ACCC Proceeds Against Refund Home Loans
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is taking action against Refund Home Loans claiming the franchisor misled franchisees regarding a ‘special’ relationship with the ACCC.
The ACCC has taken particular exception to the suggestion by the franchisor to franchisees that its conduct was approved by the ACCC.
With 300 franchisees and the inference that the franchisor’s handling of disputes is not acceptable to the ACCC there are now calls out to franchisees to cooperate with each other in their handling of grievances.
Refund Home Loans first came to the attention of Australian franchisees with the submission by Rachael Neilson to the Federal Inquiry into the Franchising Code of Conduct.
While no one is suggesting there are no quality franchise systems in Australia it is suggested that they are mostly difficult for the uninitiated to detect amongst the far greater array of dangerous offerings where all make the same claims of quality. Existing network franchisees often become unwittingly or knowingly complicit in the scam.
Unbiased industry participants state that disclosure requirements are deceiving while misrepresentation is a common commodity with minimal and rare penalty. The horror history of Australian franchising is sampled in many of the recent Federal Inquiry submissions and in much of the transcripts of public hearings.
Experienced pro-reform franchisees, industry and legal experts in Australia and apparently even fair-minded politicians and media remain concerned that the ACCC continues to purport to have some power to perform more than a perfunctory slap on the wrist for franchisors that behave badly and break the law. The problem is that the ACCC has a combination of little legislated power and minimal funding when it comes to franchising. Spanking is cheap but it does provide positive spin for the Minister.
Does this apply to Refund Home Loans and their franchisees? Most probably! It is typically impossible to get the ACCC to take action against any franchisor so people would suspect they might have a case. That is; unless the ACCC is relying once again on the inability of their target to fund a defence.
The even greater concern for the broader franchisee community is that the ACCC seems intent on misleading franchisees in dispute to believe they can achieve a worthwhile outcome through the ACCC investigation process. Historically that happens as often as a Mars landing.
Furthermore, the ACCC becomes virtually a deliberate and distraction to those naïve franchisees that wait many months, and longer, for the magic of an ACCC slap on the wrist to provide absolutely nothing instead of those franchisees who can afford one to go and get a results-driven, Franchising Experienced lawyer. For the rest there is no hope and the ACCC is complicit in the rolling carnage.
Why people believe that there is protection is understandable. The only real protection is what a prospect must expend in a thorough ‘killer’ pre-investment investigation. Other than that it would appear to only be what the franchisee can afford at Court.
The ACCC effort is usually a time-costly charade that leaves the franchisee to be a future target for the ever so slightly embarrassed franchisor.
Franchisees in dispute need to find out how to submit an acceptable formal complaint to the ACCC. That is as important as following the Code. Then they must move on to making their own justice or they must walk away. And this situation is not going to change in Minister Emerson’s time of power.
--
Just Some Related Reading:
- Franchisors under fire from Federal Parliamentary inquiry
- There Is No Comeback
- ACCC Terrorize Little Folk
- Allphones Franchisor In Class Action and Contempt
- Lenards Franchise Murder Trial Begins
- Australia Could Have Stopped Years of Kleenmaid's Abuse of Franchisees
- Forte Franchise Hits Sour Note
- Bakers Delight v New South Wales
- David Reid Homes
- Midas Australia Franchisees Consider What Next after Christmas Bankruptcy
- Franchise topic:
- Enter Your Own Tag:
qud249/2009 accc vs ormond
nsd7346/2001 mcdonald vs ormond regadring bankruptcy
nsd7250/2001 news ltd vs ormond regadring bankruptcy
I wonder how many others didn't make it after he "discouraged people from seeking legal advice" (media release accc)
http://www.refundhomeloans.info/site-notices/refund-home-loans-pty-ltd-and-wayne-ormond-admit-false-and-misleading-statements/
would appear that wayne took the offer in the end from the ACCC. I wonder what happened to his claims of "vigorously defending this". I suppose when you know you are wrong its best not to test your honesty in court.
This is pretty much what the pathetic consequences are when the TPA related to franchising and/or the Code are breached. Ormond gets to drop his trousers for a minute’s walloping by the ACCC and the pain is gone. Back to business.
No one reports the implications to the franchisees who were mislead into a franchising disaster and they cannot afford to take advantage of this admission.
Touché franchising, the ACCC, Craig Emerson, Graeme Samuel, FCA, FCA cronies and another dud franchisor.
He’s right too. And it justs ignores it when its shonky.
If you Refund EX-franchisees could keep a watch on this statement I think we would all like to know how long this has been ordered to stand at their site. A week, a month? Three days? Oh the hardship of it all.
That this directive is crap, take for example: the anz accc litigation has nothing to do with refund or wayne directly, you will note that on the ANZ website, a release for members regarding a meeting held, these notes indicated that mr ormond had a claim and that had it had been dismissed on grounds that he could not substantiate them,He has been spouting this crap since before the mortgage refunds buy out.
BUT: the ACCC continue to allow the company to mislead the public into believing that he is the one who pushed for it and the the ACCC are fitghting for him. It Would appear to me that his statement was correct. He has nothing to worry about, I dont know how people like him sleep at night. (i suppose its on a bed of other peoples broken dreams and money) Or maybe its becasue he knows his mates at the ACCC will let things go with the easiest outcome for him, while ignoring complaints from the franchisees, smacks of kleenmaid and bakers delight, legitimate complaints are made and ignored and even when people are pushed to the point of breaking and the accc are fully aware the zor is acting dishonestly they continue to sit in their offices and pretend to work for the code they are entrusted to uphold.
that the ball started rolling on the 4th dec with a scheduling conference. The judge set the case to go forward in march 2010. we will be watching this closely. boudica and ray make a good point about the morning shows and the drain of advertising funds. I rarely see any ads to build the mortage business just the selling of the franchise business. in answerbag someone made a comment on 450 a month in advertising fees, i wonder how much of that goes on the sale of franchise advertising.
It would appear that refund home loans were unable to attend court on those dates (for whatever reason) they have successfully applied to have the dates changed to mid april. I personally can not wait to attend the court and watch the whole sorry mess unfold. so I will be leaving the 13,14 and 15 of april free, any other ex refund zees or current zees interested in seeing what is really happeneing rather than believeing the BS handed out by corpoate announcements should make their way to the federal courts in brisbane, It would be a great justice if as many people that have ever had anything to do with wayne ormond and or refund home loans were there.
The only way to pick up a lie, is if people that know the truth are there to witness it.
This particular franchise is being flogged mercilessly on "The Morning Show."
I have a real problem with franchises being advertised on shows such as this despite any disclaimers the show may make ( if at all) as it simply adds to the false perception of credibilty and leads potential franchisees to not be as diligent as they should be.
It would appear that wayne already has an intimate knowledge of how the federal courts work.
bankrupt then annulled just after the company started. wow. I wonder how many of his franchisees would have bought knowing that he was not quite the success he claimed to be.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2001/1118.html?query=ormond
Are you telling us that this franchise was established while the franchisor was still in bankruptcy? Ormond at Austlii I am shocked. Was anything disclosed? I would be shocked it it was.
This thread begins to add clarity for anyone interested in investing with Refund Home Loans;
http://www.somersoft.com/forums /showthread.php?t=54248
Or this; what level of sophisticated businessman writes this crap?
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1633639/date_desc
It just goes to prove you don't have to be bright to get away with anything in franchising. Especially selling franwhacks.
Whoops! I forgot the ACCC caught this guy when they typically cannot catch a cold. Not bright at all.
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54248
fyi I meant to say for some reason the link wasnt found and I searched for it. looks the smae but I will repost just to see if it works.
a happy camper now that media is picking up on his apparent shenanigans.
Watchdog eyes star loan broker
Having heard from and met more Refund franchisees than his sweetheart Rachel it seems he deserves everything heading his way.
according to a dun and bradstreet report. the company was formed begining of september 2003 and self proclaimed founder was not annulled until the end of september 2003. On a technicality ASIC say becasue it was annulled he is not legally bound to tell people. Not sure about the external administration and if they have to reveal it. Maybe someone who reads this may be able to shed light on if it had to be revealed.
I think it would be a great idea if all prospective franchisees were aware that such a report is available on any compay through Dun and Bradstreet and get should consider getting one during due diligence. It will show up adverse information that isnt found else where. it only costs about $40 for a basic report that also shows their likely hood to pay their debts on time. The report I saw showed that this company HAD a poor reputation for paying on time (I havent seen another search in over 1 year so maybe they have improved).
Its one thing if you have been a bankrupt and then taken the time to resestablish your life and learn from your lessons. I personally find it a whole other story when they set up a company where such a large amounts of money are involved and peoples futures are tied up into it.
In my opnion people buy a franchise to have the successful business model where you are mentored by successful people. Unfortunately even successful people have felt the pain of bankruptcy or been near bankrupt. They can draw on that and share how they turned their lives around rather than hiding it and lying about the external administration.
What I find inetersting about the threads on the above forums is that one voice that is negative can be easily drownd out by 2 that are positive. why didnt more people come forward to shout the acclaim of refund home loans. Instead they are going to band together to sue a person who has voiced a negative experience. if they were so happy, then why only one good story from someone who still couldnt help themselves but make picky remarks about the ex being twisted hmmmm what can you say to that other than, I agree not very spohistciated at all. I think of it like ebay. Someone may have 99% good and 1 bad comment. does that stop me from buying the product "heck no" however if there is a nasty response from the seller then I would look elsewhere.
whoever is one those forums is voicing their opinions (and in many cases their attacks) as if they speak for the company, if thats how they treat their fracnhisees, is it any wonder that more people havent cropped up to complain, some of it is very harsh, you can't tell me that the person they attacked is so unique and special that they are the only one being treated so poorly.
and I believe it is a great way to sell franchises and kill an advertsing fund for franchisees.
Only people that can read and know something about franchising will realize the challenge to the program's credibility.
not only is the franchise sales ads on the morning shows (I didnt realize how much of a budget killer that was) you also have the evening shows that report the company as being whatever the franchisor wants to sell. for this one it is the underdog that had taken on the big banks. Unfotunately the average person sees this as news and credible. so people just keep throwing more and more money the way of the franchisor. the only ads I have seen to generate business for his franchisees are late night, slap bang in the middle of all the ads for the live chats etc. I am looking forward to the outcome of ACCCs action thru the federal court. However I am more interested in what the government inquries will bring. This is just one rogue franchisor that is sliding around in grey areas and ignorance. Unfortunately there are so many more and so much worse. the australian government needs to hold these people accounatabe for promises and claims they make.