20190308-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Netta M Griffin, President & Chairman of The Board, and All Other Members of The Board

Page 1
1
2
3 Netta M Griffin, President & Chairman of the Board, 8-3-2019
4 and all other members of the Board
5 501 Bourke St, Melbourne VIC 3000
6 C/o Tara Maslin Tara_Maslin@racv.com.au
7
8 20190308-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Netta M Griffin, President & Chairman of the Board, and all
9 other members of\ the Board
10 reference number is 65083073
11 Sir/Madam,
12 I received from IAG Angela via email communication that she will object to the
13 jurisdiction of the Financial Service commission if I filed a complaint with it against the RACV
14 having refused my claim.
15 .
16 While I am aware that in ordinary litigation an party can object to the jurisdiction of the
17 tribunal/court and so also a commission I view however that considering the RCFS (royal
18 commission into financial Services) an objection to jurisdiction is a misuse and abuse of the
19 system and to me seems to indicate that RACV insurance uses so to say a dirty lawyer for dirty
20 tactics.
21 Ordinary a person seeking to resolve a matter via the Financial Service Commission should not
22 be burdened to prove jurisdiction in that this would undermine precisely the intent of providing
23 the ability to deal through the Financial Service Commission instead of having to litigate in a
24 court.
25 The very reason parties are to be able to involve the Financial Service commission is to remove
26 the financial and other burden upon a person associated with often drawn out and expensive
27 litigation.
28 In my view Angela is on the one hand claiming that I could seek redress from the Financial
29 Service commission while also now making known she will oppose the jurisdiction of the
30 Financial Service commission.
31 She also claimed that I didn’t need to wait until all processes (Level 2) are completed, whereas in
32 my view the Financial Service Commission could decline to intervene when not all processes are
33 completed as the courts/tribunals/commission should be the last resort to seek a resolution.
34
35 I am aware that the President/chairman and other board members have failed to respond to my
36 previous writings so far but that is something that can be used against RACV that it unduly
37 caused escalation of problems, etc, when it comes to exemplary damages.
38
39 Because Angela is claiming to oppose the jurisdiction of the Financial service commission then
40 I am left no alternativebut to do an elaborate research into the issues the Royal commission into
41 Financial services canvassed, its recommendations, reports,etc. Obviously this will be a
42 considerable time consuming matter and I would seek compensation to be awarded against
43 RACV to make such an absurd objection to jurisdiction intention beforehand where it needlessly
44 may cause me to go into a considerable research that the Financial Service Commission may find
7-3-2019 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

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, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 was an objection to jurisdiction without any justified legal grounds. After all unless and until a
2 complaint is filed with the Financial Service Commission no proper consideration can be given
3 as to if the Financial Service Commission may or may not have jurisdiction.
4 When I was representing a party as a Professional Advocate the opponent then challenged the
5 jurisdiction of the tribunal. I provided a more than 40 page response setting out why the tribunal
6 was able to invoke jurisdiction and the tribunal held my set out that indeed it had jurisdiction.
7 I in that case held that the opponent at that time had a genuine objection to jurisdiction on what it
8 claimed even so I held its argument was a misconception of the rule of law, as in the end was to
9 be so.
10
11 My wife yet again gave me the understanding that despite being a member of the RACV for
12 more than 50 years the RACV seems to resort to dirty insurance conduct.
13
14
15
16 Post in ground shows Ivey at 105 Part of fence collapsed due to Ivey.
17 The above pictures were included in my 19-9-2018 correspondence.
18
19
20
21 20190219_165558 20190308_072337-105 ivy & deteriorating fence still existing
Page 3
1 It should be clear to any competent lawyer that since 19 September 2018 no work was performed
2 to remove the ivy and the deteriorating fence as todays picture underlines and as such no claim
3 can be made by the RACV that the damages to my property were incurred due to work on the
4 joint deteriorating wooden fence, this as no such work was ever carried out regarding the
5 removal of the ivy and the deteriorating wooden fence. Hence one has to consider the signage:
6
7
8 Then where no permission and/or implied permission neither was requested nor granted than the
9 matters Angela relied upon as to page 24 clearly do not come into play.
10
11
12
13 I will quote below the email correspondence received from Angela and my comments to Tara
14 subsequently, this so that it cannot be claimed that the President/Chairman and other board
Page 4
1 members were unaware of how I view dirty tactics were being used for and on behalf of RACV
2 insurance.
3
4 QUOTE 7-3-2019 email from Angela
5
6 RE: CLARIFICATION NEEDED; Re: Emailing
7 your final decision letter for:
8 RCV193017100
From CR Angela
To gerrit@inspector-rikati.com
Cc Tara Maslin
Date Today 09:18
9
10 Attachments
11 20190306-Schorel-Hlavka Re page 24Re RACV insurance dispute.png (~21 KB)Show
12 options
13 Message Body
14 Good Morning Mr and Mrs Schorel-Hlavka,
15
16 Thank you for your email.
17
18 I need to highlight first and foremost that you are able to submit a dispute through any external sources
19 you to choose now.
20
21 I have provided my final decision letter relating to your dispute on behalf of RACV. There is nothing
22 further to add to this which would hinder the power you have to seek an external review.
23
24 Nevertheless please find some final responses:
25
26 1) Trespass- this is not a listed event within your policy and as such, will not be considered as a part of
27 this dispute. This needs to be taken up via external methods as outlined in my final decision letter. It is
28 not a matter where RACV should be involved.
29 2) Malicious/intentional damage- It is an accepted principle of insurance law that the insured has the
30 onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimed loss or damage is covered under the
31 policy terms and conditions (AFCA may be able to also clarify this with you further).There is no evidence
32 to suggest that the damage to your property was caused maliciously or intentionally. Therefore, this
33 listed event has not been proven and the claim is rightfully declined.
34
35 It’s my view that the matter may be best considered externally -for example court etc.
36
37 I shall be submitting to AFCA (should you lodge a dispute with them); that the matter may fall outside of
38 their jurisdiction to review as the matter in my opinion, would be more suitable to be heard elsewhere. I
39 will also be submitting that the other party has offered to make good all repairs however; you have not
40 accepted this.
41 In the alternate, I will be submitting to AFCA that the claim is not covered as no listed event has been
42 proven.
43
44 Please don’t await further responses prior to escalating the matter if this is what you would like to do. I
45 will provide AFCA all the information they request should they review the matter.
46
Page 5
1 Regards,
2
3
4 ANGELA DONNELLY
5 CUSTOMER RELATIONS SPECIALIST
6 OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE AND ALIGNMENT
7 Phone. +61 7 3087 6901 Ext. 510946
8 Fax. 1800 649 290
9 Email. angela.donnelly@iag.com.au
10
11
12
13 www.iag.com.au
14
15 We help make your world a safer place.
16
17
18 From: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <gerrit@inspector-rikati.com>
19 Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2019 1:26:07 PM
20 To: CR Angela
21 Cc: Gerrit; Tara_Maslin@racv.com.au
22 Subject: CLARIFICATION NEEDED; Re: Emailing your final decision letter for: RCV193017100
23
24 Angela,
25 I refer to your correspondence RACV Final IDR Response RCV193017100.pdf and your
26 document RACV Home PDS 2017- 0317.pdf and as you refer to page 24 I have attached the
27 relevant part relating to matters. I am unable to find any details you refer to
28 QUOTE RACV Final IDR Response RCV193017100.pdf
29 Having considered your submissions, I accept it is your view that the contractor’s act of
30 causing damage to your fencing and retaining wall was wrongful and this act caused harm
31 to your property. However, to establish a valid claim under the RACV’s policy, you must
32 establish the contractor intended to damage your property by this wrongful act. Similarly,
33 reliance on the insured event of vandalism also requires you to establish the same requisite
34 intention.
35 Based on all of the information available, I concur with our previous decision
36 to deny indemnity to you. In this regard, I confirm that you have failed in
37 your onus to establish that the damage to your property was caused by an
38 insurable/listed event (‘establish a prima facie claim’) as outlined on page 24 of
39 the RACV Home Insurance Product Disclosure Statement and Policy Booklet
40 (i.e. ‘Vandalism or a malicious act’).
41 END QUOTE RACV Final IDR Response RCV193017100.pdf
42 It does not provide any such requirements that I need to prove any guilty mind and as I
43 from onset made clear that Mr Adrian Hillman (the contractor) caused trespass by his
44 employee Joe and had no implied permission to enter my property for causing such
45 destruction/damages and I understood from Joe that he was going to dismantle the new
46 retaining wall and the above situated slat fence but was specifically instructed to rip it out,
47 knowing that this would cause damages.

Page 6
1 As I indicated Joe was not to carry out any work on the joint fence and so there was no
2 implied permission to enter my property.
3
4 As such I request you to clarify which part of page 24 of the booklet you claim states that I
5 must prove anything where I had already repeatedly I may add explained that it was a
6 deliberate caused damage?
7
8 As a matter of fact RACV provided me with a renewal policy and checking the pages I find
9 that this is about identical to the wording of page 24 you provided and as such I find no
10 clarification in this booklet either.
11 .
12 I today commenced to file a complaint to the Financial Service Commission only to be

13 thwarted by the failure of you to provide the required policy details to which you seek to
14 rely upon as to page 24.
15 .
16 While you may have had in your mind the requirement to establish something, those who
17 take insurance policies ordinary are not mind readers and as such entitled upon what is
18 actually stated in the documentation.
19
20 Do understand that as I provided even Authorities about trespass and I included images of
21 the signage regarding the same on display on my property and I did not know about the
22 existence of Mr Adrian Hillman and/or his worker Joe until after the destruction/damages
23 had already eventuated then no implied permission to enter could be deemed to have
24 existed. That in itself is in my view sufficient in law that it was trespassing.
25 Considering that criminal litigation by authorities can take years I view it totally
26 unreasonable that RACV (or whomever really is the insurer) can deny a claim in the
27 meantime. It denied the benefit of a insurance policy.
28
29 The fact that I have appropriate signage on display and no implied or other permission was
30 given than that I view should be sufficient for the claim to have been accepted as valid, this
31 as Authorities clearly ruled in the past that a signage is sufficient for this.
32 While my claim was denied, and I remain unaware if the level 2 review did eventuate as you
33 were to my understanding involved in a Level 1 consideration, then obviously RACV and
34 those acting on its behalf are now unduly causing a obstruction for me to provide a detailed
35 complaint to the Financial Service commission.
36 .
37 Again, I am not a mind reader nor could have anticipated that RACV would deny a claim on
38 basis what is not part of the policy at all and so I urge you to clarify your statement with
39 providing the precise working of the policy you seem to rely upon.
40
41 I look forwards to a speedy detailed reply so I can lodge my complaint with appropriate
42 details with the Financial Service Commission.
43 .
Page 7
1 Gerrit
2
3
4 ---
5
6 Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
7 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
8 107 Graham Road
9 Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia
10
11 Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on certain constitutional and other legal
12 issues.
13
14 THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE DISABLED
15
16 On 2019-03-04 10:55, CR Angela wrote:
17 Good Morning Mr and Mrs Schorel-Hlavka,
18
19 Please find as attached my final decision letter in regard to your dispute.
20
21 Warm Regards,
22
23
24
25 ANGELA DONNELLY
26 CUSTOMER RELATIONS SPECIALIST
27 OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE AND ALIGNMENT
28 Phone. +61 7 3087 6901 Ext. 510946
29 Fax. 1800 649 290
30 Email. CRAngela@iag.com.au
31
32
33
34 www.iag.com.au
35
36 We help make your world a safer place.
37
38
39 _____________________________________________________________________
40
41 The information transmitted in this message and its attachments (if any) is intended
42 only for the person or entity to which it is addressed.
43 The message may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review,
44 retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
45 upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
46 prohibited.
47
48 If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail
49 and associated material from any computer.
50
51 The intended recipient of this e-mail may only use, reproduce, disclose or distribute
52 the information contained in this e-mail and any attached files, with the permission
53 of the sender.
54

Page 8
1 This message has been scanned for viruses.

2 _____________________________________________________________________
3
4 _____________________________________________________________________
5
6 The information transmitted in this message and its attachments (if any) is intended
7 only for the person or entity to which it is addressed.
8 The message may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review,
9 retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
10 upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
11 prohibited.
12
13 If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail
14 and associated material from any computer.
15
16 The intended recipient of this e-mail may only use, reproduce, disclose or distribute
17 the information contained in this e-mail and any attached files, with the permission
18 of the sender.
19
20 This message has been scanned for viruses.
21 _____________________________________________________________________
22 END QUOTE 7-3-2019 email from Angela
23
24 QUOTE 7-3-2019 email to Tara
25 Gerrit to Tara re Angelas misconceptions, etc.
From Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
To Tara_Maslin@racv.com.au
Reply-To gerrit@inspector-rikati.com, CRAngela@iag.com.au
Reply-To gerrit@inspector-rikati.com, CRAngela@iag.com.au
Date Thu 20:23
26
27 Message Body
28 Tara_Maslin@racv.com.au
29
30 Cc; CRAngela@iag.com.au
31
32 Tara,
33 I understand you received a copy of 09.18 7-3-2019 email from Angela.
34 I did request you to clarify level 2 and as I indicated to Angela what purports to be her final
35 decision would violate a Level 2 review you referred to this as she was Level 1 and cannot
36 review her own decision.
37
38 I understand that Angela despite having referred to the Financial Service Commission as an
39 option she now appears to object to its jurisdiction.
40 .
41 I understand that not only an opposing party but even a party itself can institute and appeal
42 and then object to the jurisdiction of the commission/tribunal/court. Indeed I have over the
43 decades done so. Hence, I recognise the right of whomever is in a matter to object to the
44 jurisdiction of the commission/court/tribunal.
45 .

Page 9
1 I am also aware, which Angela appears not to understand, that to litigate in a court/tribunal
2 or before a commission should be the last resort where all other avenues have been
3 explored but not resolved the matter. As the level 2 review has not been completed, as
4 Angela is in my view in no position to do so, then her purported FINAL decision is not as
5 such and I view is deceptive and misleading.
6 Angela appears to rely also upon Mr Adrian Hillman that he is willing to do some repairs or
7 whatever, but let be clear about it he never even provided any details how he intended to
8 do so where the damaged items to my knowledge are no longer for sale and as I maintain
9 in the master-servant issue it is Jellis-Craig Eltham who indicated to have provided written
10 instructions and as such I view they are ultimately liable for the cost of any
11 repair/replacement, etc.
12 As for Angela’s comments as to my onus to prove, I have from onset made clear that the
13 destruction/damage was intentional as it could have been avoided. Indeed Mr Adrian
14 Hillman specifically directed his worker Joe to inflict the damages, where Joe was going to
15 dismantle the new retaining wall and the slat fence above it without causing damages.
16
17 While the issue of trespass is an issue that I made a complaint about to the Victorian Police
18 and the Court ultimately is to decide that matter, nevertheless considering that I did
19 provide details to the RACV that without prior permission entry was prohibited and no such
20 permission was requires nor granted (implied or otherwise) then for all purposes and intent
21 the trespass existed. When a person makes an insurance claim it is utter and sheer
22 nonsense to expect an insurance claim to be dealt with when the courts perhaps after
23 years, as they do have other litigation before it, finally could attend to the matter. As an
24 insured party I am entitled to a reasonable solution and have the claim granted without
25 undue delay.
26 .
27 As I indicated also even as up to today the deteriorating wooden fe3nce and the ivy have
28 remained in place without any work having even been attempted on this and hence this
29 underlines that at no time Mr Adrian Hillman was instructed and was to remove the
30 deteriorating wooden fence and/or the ivy. As I made clear previously his worker Joe had
31 only a small crowbar and no tools to remove the ivy roots from the ground, etc.
32 While Angela refers to that trespass is not listed in the insurance policy it should be clear
33 that the very page 24 she referred to does refer to that where a person is by consent
34 entering a property then this may cause any damage not being claimable (I put it in my
35 working) and hence I held the onus was upon me, as I did so, to indicate no implied or
36 otherwise was permission given to enter my property and cause the destruction/damage as
37 eventuated.
38 It appears to me that Angela simply misconceive issues. I am concerned that she might
39 perhaps do likewise with other claims and that is a serious matter.
40 .
41 As I provided the set out of an Authority what constitute trespass, then it is not for me to
42 prove it beyond reasonable doubt as that is a court issue, I by having the signage have
43 shown that in all circumstances entry was not permitted and that is precisely what page 24
44 is about.
45 I also made clear that I could not accept any dealings with Mr Adrian Hillman in that for all I
46 know he could simply resort to collecting some rusted galvanised iron from the street and
47 use that. I am entitled to having the destroyed items rectified to my satisfaction. Indeed,
48 had I engaged with making arrangements with Mr Adrian Hillman then I could have
49 jeopardized my right to claim under the insurance policy, this as Jellis Craig Eltham was the
Page 10
1 instructor which they acknowledged themselves claiming to have given WRITTEN

2 INSTRUCTIONS.
3 Therefore it is for the RACV to sort out the issue as to master-servant in regard of liability of
4 cost, not my issue.
5 As for any trespass that is a criminal matter and it would be for Mr Adrian Hillman in light of
6 the signage to prove he was not trespassing, etc, or that he had just cause such as a
7 purported court order, etc. He might claim that Jellis Craig Eltham instructed him to
8 deliberate destroy/damage the new retaining wall and the above situated slat fence say that
9 it was built on the 105 property. Clearly, this is a court issue but on face value RACV as the
10 insurance company must honour the claim where I for all purposes and intend provided
11 comprehensive details to justify my claim.
12
13 Gerrit
14 --
15
16 Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
17 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
18 107 Graham Road
19 Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia
20
21 Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on certain constitutional and other legal
22 issues.
23
24 THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE DISABLED
25 END QUOTE 7-3-2019 email to Tara
26
27 I foreshadow that for so far it might be required I will pursue for the Commonwealth to provide
28 for retrospective legislation that in regard of the Financial Service Commission an objector to
29 jurisdiction shall have the onus of disproving the jurisdiction of the Financial Service
30 Commission. This as the objection to jurisdiction would be an unfair conduct where most people
31 seeking to resolve a matter through the Financial Service Commission may not be so legally
32 savvy to understand and being able to appropriately respond to such objection to jurisdiction and
33 then be denied the assistance of the Financial Service Commission in blatant conflict to the
34 intentions of the Royal Commission into Financial Services. For example, that where a party has
35 at the time of an incident for which an insurance claim is lodged is unable to have the matter
36 resolved with the insurance company with whom a policy at the time was held then the Financial
37 Service Commission shall be deemed to have jurisdiction unless the insurance company can
38 prove otherwise.
39
40 After all, Angela is not disputing there was an insurance policy. She seems to argue that the issue
41 of trespass is not relevant, whereas her very documentation of page 24 specifically rules out any
42 insurance claim where it involved a person of the household and/or a person entering with
43 permission of the insured and as such by presenting details it was malicious damage by trespass
44 clearly proved that the malicious damage was outside page 24 exclusion.
45 It is not relevant for me to prove in a court of law that trespass eventuated to be able to claim for
46 malicious damages as that would be a criminal case against the contractor. It is sufficient that I
47 showed I had signage which made it trespassing where a person entered my property without
48 prior permission.
49 Therefore the onus is upon the RACV to disprove my set out and this would be for the RACV to
50 take matters to court if that is what it desired.

Page 11
1 For all intent and purposes I have a valid claim against RACV and while RACV can so to say
2 use any dirty tactic in the book it is not going to advance its case a but it rather it will escalate
3 problems for which RACV can be held liable for unconscious and other deplorable conduct.
4 .
5 I am assuming Angela is a dirty lawyer in view that her responses appears to be that of a lawyer
6 and I view includes dirty tactics. Obviously where the RACV relied on this then I view the
7 RACV is using dirty insurance company tactics.
8
9 Again, would the RACV persist to object to the jurisdiction of the Financial Service Commission
10 to thwart any rightful claim then the Financial Service Commission would be entitled to provide
11 for special compensation where it would hold it has jurisdiction.
12
13 For the record any commission/tribunal/court cannot hear a matter in dispute at the same time it
14 hears an objection to jurisdiction and as such the Financial Service Commission would first
15 require to hold a special hearing to deal with the objection to jurisdiction Angela has
16 foreshadowed. If it then decide it has jurisdiction it then can commence to hear the matter in
17 dispute, albeit that is a complete new hearing.
18
19 I am obviously concerned that RACV is so to say using a dirty lawyer for no other purpose to try
20 to avoid its legal obligation to settle a claim in an appropriate manner without undue delay.
21
22 Because Jellis Craig Eltham itself relied upon the admission of liability by their contractor there
23 is no doubt that therefore they were in the wrong.
24
25 In particular considering the details of page 24 upon which Angela so much relies upon it would
26 be absurd to expect me to let this contractor enter my property who then very well could further
27 cause malicious damages.
28
29 Considering the trauma this contractor so far caused it would be ridiculous for the RACV to
30 expect that then I would allow this contractor to enter my property as this could and likely would
31 cause further trauma upon my wife.
32
33 As I made clear that Jellis Craig Eltham as the master in the master-servant situation did claimed
34 to have given WRITTEN INSTRUCTION for the contractor to perform work, and clearly no
35 work was performed regarding the ivy and the deteriorating wooden fence ever since 19
36 September 2018 (now nearly 6 months later) then it is implied it instructed its contractor to
37 demolish/damage my private property. While JellisCraig Eltham may have inadvertly approved
38 any quote to destroy my new retaining wall and slate fence situated above it nevertheless it must
39 be deemed liable. While Jellis Craig Eltham may not have personally inspected the area and
40 have been aware of the signage that in itself cannot excuse itself for authorizing the destruction
41 damages. The fact that since the destruction/damages Jellis Craig Eltham had no contractor
42 attending to the ivy and the deteriorating wooden fence it means that more than 3 months later it
43 clearly had no intention to have this removed, as such the destruction of the new retaining wall
44 and slat fence situated above it could have been its only purpose to have a contractor doing so.
45
46 While the issue of how much Jellis Craig Eltham might be legally liable as to the trespassing is
47 for a court to determine pending the issues raised by the contractor and Jellis Craig Eltham but as
48 I obtained an admission of liability then that is all I needed for purpose to avoid this page 24
49 exclusion to be applied.
50

Page 12
1 Contrary to what Angela appears to argue I have no duty for insurance claim purposes to prove
2 beyond reasonable doubt that the contractor had a GUILTY MIND this as that is for a court to
3 determine in any criminal legal proceedings, for me all that was needed was to obtain an
4 admission of liability to underline it was trespassing in violation to the terms set out in the
5 signage. It would be reasonable to hold that if indeed the contractor in error had destroyed the
6 new retaining wall and above it situated slat fence then Jellis Craig Eltham would have ensured
7 that a contractor, most likely another contractor, would have attended to remove the ivy and the
8 deteriorating wooden fence. As Jellis Craig Eltham after more than 3 months did not have a
9 contractor attending to this then it is reasonable to hold that it never intended to have the
10 deteriorating wooden fence and the ivy to be removed.
11 It should not be ignored that Jellis Craig Eltham as the agency managing the property of 105
12 Graham Road, Viewbank has certain responsibilities and liabilities toward the safety and
13 wellbeing of the tenants and yet failed to act at least in my view, to at the very least remove the
14 ivy which as I reported contains spiders which could harm the tenants 1 year old toddler. The
15 fact that I reported to Jellis Craig that recently I appeared to have fallen ill having walked,
16 unaware there was a spider web, from the ivy to my vehicle itself ought to underline that Jellis
17 Craig Eltham fails its liabilities and responsibilities as an agent for the 105 property.
18
19 It must be clear that the destruction/damage to my new retaining wall and the above situated slat
20 fence and not to ignore the damage to my car paint was not in relation to any works that were b
21 eing carried out on the 105 property and neither carried out by consent or implied consent to
22 enter my 107 property. Therefore the admission of liability means it was an admission of
23 unlawful conduct! In my view the RACV as the insurance company has its obligation to sort out
24 the dynamics between Jellis Craig Eltham and their contractor as to what is which party liable
25 for, but that is not my issue to have the claim honoured against RACV insurance.
26
27 In my view the indication by Angela to object to the jurisdiction of the Financial Service
28 Commission is clearly an unjustified and abuse of the legal processes not justified in the
29 circumstances and designed to undermine the intentions of the recommendations of the Royal
30 Commission Financial Services and so that of the Government to implements its
31 recommendations. It to me underline that RACV is not the least concerned to act in an
32 honourable and appropriate manner.
33
34 A MAJOR CONCERN IS that considering the conditions of page 24 it is now a real concern to
35 anyone that if they agree for a neighbor to engage a contractor being it to repair/replace a fence
36 or other works and this contractor say then goes on to destroy the property instead then RACV
37 would rely upon page 24 conditions that the person cannot claim having agreed for the contractor
38 to enter the property, this even so the contractor was merely permitted to enter regarding the
39 works contracted out for and not to destroy anything else. For this my view is that the page 24
40 conditions must be narrowed to any damages cause directly related to the proposed/contracted
41 work that was agreed to. Because I stipulated to require prior notification then where no such
42 prior notification was provided whatsoever then for this also no consent, implied or otherwise,
43 could have existed and hence page 24 conditions could not be claimed to exist. In my view in
44 the circumstances RACV insurances should be suspended from operating insurances.
45
46 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
47 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
48 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®
49 (Our name is our motto!)


20190308-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Netta M Griffin, President & Chairman of The Board, and All Other Members of The Board

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

20190308-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Netta M Griffin, President & Chairman of The Board, and All Other Members of The Board

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Page 1

7-3-2019 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

28 QUOTE RACV Final IDR Response RCV193017100.pdf

7-3-2019 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

12 I today commenced to file a complaint to the Financial Service Commission only to be

7-3-2019 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 This message has been scanned for viruses.

33 I understand you received a copy of 09.18 7-3-2019 email from Angela.

7-3-2019 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 instructor which they acknowledged themselves claiming to have given WRITTEN

7-3-2019 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

7-3-2019 Page 11 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

48 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

49 (Our name is our motto!)

You might also like