Australia Post complaint

I am a resident of Docklands, at NewQuay just above Harbour Town and have been repeatedly forced to pick up my packages from the post office as a result of Australia Post’s incompetency in its delivery services.

I thought this might be of interest to you because many others in Docklands might also be facing the same problem.

Below is a summary of the complaint:

I have experienced three separate instances where Australia Post has utterly and I suspect, intentionally, failed to perform the services in which it had promised to me.

I shop online a lot, often opting to pay a higher price for an item that could have been bought in stores cheaper, mainly because I enjoy the convenience of having the goods delivered to my doorstep. This means I also have to pay a charge for shipping which saves me much time and effort.

But what is the point of me going through the whole process of shopping online, paying higher prices and shipping charges, and then waiting days and weeks waiting for my items to arrive, when I always end up having to go out and collect it myself?

On each and every one of those days that Australia Post claimed to have attempted to deliver the items, I was at home with at least one other person with me, and on none of these occasions did we receive a ring on our intercom system. The moment I receive communication of my parcel being shipped,

I ensure that I am home and alert in order to receive it.

Australia Post has wasted my money and effort shopping and waiting for the goods. It has wasted my time that I spent waiting at home, postponing important appointments. It forced me to travel at my own expense to the post office to pick up and then bring the goods back, something which I had already paid to get done in the first place!

And last of all, Australia Post has wasted the time that I have had to spend, and will have to further spend in weeks to come, writing complaint letters and awaiting a response.

I do not appreciate being cheated and lied to, then simply turned away as if none of my inconveniences were of any significance.

Colin Lim

Lend Lease complaint

I read with interest your interview with Hugh Martin of Lend Lease regarding the changes to the Victoria Harbour masterplan incorporating the privatisation of the site to be occupied by an apartment building known as Serrata.

My family purchased a number of apartments in Mosaic off the plan and continues to hold a majority of them. During the purchase phase we were shown the masterplan several times and took keen interest in the neighboring plan for the Bourke St site on which Serrata is to be constructed.

It was designated as a site for a community building and the 3D model that has been on display for over three years in the Lend Lease sales offices and, until recently, showed a low rise building that Lend Lease personnel (who I am prepared to name in a statutory declaration) positively nominated as a ‘community facility’.

One would think that if consultation had been made on a masterplan during the period when Mosaic and Montage were selling, then it should follow that community consultation ought take place before Lend Lease publicly displayed and sold the changed concept now known as Serrata.

Residents of Mosaic and Montage have purportedly been told by Lend Lease that the change to usage of the site was an initiative of VicUrban. If this was the case, then there appears to have been no consultation whatsoever. Yet the Serrata apartments are now being openly marketed and appear to be a fait accompli.

I contend that purchasers of apartments in Mosaic and Montage on upper levels had a reasonable expectation that they would not have their view obstructed to the west given the proposal for a low rise building. Therefore, these owners have a case for damages against the developer.

This is not the first brush that Lend Lease has had with owners post-settlement of apartments. I understand that residents of Dock 5 were presented with a similar scenario in the planning phases of The Merchant and the height of the building was subsequently reduced in recognition of a view obstruction.

Sadly, it seems that the second and third developments of Lend Lease have the same problems with the interests of clients being disregarded after they have purchased
and settled.

We trusted that Lend Lease, being a Sydney-based developer with its first residential development in Melbourne, would be ethical in their dealings and that establishing a good reputation would be seen as important.  In fact, sales personnel stressed this point during the selling phase of Mosaic.

Of course Mr Martin would make a predictable response regarding representations from his own team, and his comments regarding this are nothing but self-serving.

I suggest that Lend Lease now needs to come clean as to who initiated the change to usage, and listen to those in Mosaic and Montage who are detrimentally affected by the proposed Serrata rather than fobbing them off.

To blame the “system” is frankly unhelpful and unprofessional, and not accepting responsibility and in complete contrast to
Mr Martin’s comment “... doing the right thing by the community”.
Peter Volk