Browse Forums Building A New House Re: 101 residential building feedback 5Apr 17, 2018 2:36 pm LOL product review I will remember to go there when i need a new washing machine, coffee machine and weight loss plan. Designer,Engineer (Civil,Const & Envir),Builder,Concrete & Masonry Contract.Struct Repairs Re: 101 residential building feedback 6Apr 18, 2018 5:35 pm ct-101 Hi HereForHelp, We understand why you'd raise the ACCC report for consideration when discussing 101 Residential, because the undertaking was spun (by both the ACCC and the media) to make it look like we had been manipulating reviews, or gagging clients from posting negative reviews. I've read the company explanation of the ACCC report within the Google reviews, and whilst I can absolutely accept that the media will spin things, it's certainly interesting that you're accusing the ACCC of doing likewise. Why would the ACCC spin anything? As a Government regulator, they would have no vested interest or derive any benefit from spinning things to look like you had been manipulating reviews. Obviously the media will be biased and you [as an employee] will also be biased. Perhaps it would be better off accepting the findings of an un-biased third party at face value instead of accusing them of spin? Re: 101 residential building feedback 7Apr 18, 2018 8:14 pm HereForHelp I've read the company explanation of the ACCC report within the Google reviews, and whilst I can absolutely accept that the media will spin things, it's certainly interesting that you're accusing the ACCC of doing likewise. Why would the ACCC spin anything? As a Government regulator, they would have no vested interest or derive any benefit from spinning things to look like you had been manipulating reviews. Obviously the media will be biased and you [as an employee] will also be biased. Perhaps it would be better off accepting the findings of an un-biased third party at face value instead of accusing them of spin? I honestly understand your thinking, I'd say the same thing if I didn't have the personal experience with this case. I feel like we're taking this thread away from helping the OP, so I'll keep it as brief as I can. We had no idea that our poorly worded clause was going to be tied to online reviews until we saw the press release. It hadn't come up in our discussions with the ACCC, and there was no suggestion we'd used our clause to influence reviews. It appears the ACCC wanted to make a statement about online reviews, and because our clause could have been used to prevent clients from posting reviews, I believe they used the opportunity to make that statement by tying it into their press release. If you read their statement in this context, I hope you'll appreciate that we're not trying to avoid anything we're responsible for. I might be biased, but I'm also happy to be transparent. The ACCC are simply saying that the wording of the clause could have been used this way - "... building contract contained non-disparagement clauses that allowed it to prohibit customers from publishing any unapproved information about the company, including online reviews". The fact is, we didn't, and there's no suggestion we did. I'd happily sit down with anyone, and the team who investigated our complaint at the ACCC, to discuss whether there was any indication that we had used these clauses in any way in relation to reviews (or at all). That would be complete transparency, and we're happy to do it. CT 101 Residential 1 2988 As title suggests, looking at using the interlocking Pentablock stacked stone products to replace failing timber retaining… 0 11154 |