Response from ICC to Posts 2235 to 2241, and my response.
From CASA ICC 01/08/22Hi Glen
Thanks for your email.. In response to your question and proposal, I can confirm that you are welcome to invite a support person. This can be whoever you would like to attend. Reviewing your complaints, ahead of our meeting it would be helpful if you could provide the outcomes or conclusions of the Ombudsman reviews you say were informed by incorrect information provided by CASA.
Thanks Jonathan
My response 16/08/22
Dear Mr. Hanton,
I am responding to your query from your correspondence of 01/08/22, where you requested the following.
“Reviewing your complaints, ahead of our meeting it would be helpful if you could provide the outcomes or conclusions of the Ombudsman reviews you say were informed by incorrect information provided by CASA.”
The Ombudsman’s Office stated to me that; “CASA has provided us with a reasonable explanation for its view that it was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTAs operations until just prior to issuing the notice in October 2018”.
Considering that the same Company, albeit with a name change only, from MFT Pty Ltd to APTA Pty Ltd had been delivering those exact operations for over a decade, in that identical structure with full and formal CASA approval, it is not truthful for CASA to assert that “CASA” was not aware until just prior to October 2018, as you, yourself have previously identified.
I am fully satisfied that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of the operations for at least six years.
I think it’s reasonable that if CASA is being truthful, then CASA should be willing to nominate the date to both the Ombudsman’s office and I, that CASA claim they first became aware of the structure that I had adopted. CASA should have no reason to withhold such important and relevant information.
Similarly, the Ombudsman’s Office has formed the view that CASA never permitted the exact same structure that I adopted. I refer you to the initial notification of October 2018, where CASA advises that CASA is not able to approve such operations.
The truth is that CASA had always and, on every occasion, approved such operations and permitted the exact structure that I adopted and had done so throughout my 25 years in the industry. If the Ombudsman’s Office is of the opinion that this is not the case, then, the Ombudsman’s Office has been misled.
I am asking that CASA ensure that there is no doubt in the mind of the Ombudsman’s office that CASA had always permitted not only me, but many other Operators across Australia with that identical structure.
The final complaint was that the Ombudsman has formed the view that I perhaps failed to inform CASA or missed some procedure in informing CASA. As you are aware, I claim that I invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, worked with ten CASA personnel over a two-year period designing a significantly improved version the same structure that I had been utilising for many years. This was fully revalidated by CASA in April 2017 and audited 6 months later. If CASA is claiming to the Ombudsman that I did not communicate the exact structure, which I claim that I did, then CASA should be able to identify to both the Ombudsman’s Office and me, any omissions on my behalf that would have created the situation whereby CASA was “not aware until just prior to October 2018”.
I hope that clears the matter up, and adequately addresses my concerns. This is very much a matter of intent, and I feel confident that you understand the intent of the complaints. My hope is that the matters will be addressed with good intent, rather than putting effort into deflecting and avoiding.
Please be assured that comment is not directed towards your Office specifically, but rather more towards the office of the CASA CEO and my general experience with CASA on all aspects of this matter.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley