Updated 11/06/2009
On the 26th of February 2009 I informed the NRMA of the launch of this website. This quickly prompted a chain of events and legal intimidations by William Roberts Lawyers on behalf of (IAG) Insurance Australia Limited.
This link is a copy of the letter received from William Roberts Lawyers. On behalf of their client (IAG) NRMA I was given 72 hours to have this website removed after which they will seek an injunction to have my site shut down.
On the 26th of February 2009 I informed the NRMA of the launch of this website. This quickly prompted a chain of events and legal intimidations by William Roberts Lawyers on behalf of (IAG) Insurance Australia Limited.
This link is a copy of the letter received from William Roberts Lawyers. On behalf of their client (IAG) NRMA I was given 72 hours to have this website removed after which they will seek an injunction to have my site shut down.
 |
©2009 R Deren All Rights Reserved
If you have a comment or story and would like to add it to this site you are more than welcome to contact me and upload your story. CLICK HERE
On the 9th of February I replied to the letter received from Robert Ishak of Robert Williams Lawyers. In my reply I clarified dates and times of events that occurred as most of the content in his letter was incorrect. I also informed Robert Williams Lawyers that I will not sarcome to their threats and that the contents of this site was factual and supported by documents supplied by their own client NRMA, to this I refer to documents altered for the purpose of submission to the Ombudsman. Many would call this fraud.
My reply to Robert Williams Lawyers on the 9th of February 2009, triggered a request to attend their offices in Pyrmont urgently on the 14th of February 2009 at 3:0pm, being valentines day.
First I was requested to sign a confidentiality agreement before the meeting could proceed. In all honesty nothing discussed in this meeting wasn’t already public knowledge. In this meeting I was informed that the meeting had nothing to do with this website. Still several references and requests were made to the website, including their clients rights to take legal action for the existence of this site.
In this meeting Robert Ishak informed me he was acting on my behalf and that he was there serving my interests. The first question and thought that came to mind was this even ethical to make such a comment when he is engaged by (IAG) NRMA.
Robert Ishak would further make requests for me to engage a solicitor. I responded by saying, “I will can not afford a solicitor so you and your client can continue back and forth with correspondences, further costing me tens of thousand and sending me further into crippling debt with no return”.
Upon leaving this meeting Williams Roberts Lawyers were given two options to resolve my claim, one was a cash settlement figure to place me back to my financial position prior to the storms, the other was for their client NRMA to repair or replace my home to the state it was prior to the storms in 2007 and to compensate me for my financial losses that resulted from their actions. Robert Williams Lawyers were also informed that legally I could not claim the settlement that has been offered to date and the reasons why.
From this point onwards I received no written correspondences, just a few brief phone calls from Robert Williams Lawyers, that was until the 7th of April 2009. On the 6th of April I informed Robert Williams Layers, that local council had issued me with a letter, with the intent to take legal actions for the state and condition of the pool that is a health risk to surrounding neighbours.
First I was requested to sign a confidentiality agreement before the meeting could proceed. In all honesty nothing discussed in this meeting wasn’t already public knowledge. In this meeting I was informed that the meeting had nothing to do with this website. Still several references and requests were made to the website, including their clients rights to take legal action for the existence of this site.
In this meeting Robert Ishak informed me he was acting on my behalf and that he was there serving my interests. The first question and thought that came to mind was this even ethical to make such a comment when he is engaged by (IAG) NRMA.
Robert Ishak would further make requests for me to engage a solicitor. I responded by saying, “I will can not afford a solicitor so you and your client can continue back and forth with correspondences, further costing me tens of thousand and sending me further into crippling debt with no return”.
Upon leaving this meeting Williams Roberts Lawyers were given two options to resolve my claim, one was a cash settlement figure to place me back to my financial position prior to the storms, the other was for their client NRMA to repair or replace my home to the state it was prior to the storms in 2007 and to compensate me for my financial losses that resulted from their actions. Robert Williams Lawyers were also informed that legally I could not claim the settlement that has been offered to date and the reasons why.
From this point onwards I received no written correspondences, just a few brief phone calls from Robert Williams Lawyers, that was until the 7th of April 2009. On the 6th of April I informed Robert Williams Layers, that local council had issued me with a letter, with the intent to take legal actions for the state and condition of the pool that is a health risk to surrounding neighbours.
Robert Ishak of Robert Williams Lawyers sharply followed up to my letter on behalf of their client (IAG) NRMA. Again I was sent the same letter for cash settlement without any additional funds to make repairs to the pool equipment but it now included repairs to all pool equipment that had failed during warrantee, for which the NRMA took no responsibility and even denied they had ever repaired or replaced after the storms.
I immediately responded, informing Robert Williams Lawyers that their client and the Ombudsman had never included the pool in the settlement offer. I also reminded Robert Ishak that these repairs had all failed within 5 months of there replacement and that their client (IAG) NRMA refused to carry out warrantee repairs and even informed the Ombudsman they had never made any replacement repairs. Replacement repairs for which I now have a copy of the repair invoice. Just another lie by your client.
I continued to keep Robert Williams Lawyers informed of the pending foreclosure of the home. I made one last final attempt to make claim to the settlement offer made by (IAG) NRMA which would not secure the home but limit my losses after foreclosure and leave me standing with a few dollars in my pocket.
On Monday the 4th of May 2009 at 7:15pm I received a phone call from Robert Ishak of Robert Williams Lawyers, verbally outlining the (IAG) NRMA acceptance of the terms and conditions outlined in my letter on the 24th of April 2007. For a moment I felt a little relief knowing I can now limit my losses financially. That was until I asked that Robert Ishak to respond in writing the acceptance of these terms and conditions he had just spoken about. This was to follow by Robert Ishak becoming heated and his refusal to place in writing the acceptance of terms. After which I was informed that (IAG) NRMA reserve their right to take legal for my website, for which I took as a clear threat. Mr Ishak then continued to state he has already sent me a letter of acceptance via email earlier being a reply received on the 7th of April 2009.
Clearly this response on the 7th of April has no reflection to the terms outlined on the 24th of April 2009 and said to be accepted by (IAG) NRMA on the night of 4th of May 2009.
I am not sure about others opinions, to me for a legal firm to carry on like this is not only unprofessional but very unethical.
Clearly this response on the 7th of April has no reflection to the terms outlined on the 24th of April 2009 and said to be accepted by (IAG) NRMA on the night of 4th of May 2009.
I am not sure about others opinions, to me for a legal firm to carry on like this is not only unprofessional but very unethical.
On the 19th of May 2009 my home was passed over for foreclosure, to date it appears not only am I unable to collect the settlement offer but the company handling the foreclosure also has no legal rights to claim the settlement, which will now leave me with $200K plus in debt after the sale of the family home. While the (IAG) NRMA get to retain their cash settlement offer.
To this very day (IAG) NRMA still maintain they have done all they can to place me back in my home. What the public need to realise is the anyone could be next in this web of deceit which is a very common practice by the NRMA.
To this very day (IAG) NRMA still maintain they have done all they can to place me back in my home. What the public need to realise is the anyone could be next in this web of deceit which is a very common practice by the NRMA.