Bill Express

I continue to hear stories of suffering relating to Bill Express.  The latest is from a supplier who has found charges levied to their business which relate to a business closely associated with Bill Express.  The six figure sum charges have been back dated by a supplier without any contract being in place.  They are for services not provided.  Documents I have seen show them to be charges which were originally levied to the entity associated with Bill Express. I’m told that a person representing that entity advised the supplier to invoice the non Bill Express related party.

The resolution is requiring legal action and engagement with the Bill Express related entity but the latter is a challenge because they are expert at smoke and mirrors.

Meanwhile, in thousands of newsagencies, Bill Express equipment sits in back rooms and elsewhere waiting for someone to claim ownership and newsagents wonder about the status of their lease agreements.

A lawyer has suggested to me that newsagents who have continued to make lease payments for the now useless Bill Express equipment on the basis of advice from the ANF ought to approach them for a refund – on the basis of the action commenced in the Federal Court on yesterday by the ACCC about this matter.

Click here for a copy of the ACCC press release regarding the application lodged with the Federal Court yesterday.

The ACCC yesterday applied to the Federal Court of Australia for orders under section 87 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) and injunctions under section 80 of the TPA in respect of contraventions of sections 47(1), 52 and 53(g) of the TPA. The respondents to the action are: Bill Express Limited, Technology Business International Pty Ltd (TBI), BNY Trust Company of Australia Pty Ltd and Mobius Financial Services Pty Ltd.

The Age has the details on this story.

I have read the seven page application as well as the seventeen page case summary as lodged with the Court by the ACCC. It is comprehensive and provides some insight into the considerable work invested by the ACCC on the Bill Express matter this year.

The ACCC application has been lodged with the court’s Fast Track List on behalf of two Victorian newsagents – as a test case.

In brief summary, the application seeks, among other things, a declaration that the TBI contracts are void, that the claims by BNY in relation to payments are void and that monies paid since February 2008 be refunded.

Many parties have worked toward this including the newsagents who supported the class action started by a group of newsagents in NSW and supported by the QNF and NANA and other newsagents. In June of this year the ANF cast doubt on the capacity of the ACCC to act on this matter. Yesterday’s action by the ACCC is considerably more than anything achieved by the ANF in relation to Bill Express in recent years.

VANA and the ANF ought to hang their heads in shame about Bill Express. They have let newsagents down dreadfully on this issue. Around 900 newsagents are still paying the monthly equipment lease – many because VANA and the ANF have not provided sound advice to members. My understanding is that more than1,500 newsagents have stopped these direct debits because of legal advice from the NSW class action published through NANA, the QNF, here and other places.

Given the developments over the last twenty four hours, it is no wonder that some legal advisors were shocked that the ANF had engaged in negotiations with BNY and related parties to reach a financial settlement. I sought to discuss this with the ANF but was met with arrogance and distrust. The experience reinforced the opinion I have come to over the last two months – the ANF is of no relevance to newsagents and the sooner we starve the organisation of cash and cause its closure the better.

The administrators for the On Q Group, parent of Bill Express, issues an update late last week. There is not much news, the main announcement was that the Supreme Court granted an extension of the convening period by two months. This extension was sought to enable the Administrator to finalise their investigations into the company’s affairs and to finalised negotiations for a proposed deed of Company Arrangement. In their Advice to Creditors, the Administrator states:

We anticipate that a Deed of Company Arrangement may provide a more favourable outcome to creditors within a sorter timeframe and with greater certainty than in a liquidation scenario.

On Q is the company which committed to paying rebates to newsagents for the Bill Express / DialTime equipment and services. These rebates were the reason many newsagents signed with Bill Express. While I don’t see any beneficial outcome for newsagents from the On Q mess, it is interesting to watch the process.

The ANF has sent a newsflash to members saying that they are in discussion with Pepper Homeloans and the Bank of New York about the Bill Express equipment rental agreements.  I am suspicious of the timing of the newsflash given that the ANF opened these discussions three months ago.

Time will tell whether the announcement has more to do with retaining members than actual news.

In the meantime, I suspect there are many newsagents who would say to the ANF and those involved in these discussions that the ANF does not represent them.

The overprint on vehicle registration bills in Victoria tells only part of the story.  The Bill Express not available message doesn’t reflect the on-going stress and frustration experienced by many newsagents about Bill Express and all associated with what now looks to have been an elaborate financial scam wreaked on newsagents.  Every day or so I receive a call from a newsagent fighting a bank over equipment rental or a small business partner wondering where they can go for their money.

Newsagents will remember the cost of Bill Express for a long time and this will, rightly, be a problem for the associations which did not serve their constituents well on the matter.

Some newsagents are still unsure how to deal with letters they have received from Pepper Homeloans chasing payments they claim are related to the Bill Express equipment.  The advice from the legal team behind the Bill Express class action is to write to Pepper and request details of the debt and to ask how they can be sure that no other party will make any claim in relation to this.

I am not aware of any newsagent who has paid money to Pepper Homeloans in response to their letter of demand.

I am grateful to the Queensland Newsagents Federation for permitting me to post here information they sent to their members last week about the ANZ ftpost serminals sent out following the collapse of Bill Express. This is important and timely advice for newsagents:

ANZ Eftpos Terminals            

If any newsagent wishes to return the ANZ Eftpos Terminals which were sent out shortly after 8th July (Bill Express’ last day), please make sure you do so prior to Wednesday 8th October (THIS WEDNESDAY)

Contact ANZ Merchant Contact Centre – 1800 039 025 prior to the end of the (3) three month ‘rent free’ period to advise you wish to return the Eftpos terminal.

You will then be required to complete and return to ANZ a ‘Closure Request Form’, authorising closure of the facility and the terminal will be collected. (There should have been one in the box you received the terminal in)

Your account will need to remain active for 30 days to finalise any transactions and for processing the final merchant facility statement.

As far as I am aware, the QNF is the only association providing this level of up to date advice on Bill Express related matters.

I received a call from another newsagent who has achieved a refund of three months of Bill Express equipment rental payments as a result of reading about it here.  This is great news.  While the status of the finance agreements is yet to be tested, any return of cash in the meantime has to be welcome.

I had a lengthy conversation with a regional manager for a bank yesterday on behalf of a newsagent who was having trouble getting the bank to refund money they had deducted from the newsagent’s account without authority.

I understand why the bank takes they view they do – they are skeptical of a customer who says that a long standing direct debit is wrong. This is easier than them having to fully research the situation. The problem with the Bill Express direct debits is that newsagents signed them for one business and the payments now in dispute have been taken out by another business.

I expect that yesterday’s conversation will lead to the newsagent receiving over $1,000 back from their bank.

Pepper Homeloans has written to some newsagents claiming to act on behalf of the trust to which they claim Technology Business International assigned rights in relation to the rental of Bill Express equipment. The Pepper letter requests that Bill Express equipment rental arrears be paid. It lists a contact number for newsagents to call to discuss the matter.

The QNF continues to the newsagent association providing good leadership on this matter. Below I publish with their permission what they have sent to members today:

Please find attached (below) Hank Spier’s advice regarding Pepper Homeloans correspondence received this week.

We further suggest that all newsagents may wish to contact their Bank and give notice that any direct debit for the amount mentioned in your letter of demand from Pepper Homeloans should not be allowed to go through on the 25th of this month (QNF are unsure as to which company may attempt to debit your account as they have used different company names, previously using TBI & CHP).

The attached advice was to go out to only those newsagents represented by Hank Spier but the QNF & Hank feel that it is important that all newsagents are informed.

As Hank Spier representing 100’s of newsagents with this issue and the ongoing issue of Bill Express, he is presently being inundated with phone calls and emails.

If you wish him to represent you simply email him with your details, he is unable to reply but will include you on his list.

The details required are:- Full Name & Company Name, Business Name (shop name), Address, Phone, Email address

For wording in the email:- “we wish to be represented by you with regard to this Bill Express issue”

If you have any specific questions you can direct them to the QNF via email.

Here is the advice from their legal team:

Pepper Homeloans.

Some of you will have received letters from Pepper Homeloans headed Over Due Notification and demanding payments.

These letters follow on from similar letters some time ago from Mobius.

I have today written to Pepper along the same lines as I did to Mobius, namely we regard the claims as invalid and their action unlawful. We have also asked them to prove the validity of their demands.

We have also said to Pepper, as we did to Mobius, that should they take any legal action against anyone in our group we will immediately move in Court against them.

In relation to the letter you have just received from Pepper I suggest that you either write back to Pepper saying that the matter is with solicitors acting for newsagents and newsagents associations or simply do not respond.

ACCC

I met with ACCC last week. Their investigation is well underway.

Hopefully some positive action will be announced very soon by the ACCC.

Hank Spier. Special Counsel. Sweeney Commercial.

For those interested, Pepper is owned by Oakwood (Luxembourg). Merrill Lynch is a major shareholder in Okawood.

The QNF continues to lead newsagents on Bill Express matters. here is their latest advice on the moves by the publicly listed Swish Group to access the Bill Express screens:

Please see below an email received from the Administrators of Bill Express regarding the SWISH group’s intention to use the large screens for advertising in your stores.

Good afternoon Ann,

Thank you for informing the Liquidators of this matter.

As it stands, Bill Express Limited (In Liquidation) and/or the Liquidators have no agreements in place with Swish TV, nor have they provided any information to Swish TV.

The ownership of the screens mentioned in Swish TV correspondence is still unclear and the Liquidators continue to investigate same.

irrespective of the ownership of the screens, a number of finance companies and secured creditors are also claiming rights to various equipment noted in the Swish TV correspondence.

The QNF advise that newsagents DO NOT enter into any contract or agreement with this group, at this time and await further information from your State Association.

This advice from the QNF is sound. Check out the Swish Group ASX announcements and try and make sense of this business, their ASX code is SWG.

Newsagents need to ask why the ANF remains so quite on Bill Express matters.

The QNF continues to be the best association when it comes to keeping members informed on Bill Express and related matters.  Ann Nugent, QNF CEO attended a briefing from Swish Group on their plans for the Bill Express screens.  Click here for a copy of Ann’s report.

I have been suspicious of Swish for some time.  Their ASX announcements make the company look like it is all over the place.  Indian films and digital signage – where is the synergy in that? Their current financials suggest they are stretched for resources.

Four months after announcing to the ASX of a deal with Bill Express over the Bill Express advertising screens, the Swish group has written to newsagents saying they would like to take over the operation and management of the screens in newsagencies.  To their credit they are proposing focus groups to find out what newsagents want.

The key unanswered question from the letter is the basis on which they think they may be able to access the screens.  We kow from the Liquidators of Bill Express that the ownership of the hardware is in question.  Complicating this, many newsagents have stopped paying the lease on equipment.

While newsagents will want a digital signage network, they will want it on commercial terms which reflect the value their retail network brings to the opportunity.  The network could not exist without newsagents.  The Bill Express mess has left many wary.  On the Swish Group proposal I would suggest approach with caution.

Several newsagents called me yesterday to advise on-going difficulties with their banks allowing money to be taken out for the Bill Express equipment.  Any newsagent in this situation ought to understand that many others have now successfully stopped this and received refunds from their banks.  The QNF and NANA have advice out with their members on handling this.  The legal team behind the proposed class action has provided advice on this.  There is no reason I can see for newsagents continuing to pay for this useless equipment.

I have been contacted by three more newsagents over the last 24 hours who have each had three months of Bill Express equipment payments refunded following the inform,ation published here.  In two cases they escalated the matter away from their bank and to the Ombudsman as I suggested.  That one action made their bank realise they were the customer.

It is good to see banks acknowledge a mistake and fix this by returning money to the customer.   This should encourage other newsagents who are yet to fight for their rights on the Bill Express front.