 then I am no longer entitled to the concession as what the criteria is if at the time those bills were claimed by GWMWater I was then entitled upon it. As referred to below, my son Richard also as a concession card holder should have been entitled to concession deductions which I understand he was not provided with. The same previously 35 with my daughter Gabrielle when she remained to reside at Berriwillock as a concession card holder when I moved out she should have had concession entitlements as a concession card holder regardless I paid the bills for her, as I had moved out on 28 March 2001 due to marriage. Basically it seems to me GWMWater has no proper system to ensure that concession card 40 holders are alerted to their rights of concession entitlements, and I view it should be held accountable for this. The same is with the issue that it holds that it can charge the registered property holder for the water accounts. My friend Ray Vella and his partner Alice purchased a few months ago a property in Cobram and do not have any water bills. Clearly, if the Water Act was to place a legal responsibility upon preregistered property holders then it should apply to all 45 and not merely which GWMWater may elect to charge.
28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 1

Page 2 . Already while my principle residential address was at Berriwillock, I had an issue with the quality of water. Again, GWMWater (under whatever identity it acted previously) would then later claim it had no records of previous phone calls and it was its way, as I view it, to ignore 5 complaints.

From onset I should make clear that to assign or to transfer an account to me has different meanings. To transfer I view that the person to whom the account is transferred then is the contracting person with GWMWater and I had no rights in their contractual arrangements nor 10 then can be held or deemed to be liable for any failure buy either or both to comply with contractual arrangements between themselves. For Richard, he may have understood to contract GWMWater to supply water for him and his children suitable for domestic and household purposes, whereas GWMWater knowing it wasnt providing this or couldnt or didnt want to provide this (despite of the Desalination plant or other water sources available) then may not 15 have entered in to a contract. Consider also Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 regarding DUTY OF CARE. When Richard moved into onto the property I had made the arrangement with Richard that he would pay all incoming bills. GWMWater however sent out a bill to both Richard and a copy to myself, that resulted that both Richard and myself paid the same bill. Richard held this was a violation by GWMWater of his privacy and GWMWater then recommended to transfer the account from my name to Richard and to stipulate I would not be provided with any copies, this I did. Richard made his arrangements with GWMWater and as result the account was transferred to R S Schorel being my son Richard S.B.M.V. Schorel. As I understand it Richard as a single parent of 2 daughters would at times stay with his mother and then back in Berriwillock again. Recently I was able to make arrangements with a neighbour to let me know when Richard is back on the property and on 23 December 2013 I received an email that Richard again is back on the property. For so far Richard may be aware of the account with GWMWater is and remained on his name R S Schorel and obviously where GWMater hads disclosed his details to me, in violation to the arrangements they made with Richard as not to do so, then this I view is a breach of the Privacy Act. Moreover, irrespective if GWMWater for whatever reason may hold I am the person accountable despite that it transferred the account to R S Richard, I view it was in breach of the Privacy Act to give credit collect my details in regard of an account that was overdue in regard of R S Schorel. (See attached bills also) While in November 2011 I then accepted to pay water usage it nevertheless cannot be deemed to cause the transfer of the account from R S Schorel to G Schorel merely by a unilateral decision by GWMWater. I didnt make any arrangements nor requested to have the account transferred from R S Schorel to G. Schorel nor would I desire to do so as since 29 March 2001 I am using the surname (by marriage) Schorel-Hlavka, as also listed on my tax file, my driver licence, etc, and as such any transfer of any account, if I had desired to do so, this I didnt and neither concede having done so, would have to have been in my married surname. For GWMater to purportedly charge $50.00 for it to consult a lawyer was/is in my view a breach of my agreement/undertaking to pay for usage and hence my agreement no longer stands as GWMWater by its own conduct undermined this agreement/undertaking. While it might be unusual for a male to have a surname change/alteration by marriage nevertheless it is discrimination by any government department or by any entity exercising delegated powers of the State Government or any private company not to accept a lawful usage of a surname by marriage. The mere fact that the property may still be registered under the surname as I was then doesnt alter the fact that GWMWater was well aware, and indeed for example uses my married surname on its 28 February 2013 correspondence, of my lawful usage of my married surname.
28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 2

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

10

15

20

25

30

Page 3 Where the Commonwealth of Australia through taxation, concession card as a senior citizen having issue my pension card using the surname Schorel-Hlavka and so did the Victorian Department of Human services with its concession cards previously since my marriage, then I view the discrimination by GWMWater against me not to consistently use it cannot be allowed to be tolerated. Besides the fact that GWMWater has disclosed my details to Credit Collect having in my view acted in violation of the Privacy Act also it may have resulted that Credit Collect may now have recorded against my name (whichever surname it used) a bad credit. This is of concern to me. I may state that while Credit Collect did contact me and subsequently a person personally attend to my residence in Viewbank, it has refrained from any further harassment seemingly realising that this was not a straight forward non-payment but rather one where GWMWater itself may have acted incorrectly/unlawful. A company like a debt collection agency such as Credit collect obviously may not be aware of the full history of the matters and so may have acted in good faith to contact me but again since the personal attendance by one of its staff I have had no further contact from them, albeit I deem it important to keep them aware of what is going on, and this might also be why they refrain from any further contact, well aware that GWMWater itself may be a culprit. Credit collect (when their representative attended but claiming to act for GWMWater) asked me then if I knew Richards current address, this I informed him off IU didnt know. And as such for Credit Collect acting for and on behalf of GWMWater clearly Richard was still the person liable as otherwise it couldnt have requested me for his current residential address. I must make it very clear that the male person who attended to me was very courteous and nothing in this complaint should be seen as if he acted inappropriately towards me, just as I view it, he attended in good faith and while it distressed my (now 81 year old) wife that he attended, I understand that in the circumstances he did what was deemed appropriately for a debt collection agency. The problem rather is that I view GWMWater should never have disclosed my details to Credit Collect and avoided this problem in the first place. Because of the past that GWMWater would claim not to have records of calls I prefer to place matters in writing to avoid it to repeat the same nonsense and so I have a record also of what was written.

I will now quote some of my writing to the then Premier Mr Ted Baillieu of 28-1-2013 and which was then subsequently quoted in my 28-10-2013 correspondence to Premier Napthine. Also a copy of my 19 December 2013 correspondence to Mr Peter Vogel Chairman of 35 GWMWater to which no response was received
QUOTE 131028-G H Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier Napthine Re FIRE-WATER-TAXES-etc
QUOTE 130128-G H Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Premier TED BAILLIEU Re FIRE-WATER-TAXES-etc

40

There ought to be no question about it that todays Austr alia so to say was resulting from the back of the sheep. It was the farmers, the growers and those residing in the county who were ensuring that prosperity of Australia succeeded. Yet, in todays age we seem to disregard their rights in general. We do not have a Government for all people but just a government seeking to appeal to those it can expect to vote for it to get back into Government at the cost of many Victorians rights, in particular those residing in small towns, etc.
.

45

50

We had this gigantic dispute about the north-south pipeline from the Murray to Melbourne which at all cost somehow had to be build disregarding the rights of property holders. It was so essential that people protesting about the violation of their rights were even imprisoned. Yet, now that it was build and badly needed it is not used at all. The reason being that it is not needed for the purpose of transporting water from the Murray to Melbourne but needed for the reverse that is to bring drink water to the county, the farmers, the growers and those residing there in the numerous small towns. We had a desalination plant build at a tremendous huge financial cost and have it now dormant as allegedly not being needed, that is for Melbourne, but reality is that it is needed but for those in the country areas. Yes, while Mr Ian White can be fighting fires with his crew and each time places his life on the line doing so, he cannot even get a single drop of drink water from his water supplied by GWMWater as its bills shows: 28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 3

Page 4

Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparations without further treatment
(The red colour is on the bill in black)

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

Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparations without further treatment 10
So, without using a single drop of water I am charged more (on a quarterly basis that is) than a car registration, or even my council rates! So any new born baby/toddler needing to be bathed in water cannot be done so using the water supply by GWMWater, as is! What on earth is this corporation for if it cannot even manage to provide for the basic needs of human consumption? Why do we have a government if it cannot even manage a basic, indeed essential need for human consumption? We have aborted ministerial responsibility for so called better service by private corporations? Where is the National Party (the former Country Party) where it cannot bother to look after those voting for it? The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution; HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. CLARK.for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. END QUOTE
.

15

20

25

30

35

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution, END QUOTE For sure, the water issue was ongoing on the mind of the Framers of the Constitution and they held that a person owns the water that falls on his land but when it leaves then it belongs to anyone. So, what are GWMWater and other such corporations doing to charge not just myself but people like Mr Ian Wright for water services when not a drop of drink water is provided? Most people may not be aware of it but general charges by water corporations include the upkeep of zoos and parks. So, we are more concerned that some people are able to go to a zoo then to provide drink water to fellow Victorians? Well, it seems to me at least the Victorian Government has this mentality. Premier Business Card

28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Page 4

Page 5 Banner

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

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

5 END QUOTE 19-12-2O13 CORRESPONDENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Chairman Peter Vogel (And other members of the Board of Directors) GWMWater 10 info@gwmwater.org.au Cc: creditcollect creditcollect@creditcollect.com.au Ref 369335 15 Sir, There is an ongoing dispute between GWMWater and myself and it is time this is terminated. Perhaps you may wish to write it off or whatever but it has gone on for too long. . In 1987 I commenced to purchase a property Lot 10 and 12 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock. 20 Each lot had a water meter and supply. I requested than the water supply and so its meter to be removed from Lot 12, and this than eventuated, albeit this is the Lot upon which the residential house is located, whereas Lot 120 had nothing but large sheds on it without any need for water supply. A large water tank provides for water to the house. Some years ago, one of my sons (Richard Schorel) wanted to move into the property with 2 of 25 my granddaughters, and I accepted this provided he would pay all incoming bills (including water bills) relating to the usage. He was never a tenant as such nor was required in any way to pay rent. GWMWater started to send out bills to both myself and my son and I discovered we both were paying the same bill. I assumed it was sent to me because Richard had failed to pay. Being at the time the account holder I held that it was then appropriate for GWMWater to 30 forward me the bill to get it paid. Richard however complained that he should be the account holder and wanted his privacy and didnt want this to be interfered with by GWMWater
28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 5

19-12-2013

Ref: 2305224

Page 6 forwarding copies of water bills to me, and GWMWater then in its correspondence advised to transfer the account into Richards name. As such this was accomplished. Years later I discovered to be subjected to demands by GWMWater for alleged unpaid charged against Richard. Later GWMWater changed the account to my name but without my authority. I 5 accepted to pay any further water usage, and you may find from the records this was about zero.GWMWater then involved creditcollect to try to get me to pay the bills but I explained to them also, and forwarded copies to them, that I held not to be obligated to pay Richards overdue accounts. Later GWMWater reduced some of the monies it claimed but less than 10% of the total. It also then charged me or purportedly me for a $60 charge for legal advice. Obviously this 10 was a blatant breach of my undertaking to pay for water usage.

I also started to campaign about the failure of GWMWater to provide suitable drink water, as after all what is the sense of having purportedly drink water pipelines to a property where the water is not suitable for human consumption. In the last few days I received the following:

15

28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Page 6

Page 7 The problem remains that unsuspected people who are to use water from a tap, including small children and visitors, may not be aware of the warning and no warnings are provided on properties themselves where the water meter is provided and hence I view GWMWater is and remains negligence in its DUTY OF CARE.
.

It is not my duty to provide signage as it is GWMWater who provides the unsuitable for human consumption water. I have no need for being supplied not for human consumption water and so view GWMWater is charging for the supply of a connection, water supply, etc, by false/misleading/deceptive conduct. 10 After I purchased the property commencing 1987 I then began to pursue that water usage should be charged ass I became aware neighbours leaving the tap running unchecked, while I hardly ever used any water, yet we all were charged the same. However, in the end that added charges to a water account undermined totally what I pursued to achieve and that was a fair charge for usage. The usage now is generally nullified by the other cost charged for. 15 Recently, I attended to friends property at Cobram, they recently purchased and was given the understanding they had no water charges. Moment, GWMWater has been going on about entitled to charge property holders for water connection, etc, and now it seems that the same legislation it relies upon actually doesnt at all binds all property holders but seems to be merely the making of what GWMwater seeks to make out of it. 20 . I have personally no need for water supply certainly not water not fit for human consumption to the property, (known as 10 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock) and if in case of fire there is a need for water, well we are paying a fire levy on our rates that the Fire Brigade is to have access to water. Generally it takes it from the town centre. 25 I did not request to transfer the account back into my name, and the unilateral decision by GWMWater to do so may also be a legal issue, as well as that it had/has no right to disclose outstanding charges of Richard, as this was precisely he didnt want to eventuate and for which GWMWater at the time agreed to transfer the account in Richards name. While I have been given the understanding that GWMWater has no legal position to transfer an 30 account into the name of a person not being the property holder, this too seems to be questionable as people who rent from the Ministry of Housing are billed in their own name and not that the Ministry of Housing is billed, being the delegated entity of the government properties I understand that my son Richard is currently enjoying a stay at one of Her Majesty accommodations, however prior to that I provided GWMWater with his residential address in 35 Horsham. As such I sought to cooperate but found GWMWater to be totally ignorant to reality. I have been yet again been issued with an account as to alleged outstanding chargers and quite frankly this has to stop. I request that my payments made of recent times are all refunded and that the account is simply held as a write off, in view that no legal authority existed for GWMWater to unilaterally alter the account from Richards name to mine. 40 Despite my ongoing campaign to expose GWMWater for failing to provide suitable drink water to its customers, GWMWater seems to appear to me to take a position to stand above the law. It clearly acknowledges in its statement reproduced above that as shown below again: QUOTE

45
28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 7

Page 8

END QUOTE
QUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B domestic and stock use, in relation to water, means use for (a) household purposes; or END QUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B

QUOTE

10 END QUOTE QUOTE

15

END QUOTE It must be kept in mind that for many years I carted for up to 5 of my children on the property and then as I recall it was never advised about the water not being suitable for human consumption! In my view this was a serious breach of DUTY OF CARE by GWMWater. My late father actually was working for the Rotterdam Drinkwater (The Netherlands) and pointed out how critical it was that water coming through the taps in households must be fit for human consumption. In my view the ability of GWMWater to obtain suitable drink water cannot be claimed not to exist where we have the Wontaggi Desalination Plant idle, but nevertheless at considerable cost to taxpayers. As such, it appears to me that it might be rather that GWMWater is in breach of legislative requirements not willing to obtain suitable drink water for human consumption, which may perhaps be because of the cost associated with it. Here we are providing suitable drink water for human consumption to 3rd world countries at our expenses but we cannot bother to do the same for our own. In my view, as long as GWMWater fails to provide suitable drink water for human consumption then it cannot acting in breach of law, while at the same time seek to rely upon enforcing other parts of law that it may elect to rely upon. What we have is that customers are forced to pay charges and on top of that then incur additional charges to obtain suitable drink water. In my view this is totally unacceptable and GWMWater seems to me not being credible to provide drink water and should not be in the business of water supply. Where is any agreement GWMWater entered into with the State Government was it that GWMWater was to be exempt from compliance to legislation it would not want to comply with? Indeed, considering that GWMWater itself acknowledges to be does not meet accepted Victorian Government standards then it acknowledges by this implied or otherwise, that it fails to comply with what is required?
28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 8

20

25

30

35

Page 9 To me GWMWater is insulting the people living in country areas that while their monies is what they are after it cannot care less about the health of those same customers. QUOTE 6-8-2013 CORRESPONDENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 5 GWMWater 6-8-2013 info@gwmwater.org.au

Ref: 2305224 10 Cc: creditcollect creditcollect@creditcollect.com.au Ref 369335

Sir/Madam, I received a correspondence recently referring to the Tenancy Act, and it should be clarified that my son Richard never was a tenant. he moved in as a de facto owner, hence he 15 was to pay all incoming bills regarding the property, including rates, which he neither did, and as the nomination for GWMWater wasnt working instead the account was transferred to him. English is not my native language and neither did I have any formal education in the English language but to me you can for example nominate a person as a driver for insurance purposes, this doesnt give the person ownership of a vehicle. You can transfer a vehicle to another 20 person which ordinarily gives them ownership of the vehicle. As you may recall I wrote in the past: 25
.QUOTE 21-3-2013 CORRESPONDENCE Well that may be your choice, but I can assure you I am going to campaign for the human rights of people living in the GWMWater service area, as well as others denied the same right of access to suitable drink water! GWMWater may not consider the human value relevant, and merely interested to make a buck from struggling farmers, and others, disregarding their human rights, but I can assure you I am not a person going to drop this issue.
.

30

END QUOTE 21-3-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

35 GWMWater
Page 9

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 17-2-2013

28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Page 10

info@gwmwater.org.au Ref: 2305224 Cc: creditcollect creditcollect@creditcollect.com.au Ref 369335 5 Sir/Madam, further to my 23-12-2012 correspondence I noted that as yet you failed to respond appropriately, that is to me, as to refunding to me the monies which GWMWater overcharged for numerous years. Obviously, I also seek interest for the falsely claimed and obtained monies by 10 GWMWater, and to consider that the many of the bills that were on account of and addresse to and forwarded to Richard Schorel and later to myself refer to:

Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparation without further treatment 15 .END QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE As I understand it, we have such a thing as a Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, and that has been in existence for some years now.
.

20 With GWMWater seeking to rely upon legislative provisions then consider also that you are bound by the correct interpretation of the legislation. Hence, any discrimination is unlawful. So where the legislation QUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B 25
domestic and stock use, in relation to water, means use for (a) household purposes; or (b) watering of animals kept as pets; or (c) watering of cattle or other stock; or (ca) in the case of the curtilage of a house and any outbuilding, watering an area not exceeding 12 hectares for fire prevention purposes with water obtained from a spring or soak or water from a dam; or (d) irrigation of a kitchen garden but does not include use for dairies, piggeries, feed lots, poultry or any other intensive or commercial use;

30

END QUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B 35 Clearly the legislation provides for Domestic and stock usewhich includes household purposes, whereas the bills provided to Richard as well as to myself provides for:
QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

40 Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparation without further treatment
END QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

I therefore seek further and better particulars regarding the qualification of what constitutes 45 drink water household usage domestic usage, etc. Why indeed can the legislation purportedly applying to all Victoria have a different application in different parts of Victoria? After all, in Melbourne my water bills do not disclose
QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Page 10

Page 11

Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparation without further treatment 5
END QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

10

Therefore, it appears to me that there is a discrimination going on between city residents and those in the country. And this while the Wanthaggi desalination plant is not used to supply suitable drink water. it is beyond me why GWMWater has not sourced water from this idle desalination plant to ensure it wouldnt discriminate against citizens in country area;s. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the legislation you selectively seeks to rely upon while blatantly disregarding others.

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

There are such a things the National Groundwater Action Plan - Victorian Projects, 20 Environment Protection Act 1970 70-8056a172 and Sustainable Water Strategies to name a view, and my wifes late husband Mr Jaroslav Hlavka M.I.E. Aust CP ENG extensively wrote about how groundwater could be in a sufficient manner used for supplying all Victorians with drink water, this while he was employed with Melbourne Water (as it then was called).. 25 As for concession issues, let make it very clear I took the Department of Human Services to the Supreme Court of Victoria when it unlawfully had obtained a warrant to arrest my 2 year old daughter and defeated them in court. In fact the trail judge made clear the warrant was unlawful, as it sought to undermine earlier Supreme Court of Victoria court orders. As such, the Department of Human Services all along was aware I was entitled to concessions because it 30 provided the concession card to me in the first place, in 1986! and it was on the Berriwillock address, until 28 March 2001, being then my principle residential address. And as far as I recall it GWMWater was at the time notified about the concession card, but seemingly ignored to take appropriate action about it. I do not run the office in GWMWater and so do not hold me accountable for its errors and failures, as I have no ordinary access to its files anyhow to check 35 up what it has or hasnt on the files documented. Safe to say that GWMWater to my understanding overcharged me for year after year and where GWMWater seems to charge interest on overdue monies then likewise a customer wrongly overcharges is entitled on compounding interest. and those overdue monies are coming rightfully to me and not to be confused with Richards contract with GWMWater and any overdue payments by him to 40 GWMWater. Neither do I agree with the reference of the section of the Water Act that somehow the bills (Richards Account Holders Bills) can be put against me, as the section doesnt pursue it as such, rather that you are taking it out of context. I will try to use a simplified example:
By Victorian laws one must wear a seatbelt when one is driving a motor vehicle, albeit when reversing one can have the seatbelt unbuckled, as it can interfere with ability to reverse when trying to turn around.
.

45

50

So, you sit in your driveway and your partner ask you to more the vehicle 2 metres, so your partner can freely move along it. You do so. A police officer then comes to you and issue an infringement notice on the basis you were moving the vehicle without wearing your seatbelt and that is unlawful. You make clear that you are Page 11 28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Page 12 on private property in your own driveway and so it doesnt apply. What do you expect from the police officer, to withdraw the Infringement Notice because he has it wrong? Well you may so but why not then apply the same reasoning to the alleged water bills?
.

5 Do not hesitate to provide me with copies of documentation you seek to rely upon as to why you hold that GWMWater can provide water to Victorians unsuitable for human consumption whereas other Victorians in, for example, Melbourne have suitable drinkwater provided to them. Again do not ignore the Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, which I understand the Supreme Court of Victoria held was applicable to Victorian legislative provisions. 10 You may provide any extensive material both in print and on a CD/DVD so I can peruse it all, and we can take it from there. Recently I published articles as to how the Infringement Act 2006 is misconceived. The Infringement Act 2006 refers to lodging but it also relies upon the Magistrates Court Act 1989 15 which refers to filing. the difference is that a document submitted to the registry is lodged and doesnt become filed until the court accepts it for filing. At times the court refuses to accept documents for filing even so it was lodged. What I am trying to point out is that since 2006 numerous court cases were conducted regarding Infringement Notices and somehow all those lawyers seemed to have assumed that lodging in the Infringement Court was as if it was filed. 20 Reality is, that nothing was seemingly ever filed in the Infringement Court and so as it operates as part of a Chapter III of the constitution court (Kable) then clearly all litigation failing to be also an open court are invalid.
.

You see lawyers often assume things and for years ago along with this as if it is the law. This is 25 why lawyers do not declare the law, but they give their opinion and no more. If 100 cases are to be decided by the court and each party has legal representation (and that involved 200 sets of lawyers) then 50% of them will be found to be wrong. If the same was to be applied to doctors that 50% of their patients would die in operations they would likely be called charlatans. So, GWMWater charged $60.00 for legal advice, and did this lawyer really consider at all some 30 of the points I referred to? I doubt it! In the Colosimo case more then 20 years were involved in the litigation and the message was clear that Mr Colosimo had to purge his contempt, etc. Well, Mr Colosimo, placed under administration then decided to get rid of his barrister and have me representing him as a Professional Advocate. I provided my services (as always) FREE OF CHARGE. And I proved that all those lawyers involved (including the judges) had it all wrong 35 from onset, and the administration orders were set aside and the contempt proceedings were no more. Actually, I discovered that despite 6 contempt hearings the transcript proved the judges had failed to formally charge him. Even that not a single lawyer seemed to be aware of is a legal requirement before you can seek to punish a person. 40 Actually, even so I am retired, there are still lawyers requesting me to represent them as I did with James a solicitor and barrister for 22 years, in Legal Service Commissioner v Harold James Johnson. While I do not propose to accept such requests, nevertheless it may underline that legal practitioners value my knowledge and understanding in constitutional and other legal matters. 45 Therefore, as I alluded upon before, where GWMWater provides me with the relevant material why it should be accepted as to providing water not suitable for human consumption within the framework of the Water Act 1989 and other information it deems may explain matters, including any contractual arrangements it may have with the Government of the State of Victoria, then I have every intention to consider it all and respond upon it. 50 Again, do refrain from harassing us (my wife and myself) about overdue bills incurred on account of Richard, as I requested so often in the past. GWMWater may unilaterally change the name of the account holder but that doesnt make it lawful! Richard became the account holder
28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 12

Page 13 as it was transferred to him. I am not aware that since then there was any formal transfer of the account to my person to which I agreed with!

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to deal with all relevant 5 issues and neither refers to matters in any order of priority. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)

10 END QUOTE 6-8-2013 CORRESPONDENCE Here you are sending out correspondences about the appointment of a new board member Kate Vinot, but what can she achieved where the other board members so far miserably failed in ensuring that people who are customers with GWMWater are all provided with the same suitable for human consumption drink water. People do not need more or a revolving door system of 15 board members at huge cost when in the end they cannot provide any suitable for human consumption drink water to customers. All the so called experiences by any board member has a zero meaning, if they continue to fail to provide suitable drink water for human consumption. If GWMWater desires to remove the water meter and supply to my property because of its real account holder (Richard Schorel) failing to pay the bills then so be it, as I do not take any 20 responsibility for it. I have no need for non-suitable water for human consumption and neither would want to be held accountable that someone may drink from the water and fall ill. Hence, I seek you to prevent this kind of water to be supplied. Failing GWMWater to do so then it is to be held responsible for any harm that may flow from it. I do not accept that as a customer for water supply in Melbourne under the provisions of the 25 Water Act 1989 I can somehow have the right of being provided with drink water suitable for human consumption and yet somehow under the same act not in Berriwillock, not any of other residents there or in the area. As I understand it, we have such a thing as a Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, and that has been in existence for some years now. I am just wondering if GWMWater were to pursue to litigate against me and by this others are 30 alerted to GWMWater failure to comply with the State Governments water standards, what class action then may follow, where those who suffered ill health by inadvertently having been drinking this water not suitable for human consumption then may seek to sue for damages. After all, I view GWMWater has not shown any action to ensure drink water suitable for human consumption will be provided and as such I view continues to fail in its DUTY OF CARE. 35 Perhaps GWMWater may have to consider to have a special drink water line to supply just drink water suitable for human consumption, and another recycle water pipe line for those who may require such for supply other water (recycled or otherwise) for farming, etc. For the above I urge you to write of the alleged debt, and to make sure my name and so my credit 40 rating is not harmed as GWMWater may then find itself legally accountable/liable for such further harm it may have caused. And again my monies paid are refunded, as clearly GWMWater made absolutely no attempt, despite my good intentions, to seek to adequately resolve the matter. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

45

(Our name is our motto!)

END QUOTE 19-12-2O13 CORRESPONDENCE
28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 13

Page 14 The document reproduced below is actually the first such notice I am aware of having been provided besides the in black notification GWMWater sent out on its water bills. QUOTE

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

In my view this is insufficient in explanation as an ordinary person may assume that the water could be used for bathing baby, etc, and also perhaps one can boil it. This, whereas the 10 notification showing:
QUOTE

END QUOTE

15 QUOTE

END QUOTE

20

Is an clear admission that GWMWater fails to comply with Victorian Government Standards.
QUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B domestic and stock use, in relation to water, means use for (a) household purposes; or END QUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B

25

As the Water Act clearly refers to household purposes then I view GWMWater fails to comply with this and as such cannot on the one hand, not that I concede it can do so in any event, claim to rely upon the provisions of the Water Act 1989 and then on the other hand fails to comply 30 with it to provide water for domestic and household purposes. Washing a baby in water is I view a normal domestic and household purposes. And babies ordinary do get water in their mouth, when being washed. In my view there is a blatant disregard by GWMWater to its DUTY OF CARE to provide suitable drinking water through its drink water pipelines. In my view the water it provides may 35 be best described as recycled waste water and should be provided in so to say grey pipe lines distinct from ordinary water pipes that carried drink water. It would be absurd to expect ordinary persons who reside for example in a city and travelling to a country area to be aware that properties served by GWMWater do not have drink water through its drink water pipes or pipes ordinary associated with drink water supplies. It is in my view also 40 a breach of its DUTY OF CARE failing to have at each water meter a notification in clear readable writing for anyone to be able to read that the water provided through this water meter is
28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 14

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Page 15 not suitable for human consumption. It is absurd to expect a property owner or resident to stand guard at every water outlet to warn possible visitors not to touch water taps for purpose of drinking it. Often visitors may arrive unannounced or when one is not at home and as such GWMWater besides a notification at the water meter also should have provided a warning sign at the entrance of a property to warn any visitor of using water for drink water purposes from any water lines attached to the water meter. In my view GWMWater could have arranged for water supply for domestic and household purposes to be provided from the (mothballed) Wantoggi Desalination plant or other sources and kept its water pipes purely for drink water and provide so to say grey water pipes for any recycled grey water usage. People should have confidence in that pipes ordinary associated with drink water actually carry water suitable for domestic and household purposes and so to drink as water and being able to wash a baby in this water. Indeed, it is a discrimination to deny people access to ordinary drink water and force them to pay water related charges and other charges where in fact the water provided is of no use, indeed dangerous for domestic and household purposes and so households have to purchase and transport (at their own additional cost) additionally water for domestic and household purposes. In my view this is not what Parliament intended when it provided for the Water Act 1989 nor when it sold of water rights as clearly GWMWater itself acknowledges to failing to comply with Victorian Government Standards. In my view the in black notification was totally insufficient and not prominent enough. In my view the warning should have been with a red circle and a red stripe to make it stand out. After all its bills are in colours and so no additional cost would have been there to just provide the red for this. It seems to me that colouring the footing is less justifiable then having coloured the water warning to make it more obvious. The question obviously also is how long did GWMWater (or its predecessor) fail to comply with Victorian Government Standards and why was this left as such? Has the above July 2013 pamphlet been produced only as a response because I filed a complaint with the then Premier Ted Baillieu on 28 January 2013 about the lack of proper notification and proper water services? In my view this is a very serious health issue also and I view GWMWater should be taken before the courts for having failed to provide water as per Water Act 1989 requirements. If ordinary people can be held legally accountable for any breach of law then I view so should then be a corporation like GWMWater. In my view, as a property owner I am entitled to have a water connection that provides for water suitable for domestic and household purposes and this clearly is denied. I have no need for water that is not suitable for domestic and household purposes and do not accept to having to pay for any water charges or related charges where GWMWater admits it doesnt provide water for domestic and household purposes, this apart of the issue of whos account really is the real account. Hence the writing off of the alleged debt is the correct way and also the refunds of overcharges, etc. Corporations should not be allowed to stand above the law! They must suffer the legal consequences as anyone else has to when acting in defiance of the law. GWMWater itself previously made known I could place the matter before the Energy and Water Ombudsman, however, I held it more appropriate to first obtain further details before lodging a complaint, and the admission by GWMWater now provided to me to fail to comply with Victorian government Standards underlines what I held all along a failure to provide water suitable for domestic and household purposes and considering Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 regarding DUTY OF CARE I now hold it appropriate to file a formal complaint(s), as I do hereby.

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
Page 15

28-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com