Part 2 ACCC - Letter to Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

The letter to the ACCC dated 5 August 2020, continued:

RE: Advice on a complaint against a funeral business in breach of contract and multiple unsuccessful attempts made toward a fair resolution

NCAT incidence that was the final traumatic experience we (the family) could handle

A few more years lapsed due to family adversities, one of which was caused by this unresolved issue. We are not experts in the law, nor understand legal jargon regarding how long we have to bring such a matter to the NCAT. The procedures and communication by the NCAT were also of a very poor standard, leaving us open to even more trauma and distress.

In the application, finally submitted in February 2020, we wrote the following (all these records have been attached to this enquiry):

We are seeking this order because Acropolis Funerals subjected us, the family, to serious emotional and psychological injury, anguish and distress by:

1. not following our instructions as recorded in the 'Funeral Agreement', as paid for and as expected;

2. making arrangements and decisions with relatives, and simply informing us on the morning of the funeral;

3. providing a funeral car for seven people without our knowledge, authorisation and consent;

4. refusing to admit to any wrongdoing;

5. refusing to apologise for disrespecting and ignoring our wishes as recorded in a legally binding contract;

6. making us feel that they in fact did us a favour by providing these people with a funeral car free of charge (a vehicle we did not want there in the first place);

7. making excuses to justify their actions through the investigations conducted by Fair Trading NSW and the Funeral Directors' Association of NSW;

8. telling us that they had to obey the wishes of a priest above and beyond the wishes of the immediate family;

9. telling us that they provided this priest (and six other people) with the car because they "knew him personally through doing much business for him" and so felt "it would not be a problem providing him and six other people with a car for the funeral cortege";

10. insulting us by telling us they were following Greek Orthodox tradition by providing a priest with a funeral car irrespective of the family's wishes, when in fact what they did had nothing to do with Greek Orthodox tradition, but was simply highly unethical and unprofessional behaviour on their behalf.

28 February 2020

Our payment was processed and a date set for the hearing. However, we had a bad feeling regarding whether we were still within the legal timeframe for this hearing to proceed. I assumed we were, given the payment was processed and a date set. For reassurance and peace of mind, two days before the hearing, we called the NCAT to enquire regarding this timeframe. We were anxious to avoid any more horrendous attitude and humiliation toward us by the funeral directors of this business. The customer service on its own, was appalling. The staff member was discourteous, disinterested, had an attitude that needs to be addressed, advised us to attend and we would be told what needed to be done [on the day]. Thanks to this NCAT staff member, our worst nightmare we wanted to avoid, was realised.

The disgusting attitude and behaviour, like some form of triumph, from the two representatives of this poor excuse of a funeral service, was the last straw, especially how they behaved in front of my mother. It was horrendous, and from what I know, these hearings a voice recorded. The case was withdrawn for the only reason being it was now outside the legal timeframe. We have attempted to seek closure so we can heal for 10 years! This was the final emotional blow we could take. Are we really forced to accept this and live with these open wounds for life? This business had a legal obligation to abide by our wishes. We had entrusted them to do the simple things we agreed on, to ensure we had closure as part of our healing.

When the outcome of the hearing was emailed to me from the NCAT, I responded with a complaint / enquiry (all these records are attached) [to quote]:

“May I ask why the online application went through without any problems and payment processed, considering it was passed the date this matter could be heard? We also tried to clarify the actual law regarding timeframe to resolve a dispute by calling the number regarding questions about NCAT processes. We felt the lady was dismissive of our question and told us to just attend and we would be told there what to do.

This case was against a funeral business that displayed professional misconduct beyond only a breach of contract. Today we experienced further emotional trauma having been subjected to the funeral director’s continuous display of insensitive and disrespectful behaviour. It was something we could have avoided had our enquiry been professionally and properly addressed when we called on Wednesday.

Having to be subjected to more trauma and being further stripped of our dignity as a family and paying for it too, both financially and emotionally, was something we could have avoided if proper guidance was given when we called and asked on Wednesday.

I’m assuming this email showing that the case was dismissed / terminated has also gone to the funeral business. The whole “system” of NCAT, where no one was willing to explain how this works, succeeded in a new open bleeding wound with the funeral director walking out of the courtroom gloating and smirking at us.

We are about to put them on notice via a consumer lawyer, but today dealt us another blow of trauma and emotional distress we didn’t need.

The communication in this whole process has been appalling.”

An automated email reply alerted me that I would receive a response within 5 working days. I never received a response.

Legal advice from a law firm on consumer law 

We were in such distress and shock regarding this incident, we immediately walked a few blocks to a legal firm in Sutherland after the hearing at Sutherland Local Court. It was when seeking legal advice that we were informed about the dash in the extra car item line. We were already suspicious why the current funeral director (she was a representative back then, her family has since bought the business) had not signed the agreement, but we had no idea regarding the dash. Based on the law, this “dash” protected them. We had indeed, specifically stated that we only wanted one car for three people. How is it fair for us, at that time, that we had to insist that it was put in writing in the contract? We informed the representative no extra car, just the one sedan for the immediate family. Were we to know a dash was going to protect this unethical business and, furthermore, give these funeral directors a confident attitude to smirk, be rude and disrespectful toward us? How is that displaying compassion and quality service? Where is the accountability for unconscionable conduct in our case?

This is what we suspect happened that gave this unethical business an extremely unfair advantage (insider information is as corrupt as insider trading in my opinion). Kon Grillis’ brother is the priest at St. Athanasius Greek Orthodox Chapel at Rookwood Cemetery. Fr. John most likely pre-informed the then funeral director, his brother, Kon Grillis, that we were related to the priest at Liverpool and there was a history of “issues” between us. Our family was highly regarded in this community, given my brother studied Theology under the late Archbishop. All the priests in the community knew us due to my brother’s studies and association and they also knew we were estranged from a certain priest for serious personal reasons.

If this is the case, and knowing how these people operate, especially in this community, many abusing their position of “authority” as clergy, everything that happened to us was extremely underhanded. That we could possibly be betrayed even before the representative of Acropolis Funerals came to our home to prepare the service is unconscionable conduct. In order to make sure the business was protected from any possible legal action taken later in case this fellow priest demanded his own arrangements for the funeral too, Fr. John most likely informed his brother to seek legal advice to cover themselves.

We now understood why they had such an arrogant attitude. Their argument was that they did everything we agreed, as written in the contract. But after speaking to a consumer lawyer, it was all in the dash placed in the extra car section. That apparently meant that anything above and on top of what we had agreed in the contract was extra and would not be charged to the family. We NEVER agreed to this or were informed. This unethical business took advantage of our vulnerability and also disadvantaged us by withholding information / not being transparent in their communication as well as having private information that they also used to their advantage.

We paid for our car which was the only one agreed in the contract. I’ve heard horror stories regarding this industry and how unethical they can be. On the day of the funeral, my family and I all had our eyes fixated on the hearse that carried my father. Only later when we could gather our thoughts did we think about the betrayal and deceit by Acropolis Funerals.

Part 3 is a continuation of the letter, covering consumer rights regarding contracts that I discovered on the NSW Fair Trading website in 2020. 

For now I also provide a link to the Australian Consumer Law - Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Schedule (Cth). 

https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewtoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/toc-sch2.html. 

I particularly draw attention from S.18 of the Act, onwards, of clauses breached by Acropolis Funerals.  

I hope that my family, who will be reading this post, re-read the fine print, and consider seeking advice from someone in the legal profession who is socially just, ethical and who will actually look after the interests of clients taken advantage of, in their most vulnerable time, by an unscrupulous funeral business. At the very least, it’s important people know our experience, and what happened to us. 

 

 A partial snapshot of the contract