eMAIL 11

 

Good afternoon Ray, .................. Thank you for your further email in relation to your case CN21-216239. .................. I will firstly address your concerns about the easement rights at your property. Where TasNetworks has electrical infrastructure on any property which was established prior to 6 November 1996 and is not benefitted by either a registered or unregistered easement, TasNetworks has a statutory easement over that property. A deemed easement (known as a statutory easement) gives TasNetworks specific rights over that property generally and over the safety corridor relating to the infrastructure. .................. Deemed easements also allow for access through neighbouring properties if necessary to complete works. The authority and applicable rights and restrictions of deemed easements are outlined in the Electricity Wayleaves and Easements Act 2000. .................. Please feel free to click on the below link to the TasNetworks public website for further information pertaining to easements. .................. https://www.tasnetworks.com.au/statutory-easements .................. Please be assured that the concerns you raised in relation to our Vegetation Officer who attended your property have been forwarded onto Management, and these will be addressed in line with TasNetworks’ internal procedures. .................. Your case with TasNetworks has now been closed, and any further concerns you may have in relation to this matter should be forwarded to the Energy Ombudsman via the following online link. .................. Energy Ombudsman Tasmania https://secure.justice.tas.gov.au/ombudsman_resolve_update/energy_ombudsman_complaint_form.................. However, please be aware that this outcome complies with TasNetworks’ processes and policies. .................. Kind Regards XXXXXXX Stacey Customer Advocacy Officer Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd ABN 24 167 357 299 P 03 6271 6731 | E Customer.Advocacyteam@tasnetworks.com.au 1 – 7 Maria Street, Lenah Valley 7008 PO Box 606, Moonah TAS 7009 www.tasnetworks.com.au

eMAIL #10

 

eMAIL #9

 Dear Ministers et al, [Police & Energy] 

RE: QUESTION Regarding Police Surveillance and Attendance in the circumstance of a Government corporate body wishing to access private property without permission 

On November 4 2021 a TASnetworks Vegetation Officer, when I denied his contractors’ access to our property, he advised me, paraphrased, that if he deemed it necessary ‘his contractors would attend my property, access it via a ‘cherry picker’ under the supervision of the police if necessary’ – or words very much to that effect. ...................... Having had some time to consider all the implications of such an assertion I am left wondering under just what circumstance a member of TASnetworks staff – or indeed any other Government authority – could uninitiate such an action and with what veracity? ...................... I find myself quite disturbed that any citizen might be subject to such ‘bureaucratic bullying’ given that in this instance it has all the hallmarks of ‘ageism and rankism’. Aside from any of that it is extraordinarily poor marketing under the circumstances. ...................... I look forward with considerable interest to whatever advice I can receive in order to truly contextualise the experiences we have been exposed to in this instance. ...................... Yours sincerely, ...................... Ray Norman .

FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES: CN21-216239 - 8000024536 40 Delamere Cres TREVALLYN TAS 7250 - Vegetation Management Dispute … https://taznetworkissues.blogspot.com/

eMAIL #8

 

Dear XXXXX

RE: CN21-216239 - 8000024536 40 Delamere Cres TREVALLYN TAS 7250 - Vegetation Management Dispute 

 I acknowledge your email, however I vigorously dispute the whole conceptual premise and the consequent ‘deeming’ around which it is framed. Moreover, you make assertions but you provide no evidence whatsoever for the easement you assert TASnetworks has across our property for instance. If you have such evidence why haven’t you provided it? .................. To be clear, I was in dispute in regard to the propositions put to me by TASnetworks from the very first instance, and I continue to dispute the propositions you pose as equitable ‘solutions to my problem’. Rather, any ‘problem’ here rests with your ‘corporation’ given that TASnetworks is the ‘service provider’ with obligations that fall to your ‘corporate entity’ that are not being willingly met currently and thus ‘the problem here’ is inextricably linked to TASnetworks obligations to its customer at 42a Delamere Crescent with whom I have no relationship whatsoever. .................. TASnetworks’ vegetation crew did as you say attend, and as agreed on the 4th of November 2021, in order to mitigate the perceived safety issues, and yes the vegetation was trimmed the minimum required from the tree (500mm) with a hand saw for that purpose. I agreed to that outcome ‘for safety reasons alone’ and as an interim measure until an equitable outcome is arrived at. Nothing that you have presented to us thus far satisfies our expectations. .................. Please see … https://taznetworkissues.blogspot.com/2021/11/email-7.html .................. Regards,... Ray Norman

eMAIL #7

Good afternoon Ray, 

Thank you for contacting the TasNetworks Customer Advocacy Team in relation to your vegetation enquiry. ...................... I have completed my investigation into your case, and please find below confirmation of the options provided by the TasNetworks Vegetation management team. ...................... The service line in question is crossing your property boundary, therefore TasNetworks is required to maintain the vegetation to a compliant and safe distance from the line. Our vegetation crew attended as agreed on the 4th of November 2021, and trimmed the minimum required from the tree (500mm) with a hand saw. ...................... If you prefer that TasNetworks or its contractors do not enter your property, you may wish to consider the following options:- 

The neighbouring service line can be relocated at the customer’s cost, which would be a private matter between your neighbour and yourself. 

You are able to engage an authorised vegetation contractor of your choice in order to maintain the vegetation encroaching on the service line. 

If you do not wish to consider either of the above options, TasNetworks will be required to continue maintaining the vegetation within a safe distance of the service line. ...................... Please feel free to click on the below link if you require further clarification on where responsibilities start and finish in relation to vegetation maintenance. ...................... Maintaining trees near powerlines - TasNetworks ...................... We request that any further contact in relation to this matter be directed to the following email address:- Customer.Advocacyteam@tasnetworks.com.au Please refrain from any further contact with our Vegetation Officer or Customer Service Centre moving forward. ...................... Additionally, we respectfully request that all names of TasNetworks’ personnel be removed from any social media platforms immediately. ...................... I acknowledge that this may have been a negative customer experience from your viewpoint and not your desired outcome, however If dissatisfied you are welcome to contact the Energy Ombudsman via their online form (the link is below for your convenience). ...................... Energy Ombudsman Tasmania https://secure.justice.tas.gov.au/ombudsman_resolve_update/energy_ombudsman_complaint_form ...................... Thank you once again for contacting TasNetworks. ...................... Kind Regards, MsS

FILE NOTE: 

This eMAIL should not be regarded as a true reflection of the telephone conversation it  purports to reflect. The conversation was in fact heavily weighted towards 'WINNING' & PROJECTING THE TASNETWORK'S CORPORATE WORLDview. The basic assumption being that the 'property owners'[AKA CUSTOMERS] must be ultimately 'compliant'  with the 'corporate WORLDview' come what may – irrespective of any loss of amenity, irrespective of equity or 'natural justice'.

Throughout the conversation there was no apparent acknowledgement that the 'Vegetation Officer' might have erred in any way, potentially or otherwise, or had handled his engagement with a member of 'the public' in an inappropriate manner. Moreover, I believe that a perusal of the recording of the telephone conversation, made "for training purposes", albeit not stated or flagged at the time, will support the proposition that;

• The call was confrontational;
• The call was non-conciliatory; and
• Undertaken to enforce the Tasnetworks' WORLDview backed as it is by considerable resources, legal and otherwise – generally unmatched by Tasnetwork's client base.

The so-called reconciliatory options on offer quite deliberately avoid the issues at hand. The points made in my first correspondence have been skirted around and the implied threat of 'legal implications' is both counterproductive and very poor marketing.

eMAIL #6

 Good afternoon Ms XXX,

One of my clients, an electrical contractor here in Launceston, informs me today that Tasnetworks officers are required to notify property owners/occupiers of their intention to to access their property.

If that is the case, and it seems entirely reasonable that it would be, Mr BXXXr in our case did not comply with that protocol. Had he or whoever else should/could have done so a great deal of the anxiety and stress we experienced yesterday might well have been avoided.

I write now to put on the record that I have received this advice from a credible and reliable source in the industry.

Regards,

Ray Norman

eMAIL 5

 Dear Ms XX, … Apropos our 10.51 am telephone conversation 

This email is to confirm my call to you at 10:51am today to register my concern and outrage in regard to the way were treated as customers yesterday. Albeit that Mr B did not make good his threat to turn up at our address with a ‘cherry picker’ - my description not his – “under police escort” – my clear and unambiguous recollection – to do what he deemed was required. As a way forward, and for reasons of safety, I agreed to the most minimal pruning of the vegetation and that I did not expect to see a ‘police escort’ in site. What choice did I have? 

I did however request of Mr B that I be telephoned when the work team were on site to authorise their entry, given that entry to property, even over it, required my permission otherwise it would be tantamount to trespass. That undertaking on Mr B’s part was not fulfilled, thus given the backgrounding and my request was indeed ‘trespass’ and especially so, occasioned as it was by inappropriate commentary from a member of the work team towards my wife. 

Tasnetworks really does need to think long and hard in regard to how the operation engages with ‘the community’. Bureaucratic bullying just does not cut it! That said, your own behaviours I find no fault with whatsoever and it must be said that you have conducted yourself in an extremely courteous and absolutely professional manner on every occasion that we have spoken. However, I cannot find it in myself to describe Mr Bester’s conduct similarly. 

I acknowledge that you have “escalated this case” and I look forward to an outcome that pays due respect to the amenity of our property along with a suite of outcomes I am highly unlikely be the beneficiary of given yesterday’s experience and the apparent bureaucratic disregard Tasnetworks holds for the concerns, sensitivities and sensibilities held within the wider community.

Yours sincerely,

Ray Norman

eMAIL #4

eMAIL #3

For the record

 

eMAIL #2

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

EMAIL #1

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE