Latest News

20 000 seriously aggrieved former franchisees - AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIA - Reports passed on to this site show that there are about 950 franchisors and 74,000 franchisees in Australia. In addition to those franchisees it would appear that there are about 20,000 seriously aggrieved former-franchisees who have their own horror stories to tell politicians of all stripes.

Government take note! 950 votes, or 74 000 votes.

We are making demand for law reform, the gravy train......

Write Comment (10 comments)

ACCC claims not enough evidence-24 June 08

One of the most incredible statements that I witnessed in channel 7's today tonight story about Franchising, was in the statement that despite 16 references of unconsionable conduct by Bakers Delight Franchisees reported to the ACCC, they were unable to prosecute.

It is my understanding of our Westminister legal systems of law that you need 3 witnesses, yes 3 witnesses is a sufficient base of evidence of proof that will return a verdict that will send a theif to prison, a sex offender to prison, a negligent driver to a positive conviction, a murderer to the gallows!

But 16 Franchisees does not produce sufficient evidence for the ACCC.

Yes you guessed it, just 3 witnesses is sufficient for the High Court of Australia.

But 16 Franchisees, is not sufficient for the ACCC -------- Apparently!

Despite repeated complaints to ACCC about bullying, unconsionalbe conduct, intimidation, price fixing and numerous more complaints -- the ACCC has no evidence.

Since when, does witness testimony count for nothing?

Since the ACCC makes itself judge, jury and executioner! Sounds like a Franchise contract to me!

Write Comment (4 comments)

Today Tonight - 20 June 08

Channel 7's Today Tonight reports....

20 June 08 - Click here to play this video now 514 views in the first two days!

14 October 07 - Click here to play this video now

Write Comment (3 comments)

Witness testimony counts for nothing when words ACCC and Franchising in the same sentence-24 June08

The ACCC's publication "Franchising Code of Conduct Compliance Manual for Franchisors and Master Franchisees" page 46 and published 03/08 under the sub-heading "Investigations" states:

Although the ACCC records and assesses every complaint it receives, not all complaints are pursued. The information obtained from individual complaints is recorded on the ACCC's complaints database and may be used to establish a pattern of behaviour by a particular industry participant or part of an industry.

The ACCC gives priority to matters of complaints that:
- show a blatant disregard for the law
- will cause significant public detriment
- provide outcomes that will have educational or deterrent effects
- include unconscionable conduct against small business
- will clarify the reach and meaning of the Act.

The ACCC is likely to direct disputes to the Mediation Adviser at the first instance. However, if an industry participant has blantantly disregarded the code, the ACCC may take immediate action.

Can Graeme Samuel now explain why:

1. I was told by the ACCC that a case could only be assessed on its own merits and when I asked why when several had complained of the same conduct a pattern of behaviour could obviously be identified that I was told that it couldn't be done.

2. When I stated that I thought a few more former franchisees would be submitting complaints I was told not to get too many to come forward as they wouldn't be able to handle the complaints (or was it in fact that they really didn't want to have a database identifying a pattern of behaviour for this particular Franchisor?)

3. Why was I told unconscionable is too difficult to prove?

4. Why am I being told that unconscionable conduct results in trading losses. Yes it can, but one can be the victim of bullying and intimidation and still make a profit (just imagine what the profit would be without being subject to this type of conduct).

You will notice that this section of the manual contains the magic words "may" - this certainly appears to give them the excuse not to do the hard yards.

Proving compliance or non-complicance of Disclosure Requirements is the easy stuff - they only have to read words on paper and match it up with the code.

But actually having to do some investigative work and researching (their own database)to see if similar complaints have been lodged previously - well what can I say - it seems they are not even aware that they have the power to compare.

And don't even get me started on asking for a minor clarification of the recent amendments to the code - no clarification at all was forthcoming - only a copy of the changes were emailed to me - if the "regulators" can't or aren't prepared to give me an interpretation - who on earth can??

Apparently witness testimony counts for nothing when you have the words ACCC and Franchising in the same sentence.