Has CASA ever sent you correspondence you're sure you never received?
Thread Starter
Has CASA ever sent you correspondence you're sure you never received?
In May this year I chased up some correspondence I was expecting from CASA, only to be told that correspondence had been sent to me attached to an email weeks earlier. The effect of that correspondence was that if I didn’t say or do anything within a specified period of time, a process I had commenced would end.
I never received the email and, therefore, never received the correspondence attached to it. I therefore didn’t do anything within the period specified in the correspondence because I was not aware ‘the clock was ticking’.
I assumed there had been a technical glitch ‘somewhere’. Rather than having an unproductive ‘you didn’t send it / yes we did’ argument with CASA, I recommenced the process. Nothing of great safety importance was affected by the delay.
I should stress that the CASA person with whom I was dealing has always been and remains very professional, courteous and helpful in the processes concerned.
But the same thing happened to a colleague of mine. He said he had not received an email from CASA attaching some correspondence when CASA said it had been sent. Because neither of us is in the habit of overlooking or inadvertently deleting emails from CASA, and because he and I use different email providers, I had considerable difficulty in shrugging the circumstances off as coincidence.
So I ‘approached’ the CASA ICC. I said I didn’t want to be construed as ‘complaining’ about any individual within CASA because, as I noted above, the person with whom I was dealing has always been very professional, courteous and helpful in the processes concerned, and I had no doubt that the person believed the correspondence had been sent.
The person with whom I corresponded in the CASA ICC’s office was also very, professional, courteous and helpful.
Well jigger me with a bargepole if I didn’t receive a ‘preliminary decision’ document, for comment, containing the following:
At this stage, while I am satisfied that there was an attempt to send the email (attaching the [notice]), I propose to conclude that based on the search results and your evidence that it was never received, it’s more likely than not the email failed to send.
What caused the failure?
The size of the attached [notice] was 323kb, well within the handling capability of CASA’s IT system. Instead, CASA’s IT team have advised me that it appears that the email classification ‘dropped off’ the email, which would block the email from sending. Although the failure to send should have triggered notification message being sent to [the CASA officer], there is also no record of this in the IT records as would have been anticipated.
Because no failure to send notification was received and the email remained in the … mailbox sent items folder, I am satisfied that it was reasonable for [the CASA officer] to believe it had been dispatched. Rather, it seems likely there was a technical issue compounded by the failure of safeguards that ordinarily would have alerted [the CASA officer] to the problem, specifically that no failure to send notice was generated.
So: If you're sure you’ve never received an email CASA said was sent to you, you may be right.
My response to the ICC’s invitation to comment said in substantial part:
I only seek to address the point made by [named person]. I do not request or expect that CASA put in place arrangements for confirmation of receipt of all items of … correspondence. I do so only in respect of the subset of … correspondence the non-response to which CASA treats as extinguishing any further statutory obligation on its part ...
Setting aside the risk to CASA in not being able to prove the correspondence was sent at all - a governance issue of which you’re obviously aware and I’ll leave CASA to ponder - the outcome is patently unfair for the applicant who has not in fact received the correspondence due to a ‘glitch’ in CASA’s systems.
…
I never received the email and, therefore, never received the correspondence attached to it. I therefore didn’t do anything within the period specified in the correspondence because I was not aware ‘the clock was ticking’.
I assumed there had been a technical glitch ‘somewhere’. Rather than having an unproductive ‘you didn’t send it / yes we did’ argument with CASA, I recommenced the process. Nothing of great safety importance was affected by the delay.
I should stress that the CASA person with whom I was dealing has always been and remains very professional, courteous and helpful in the processes concerned.
But the same thing happened to a colleague of mine. He said he had not received an email from CASA attaching some correspondence when CASA said it had been sent. Because neither of us is in the habit of overlooking or inadvertently deleting emails from CASA, and because he and I use different email providers, I had considerable difficulty in shrugging the circumstances off as coincidence.
So I ‘approached’ the CASA ICC. I said I didn’t want to be construed as ‘complaining’ about any individual within CASA because, as I noted above, the person with whom I was dealing has always been very professional, courteous and helpful in the processes concerned, and I had no doubt that the person believed the correspondence had been sent.
The person with whom I corresponded in the CASA ICC’s office was also very, professional, courteous and helpful.
Well jigger me with a bargepole if I didn’t receive a ‘preliminary decision’ document, for comment, containing the following:
To establish whether this email was successfully sent, I requested that CASA’s IT team conduct multiple searches using various terms. An initial search using criteria I provided found no record of the email being sent. CASA’s IT team then conducted additional searches of the Secure Email Gateway (SEG), which also found no record of an outbound mail from CASA to [your email address] during the specified timeframe. Of note, these searches did locate the 8 June 2023 email which was sent to you successfully. CASA’s Team Leader - Solutions Capability … advised me that all search avenues had been exhausted without an email attaching [the notice] being located.
At this stage, while I am satisfied that there was an attempt to send the email (attaching the [notice]), I propose to conclude that based on the search results and your evidence that it was never received, it’s more likely than not the email failed to send.
What caused the failure?
The size of the attached [notice] was 323kb, well within the handling capability of CASA’s IT system. Instead, CASA’s IT team have advised me that it appears that the email classification ‘dropped off’ the email, which would block the email from sending. Although the failure to send should have triggered notification message being sent to [the CASA officer], there is also no record of this in the IT records as would have been anticipated.
Because no failure to send notification was received and the email remained in the … mailbox sent items folder, I am satisfied that it was reasonable for [the CASA officer] to believe it had been dispatched. Rather, it seems likely there was a technical issue compounded by the failure of safeguards that ordinarily would have alerted [the CASA officer] to the problem, specifically that no failure to send notice was generated.
So: If you're sure you’ve never received an email CASA said was sent to you, you may be right.
My response to the ICC’s invitation to comment said in substantial part:
Thank you for what has evidently been a comprehensive investigation which solved the mystery. I anticipate that the circumstances also solve the mystery of the equivalent email attaching an equivalent [notice] that wasn’t received by [my colleague], whom I’ve cc’d.
I only seek to address the point made by [named person]. I do not request or expect that CASA put in place arrangements for confirmation of receipt of all items of … correspondence. I do so only in respect of the subset of … correspondence the non-response to which CASA treats as extinguishing any further statutory obligation on its part ...
Setting aside the risk to CASA in not being able to prove the correspondence was sent at all - a governance issue of which you’re obviously aware and I’ll leave CASA to ponder - the outcome is patently unfair for the applicant who has not in fact received the correspondence due to a ‘glitch’ in CASA’s systems.
…
I have several times had CASA refer me to an email they previously said they had sent that I didn't receive. Given up questioning them, it's not worth the grief they dish out. It gets harder and harder.
Thread Starter
I'd suggest that on each occasion you are confident you haven't received an email CASA says has been sent to you, you should tell the CASA ICC, cc whoever said the email was sent to you.
I'd suggest that everyone do that.
If there's a flaw in CASA's email system, which flaw results in emails not being sent and the sender not being notified that the email was not sent, that's a big problem.
I'd suggest that everyone do that.
If there's a flaw in CASA's email system, which flaw results in emails not being sent and the sender not being notified that the email was not sent, that's a big problem.
The following 2 users liked this post by Clinton McKenzie:
Clinton, I simply cc myself with all emails that I send. That provides some confidence that my email has indeed departed my system. Perhaps CASA could do something similar?
I had a similar but opposite problem.
I have been out of the system for over 13 years now and the system may have changed.
If I sent mail to an FOI in Brisbane I had to send it to a PO Box in Canberra. - go figure, the then BN CASA office was just across the river from me but I could not hand deliver.
Therefore I would use Express mail to get tracking and delivery notices on the packages.
However, one package went missing. Never arrived into the CASA mail? system - that was what CASA said.
AustPost confirmed that it had been delivered. CASA in Canberra could/would not acknowledge that the package had been delivered as the Express mail package did not require a signature.
CASA would only acknowledge receipt of postal packages that required a signature on delivery.
Result was more cost for the Client and more money for AustPost.
I have been out of the system for over 13 years now and the system may have changed.
If I sent mail to an FOI in Brisbane I had to send it to a PO Box in Canberra. - go figure, the then BN CASA office was just across the river from me but I could not hand deliver.
Therefore I would use Express mail to get tracking and delivery notices on the packages.
However, one package went missing. Never arrived into the CASA mail? system - that was what CASA said.
AustPost confirmed that it had been delivered. CASA in Canberra could/would not acknowledge that the package had been delivered as the Express mail package did not require a signature.
CASA would only acknowledge receipt of postal packages that required a signature on delivery.
Result was more cost for the Client and more money for AustPost.
For many months I was trying to get my bill/s from Telstra. I stopped paying after awhile then I would get overdue reminders for the amount but no bill.
After more months and an escalation it was discovered that Telstra was sending my bill via email to my Post Office Box!
After more months and an escalation it was discovered that Telstra was sending my bill via email to my Post Office Box!
Thread Starter
The 'bog standard' email system I'm using has options for emails I send to include 'Delivery Receipt' and 'Read Receipt'. If I 'tick' those boxes, I get a notification that my email has been delivered to the recipient's 'in' box (I assume...) and, if the recipient opens the email, a box pops up for the recipient to send a 'read receipt' to me. I don't understand why CASA cannot use those options in the subset of correspondence I'm talking about. Other agencies do. (As an aside, one of the fascinating aspects of dealing with different agencies is how many differing ways they deal with like circumstances.)
I understand it is impracticable, if not impossible, and of no benefit for CASA to confirm that every recipient has received every item email it sends. But in the small subset of cases in which the substance of the corro is that silence in response will be interpreted by CASA against the person's interests, and there is no reason for the person to ignore the correspondence (and there is the possibility that a 'glitch' in CASA's system might result in the email not being sent...), it's not a 'big ask' for CASA to use the 'Delivery Receipt' and 'Read Receipt' options and follow-up the even smaller subset of cases in which neither comes back.
The 'bog standard' email system I'm using has options for emails I send to include 'Delivery Receipt' and 'Read Receipt'. If I 'tick' those boxes, I get a notification that my email has been delivered to the recipient's 'in' box (I assume...) and, if the recipient opens the email, a box pops up for the recipient to send a 'read receipt' to me. I don't understand why CASA cannot use those options in the subset of correspondence I'm talking about.
Interestingly, my wife uses a popular payment system for her business. She sends invoices/emails from within the App. She receives a notification when the recipient opens the email, but the recipient isn't promoted to send a receipt.
The ISP I use is known for a similar flaw in their system. My wife has never received an email that's been sent from the ISP provided email server (so she says anyway).
Thread Starter
Good points.
I understand the first from a process perspective. What I don't understand is why it could work against both parties. If the recipient is going steadfastly to refuse to send the read acknowledgment having opened the email, the time is still ticking against them and CASA already has the 'delivery receipt'.
But in any event the system your wife is using seems much more 'streamlined' and doesn't depend on the recipient going through the manual process of ticking the 'read receipt' pop up.
I understand the first from a process perspective. What I don't understand is why it could work against both parties. If the recipient is going steadfastly to refuse to send the read acknowledgment having opened the email, the time is still ticking against them and CASA already has the 'delivery receipt'.
But in any event the system your wife is using seems much more 'streamlined' and doesn't depend on the recipient going through the manual process of ticking the 'read receipt' pop up.
The bottom line is that bog standard email is an inappropriate method of communication for anything important. We don’t bank or send invoices or payments by standard email because we know there are a bajillion ways for it to be compromised.
(Email notices out of accounting software packages are different kettle of fish)
CASA have all the secure methods of identification and communication of the federal government at its disposal. Think myGov/mygovid etc. They even use these for things already (medical-licenseing etc) via their own secure portal.
So it makes no sense for them to send things like this via email.
Just asking for trouble and/or convenient deniability.
(Email notices out of accounting software packages are different kettle of fish)
CASA have all the secure methods of identification and communication of the federal government at its disposal. Think myGov/mygovid etc. They even use these for things already (medical-licenseing etc) via their own secure portal.
So it makes no sense for them to send things like this via email.
Just asking for trouble and/or convenient deniability.
The bottom line is that bog standard email is an inappropriate method of communication for anything important.
Like GPS. What we use the Internet and likewise GPS for is way outside their intended uses.
While I understand the issue and have experienced it myself with another government agency I can't help but comment that the thread lead question is right up there with the classic security one; "Has anyone placed anything in your bags without your knowledge?"
Gne
Gne
The following users liked this post:
It’s raining. Must be Casa’s fault…..
Sorry, I’m not attempting to be in favour of CASA (godforbid - I’d be banned on PPRUNE for life), however as a former Commonwealth employee Clinton, did you not ever send an email and ‘assume’ that it was actually sent or did you call the person after the fact to confirm receipt? It’s 2023, not 1990, and email is a reliable and normal form of communication. I’m no lawyer however I do believe there is legislation that if an email leaves the senders server and makes it to the recipients server it is deemed to have been sent. How the receiver decided to obtain that email (online, email client, etc) is left to them. If your point is that a process starts from when they hit send - welcome to 2023. I fail to understand why this is relevant only for CASA? This is the world we live in, and I agree that it passes liability to others when they don’t expect it, but casa isn’t the only organisation that does this.
I get Pprune is a rumour network, and that also extends to having a bitch, fair enough, but this industry will never become a positive experience for any of us unless we see the lighter side of life. I’m sorry, but now you’re worried about their email system, next it will be that they don’t use enough recycled paper. Come on, there are bigger fish to fry. And by the way, while you tangle casa up in knots about their email system, how are they ever going to deal with real issues?
Sorry, I’m not attempting to be in favour of CASA (godforbid - I’d be banned on PPRUNE for life), however as a former Commonwealth employee Clinton, did you not ever send an email and ‘assume’ that it was actually sent or did you call the person after the fact to confirm receipt? It’s 2023, not 1990, and email is a reliable and normal form of communication. I’m no lawyer however I do believe there is legislation that if an email leaves the senders server and makes it to the recipients server it is deemed to have been sent. How the receiver decided to obtain that email (online, email client, etc) is left to them. If your point is that a process starts from when they hit send - welcome to 2023. I fail to understand why this is relevant only for CASA? This is the world we live in, and I agree that it passes liability to others when they don’t expect it, but casa isn’t the only organisation that does this.
I get Pprune is a rumour network, and that also extends to having a bitch, fair enough, but this industry will never become a positive experience for any of us unless we see the lighter side of life. I’m sorry, but now you’re worried about their email system, next it will be that they don’t use enough recycled paper. Come on, there are bigger fish to fry. And by the way, while you tangle casa up in knots about their email system, how are they ever going to deal with real issues?
Thread Starter
In all cases in which it is important for me to know whether a piece of correspondence - email or otherwise - I send is received by the intended recipient, I confirm receipt. That's the consequence of "important".
You say:
I'm not aware of that legislation, but let's assume it exists.
You do realise that CASA's own investigation concluded that the email in question didn't leave CASA's server? It just went in circles inside CASA.
You should read my opening post.
I'm not talking about every email. You should read my post at #7.
You say:
I do believe there is legislation that if an email leaves the senders server and makes it to the recipients server it is deemed to have been sent.
You do realise that CASA's own investigation concluded that the email in question didn't leave CASA's server? It just went in circles inside CASA.
You should read my opening post.
I'm not talking about every email. You should read my post at #7.
Hey again Clinton
i re-read your posts and can see where you’re coming from, so I do apologise for being a bit too scathing.
I would agree that it’s harsh that they send an email as a one shot, presumably without any further warning, before them taking action based on your nil response. It wouldn’t be too hard for them to send another email on such an important matter to make doubly sure you’re aware such action is imminent.
i re-read your posts and can see where you’re coming from, so I do apologise for being a bit too scathing.
I would agree that it’s harsh that they send an email as a one shot, presumably without any further warning, before them taking action based on your nil response. It wouldn’t be too hard for them to send another email on such an important matter to make doubly sure you’re aware such action is imminent.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People tend to complain more about spam than emails that were not received, because they often don't know about the latter. So systems tend to err on the side of non-delivery.
It's true, most of the time email gets delivered. But certainly not 100%.
I do believe there is legislation that if an email leaves the senders server and makes it to the recipients server it is deemed to have been sent.
That includes snail mail.
They take no responsibility of non delivery on mail and AustPost will not take responsibility for non delivery.
As Mr Plod said to me, "You do know that you can get registration renewal notices sent by email" as he wrote out a ticket and then sent a permit to drive an unregistered vehicle to my home address via a text message.
I nearly replied "Why should I change from snail mail, which had failed only once in 60 years, to email delivery of unknown reliability"
Thread Starter
But you know when your vehicle's registration expires and that you're responsible for not driving an unregistered vehicle. That's not the same as being unware of a decision being made the effect of which is that if you say nothing you're taken to have agreed with the decision.
I'm aware of laws around snail mail having been deemed received by corporations after a number of business days, if sent to the corporation's registered business address. Not aware of one that applies to all snail mail to everyone, but happy to stand corrected if someone can point to one.
I'm aware of plenty of contracts that have notice provisions that deem an email received if it is received at the recipient's email server. But that's just a private agreement binding only on the parties to the contract, rather than a general law. But happy to stand corrected if someone can point to a general law applicable to all emails sent to everyone.
I'm aware of laws around snail mail having been deemed received by corporations after a number of business days, if sent to the corporation's registered business address. Not aware of one that applies to all snail mail to everyone, but happy to stand corrected if someone can point to one.
I'm aware of plenty of contracts that have notice provisions that deem an email received if it is received at the recipient's email server. But that's just a private agreement binding only on the parties to the contract, rather than a general law. But happy to stand corrected if someone can point to a general law applicable to all emails sent to everyone.
But you know when your vehicle's registration expires and that you're responsible for not driving an unregistered vehicle.
But sometimes circumstances like an operation, a period in a hospital coupled with the non delivery of the renewal notice can catch you out.
