❓ Hon. Norman Moore questions the Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board's (REBA) investigation into complaints against Jan Ford Real Estate regarding property sales in Port Hedland, focusing on thoroughness and potential conflicts of interest.
AnsweredQoN 1533Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board’s (REBA) investigation into complaints laid against Jan Ford of Jan Ford Real Estate over the sale of two properties in Port Hedland, and ask -
(1) Is it correct that a separate investigation by the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee into the settlement of the Port Hedland properties is yet to make a determination regarding the vendor’s complaint against solicitor Cathy Bastow, the joint purchaser of the Port Hedland properties with Jan Ford, who also acted as the settlement agent?
(2) Did REBA contact the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee at any time to facilitate a thorough investigation of the vendor’s case?
(3) If not, why not?
(4) Has REBA visited, or will it visit Port Hedland to investigate the vendor’s complaint?
(5) If not, why not?
(6) Did REBA interview the vendor’s former tenant to corroborate evidence that only one other potential purchaser was shown the 19 Kingsmill Street property?
(7) If not, why not?
(8) If yes to (6), what was the outcome of the investigation?
(9) Why have three different REBA officers been investigating the vendor’s case?
(10) Did REBA investigate the vendor’s complaint that Ms Bastow was informed by a REBA officer some five months before REBA made a determination that REBA would not be taking any action against Jan Ford as evidenced by Ms Bastow’s letter to the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee dated March 25 2003 that stated ‘REBA Supervisory Board has not taken any action in relation to the complaints against Ms Ford’?
(11) If not, why not?
(12) If yes to (10), what was the outcome of the investigation?
(13) Did REBA investigate the vendor’s complaint that there were anomalies between valuation and the advertising that was presented to them?
(14) If not, why not?
(15) If yes to (13), what was the outcome of the investigation?
(16) Did REBA investigate the vendor’s complaint that the purchasers undertook building demolition and renovation during ‘early possession’, that is, before the properties were sold?
(17) If not, why not?
(18) If yes to (16), what was the outcome of the investigation?
(19) Did REBA rely on a builder’s letter presented by Jan Ford to substantiate building work/demolition did not commence until after settlement?
(20) If not, what other evidence did REBA consider?
(21) If yes to (19), why did REBA only consider the builder’s letter?
(22) As evidenced by a fax from Jan Ford to the vendors dated June 12 2001, did REBA investigate the vendor’s complaint that the purchasers used industry knowledge to lead the vendor’s into believing that real estate sales commissions are still payable by the vendors when the agent responsible for selling a property is the purchaser?
(23) If not, why not?
(24) If yes to (22), what was the outcome of the investigation?
(25) Did REBA investigate the vendor’s complaint that the real estate agent colluded with the purchaser of 21 Kingsmill Street as evidenced by the same offer of purchase?
(26) If not, why not?
(27) If yes to (25), what was the outcome of the investigation?
(28) Did REBA investigate the vendor’s complaint that the real estate agent ignored the vendor’s request to incrementally reduce the sales price of the properties?
(29) If not, why not?
(30) If yes, (28) what was the outcome of the investigation?
(31) Why did REBA suggest the vendors use Freedom of Information (FOI) to obtain the information being sought and then reject the entire FOI application?
(32) Why did REBA allow comments on boundaries to influence its determination when the ‘annexure’ on the offer and acceptance stated ‘as is where is’ and was signed by the purchasers?
(33) Will the Minister advise when he intends on responding to the vendor’s correspondence of August 17 2003?
(1) Is it correct that a separate investigation by the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee into the settlement of the Port Hedland properties is yet to make a determination regarding the vendor’s complaint against solicitor Cathy Bastow, the joint purchaser of the Port Hedland properties with Jan Ford, who also acted as the settlement agent?
(2) Did REBA contact the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee at any time to facilitate a thorough investigation of the vendor’s case?
(3) If not, why not?
(4) Has REBA visited, or will it visit Port Hedland to investigate the vendor’s complaint?
(5) If not, why not?
(6) Did REBA interview the vendor’s former tenant to corroborate evidence that only one other potential purchaser was shown the 19 Kingsmill Street property?
(7) If not, why not?
(8) If yes to (6), what was the outcome of the investigation?
(9) Why have three different REBA officers been investigating the vendor’s case?
(10) Did REBA investigate the vendor’s complaint that Ms Bastow was informed by a REBA officer some five months before REBA made a determination that REBA would not be taking any action against Jan Ford as evidenced by Ms Bastow’s letter to the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee dated March 25 2003 that stated ‘REBA Supervisory Board has not taken any action in relation to the complaints against Ms Ford’?
(11) If not, why not?
(12) If yes to (10), what was the outcome of the investigation?
(13) Did REBA investigate the vendor’s complaint that there were anomalies between valuation and the advertising that was presented to them?
(14) If not, why not?
(15) If yes to (13), what was the outcome of the investigation?
(16) Did REBA investigate the vendor’s complaint that the purchasers undertook building demolition and renovation during ‘early possession’, that is, before the properties were sold?
(17) If not, why not?
(18) If yes to (16), what was the outcome of the investigation?
(19) Did REBA rely on a builder’s letter presented by Jan Ford to substantiate building work/demolition did not commence until after settlement?
(20) If not, what other evidence did REBA consider?
(21) If yes to (19), why did REBA only consider the builder’s letter?
(22) As evidenced by a fax from Jan Ford to the vendors dated June 12 2001, did REBA investigate the vendor’s complaint that the purchasers used industry knowledge to lead the vendor’s into believing that real estate sales commissions are still payable by the vendors when the agent responsible for selling a property is the purchaser?
(23) If not, why not?
(24) If yes to (22), what was the outcome of the investigation?
(25) Did REBA investigate the vendor’s complaint that the real estate agent colluded with the purchaser of 21 Kingsmill Street as evidenced by the same offer of purchase?
(26) If not, why not?
(27) If yes to (25), what was the outcome of the investigation?
(28) Did REBA investigate the vendor’s complaint that the real estate agent ignored the vendor’s request to incrementally reduce the sales price of the properties?
(29) If not, why not?
(30) If yes, (28) what was the outcome of the investigation?
(31) Why did REBA suggest the vendors use Freedom of Information (FOI) to obtain the information being sought and then reject the entire FOI application?
(32) Why did REBA allow comments on boundaries to influence its determination when the ‘annexure’ on the offer and acceptance stated ‘as is where is’ and was signed by the purchasers?
(33) Will the Minister advise when he intends on responding to the vendor’s correspondence of August 17 2003?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 December 2003
Responded by
Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection
Response time
9 days
(2) No. (3) REBA has no jurisdiction over the activities of legal practitioners. REBA’s powers of investigation and inquiry relate to the activities of real estate agents and sales representatives. (4) No. (5) Sufficient evidence and material was obtained without the need to visit Port Hedland. (6) No. (7) The home was listed for sale with a number of agents over a 5-year period since 1997. The establishment of whether one person visited the home has little or no bearing on the investigation. The agent also provided evidence that reasonable marketing of the home had taken place. (8) Not applicable. (9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(3) REBA has no jurisdiction over the activities of legal practitioners. REBA’s powers of investigation and inquiry relate to the activities of real estate agents and sales representatives. (4) No. (5) Sufficient evidence and material was obtained without the need to visit Port Hedland. (6) No. (7) The home was listed for sale with a number of agents over a 5-year period since 1997. The establishment of whether one person visited the home has little or no bearing on the investigation. The agent also provided evidence that reasonable marketing of the home had taken place. (8) Not applicable. (9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(4) No. (5) Sufficient evidence and material was obtained without the need to visit Port Hedland. (6) No. (7) The home was listed for sale with a number of agents over a 5-year period since 1997. The establishment of whether one person visited the home has little or no bearing on the investigation. The agent also provided evidence that reasonable marketing of the home had taken place. (8) Not applicable. (9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(5) Sufficient evidence and material was obtained without the need to visit Port Hedland. (6) No. (7) The home was listed for sale with a number of agents over a 5-year period since 1997. The establishment of whether one person visited the home has little or no bearing on the investigation. The agent also provided evidence that reasonable marketing of the home had taken place. (8) Not applicable. (9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(6) No. (7) The home was listed for sale with a number of agents over a 5-year period since 1997. The establishment of whether one person visited the home has little or no bearing on the investigation. The agent also provided evidence that reasonable marketing of the home had taken place. (8) Not applicable. (9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(7) The home was listed for sale with a number of agents over a 5-year period since 1997. The establishment of whether one person visited the home has little or no bearing on the investigation. The agent also provided evidence that reasonable marketing of the home had taken place. (8) Not applicable. (9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(8) Not applicable. (9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(3) REBA has no jurisdiction over the activities of legal practitioners. REBA’s powers of investigation and inquiry relate to the activities of real estate agents and sales representatives. (4) No. (5) Sufficient evidence and material was obtained without the need to visit Port Hedland. (6) No. (7) The home was listed for sale with a number of agents over a 5-year period since 1997. The establishment of whether one person visited the home has little or no bearing on the investigation. The agent also provided evidence that reasonable marketing of the home had taken place. (8) Not applicable. (9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(4) No. (5) Sufficient evidence and material was obtained without the need to visit Port Hedland. (6) No. (7) The home was listed for sale with a number of agents over a 5-year period since 1997. The establishment of whether one person visited the home has little or no bearing on the investigation. The agent also provided evidence that reasonable marketing of the home had taken place. (8) Not applicable. (9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(5) Sufficient evidence and material was obtained without the need to visit Port Hedland. (6) No. (7) The home was listed for sale with a number of agents over a 5-year period since 1997. The establishment of whether one person visited the home has little or no bearing on the investigation. The agent also provided evidence that reasonable marketing of the home had taken place. (8) Not applicable. (9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(6) No. (7) The home was listed for sale with a number of agents over a 5-year period since 1997. The establishment of whether one person visited the home has little or no bearing on the investigation. The agent also provided evidence that reasonable marketing of the home had taken place. (8) Not applicable. (9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(7) The home was listed for sale with a number of agents over a 5-year period since 1997. The establishment of whether one person visited the home has little or no bearing on the investigation. The agent also provided evidence that reasonable marketing of the home had taken place. (8) Not applicable. (9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(8) Not applicable. (9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(9) The investigating officers assigned to the case received a transfer to another position, necessitating a change in investigators. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(11) Not applicable. (12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(12) There is no evidence to support the allegation that REBA ceased taking action on this issue five months before REBA’s final determination. There was ongoing investigation and assessment of the potential breaches by the investigator and other experts during the period to closure. Ms Bastow’s comments to the Legal Practitioners Committee are not inconsistent with the status of the investigation at the time the alleged comment was made. The investigation was continuing and no formal disciplinary action had been taken at that point. (13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(13) Yes, although it was not part of the original complaint. (14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(14) Not applicable. (15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(15) There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation. (16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(16) Yes. (17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(17) Not applicable. (18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(18) There was no evidence to substantiate the vendor’s allegations. (19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(19) Yes. (20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(20) Not applicable. (21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(21) The statement from the builder corroborated Ms Ford’s advice and no alternative independent evidence was available to substantiate the vendor’s allegation. (22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(22) Yes. (23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(23) Not applicable. (24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(24) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. (25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(25) Yes. (26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(26) Not applicable. (27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(27) There was insufficient evidence to support collusion. (28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(28) Yes. (29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(29) Not applicable. (30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(30) There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. (31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(31) REBA did not make the suggestion. REBA’s investigating officer advised the vendors to contact the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection’s Freedom of Information Officer. (32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(32) There is insufficient information to provide an answer to this question. (33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
(33) The Minister will not be responding to this letter. The vendor’s letter of 17 August 2003 was addressed to REBA. A copy was forwarded to the Minister for information only. REBA has responded to this letter.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.