Cabcharge, Ignorants, Racists and Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47)

Cabcharge, Ignorants, Racists and Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47)

For more: Cabcharge, Ignorants, Racists and Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47)

First of all my language is superior to your one Ross.


Shakespeare and Shelly used burst in frustration and they have borrowed many words from other languages in order to enrich English. You see, you got one expression for aunt.  

In my language;

Mother's sister is "khala"

Father's sister is "fufu"

Mother's brother's wife is "mami"

Father's brother's wife is "chachi".

So, please enrich your language first and match with mine before venting any more racism.


Oh prior to giving me any more law lecture, please ask Michael:

1.     Who taught him about taxi politics?

2.     Who was with him in court hearings?

3.     Who was behind all of those planning?

4.     Whose evidence was used in the court room?

5.     Who was the prime witness in that case?    

Then again the lucky county taxpayers paid A$300 000.00 to a so called documentary maker to make a documentary based on totally false and fabricated reasons and grounds. Probably they did so to embarrass the Arabs and Muslims!  


--- On Tue, 30/6/09, rossnelson.unwired <rossnelson@...> wrote:

From: rossnelson.unwired <rossnelson@...>
Subject: RE: Cabscam
To: "'Faruque Ahmed'" <union_faruque@...>
Cc: mj@..., sando1293@...
Received: Tuesday, 30 June, 2009, 9:29 AM

You fuckwit piece of shit Ahmed.

The reason that cabcharge will go to court is because of MICHAEL JOOLS!

The reason that Red Delux went to court over third line forcing was because of MICHAEL JOOLS!








--- In, "union_faruque" <union_faruque@...> wrote:
Submission to the Australian Industrial Relation Commission re Taxi Drivers' Award

Please rise above racism, sectarianism, and personal vendetta. Do something for taxi drivers or go way. Do nothing and protecting the turf is not a good idea. Similarly, sacking someone for doing something is not a good idea too.

Remember, Jools wasted everyone's time for his personal lust and greed. Coates did the some damage due to reason well known to him. Lindholt is dreaming for White Australia! "See of Brown Hand" and "brownie" are enemies of taxi drivers according to them!

So where is the truth? What can be done?


--- In, "destodesperate" <destodesperate@...> wrote:
At this link you can see the Lateline Business item, transcribed below:


ACCC looks to shake up Cabcharge monopoly
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 29/06/2009
Reporter: Desley Coleman
The ACCC has its sights on the taxi business and the virtual monopoly enjoyed by Cabcharge, beginning legal proceedings that could result in lower taxi fares for passengers that do not pay in cash and encourage more competition in the industry.

ALI MOORE, PRESENTER: The competition regulator has set its sights on the taxi business and the virtual monopoly enjoyed by Cabcharge. The ACCC has begun legal proceedings that could result in lower taxi fares for passengers that don't pay in cash and encourage more competition in the industry. Desley Coleman reports.

DESLEY COLEMAN, REPORTER: Michael Jools has been behind the wheel of a taxi for 20 years.

MICHAEL JOOLS, PRESIDENT, AUST. TAXI DRIVER ASSOC.: But I enjoy taxi driving. You meet lots of different people.

DESLEY COLEMAN: He also heads a group of drivers that have come up with an alternative to Cabcharge. It's a mobile phone-driven payment system that removes the need of passengers to give credit card details to drivers.

MICHAEL JOOLS: We think there should be a better way of doing things and a safer way for the customer. At the moment, the level of fraud in the taxi industry is sky high, and that's because the system isn't good.

DESLEY COLEMAN: He says Cabcharge's original idea brought convenience to customers, but without competition, that convenience has come at an inflated price. Cabcharge's payment terminals are in 96 per cent of taxis.

The ACCC alleges that Cabcharge is using that dominance to price new entrants out of the market. On Friday, the competition watchdog began legal proceedings against Cabcharge for alleged breaches of the Trade Practices Act. A representative of Cabcharge told Lateline Business that it only received ACCC paperwork on Friday and it will not be playing this out in the media. This case will be the first time a court will have greater penalties at its disposal due to recent changes to competition law.

CALUM HENDERSON, COMPETITION PARTNER, DEACONS: Some of the instances that the ACCC is alleging may be subject to further penalty provisions where it's the greater of $10 million, or three times the benefit received by the company, or if that can't be determined, 10 per cent of the company's turnover.

DESLEY COLEMAN: Cabcharge earns a 10 per cent flat fee on each transaction, helping the group to an annual revenue of $175 million last year.

BEN BROWNETTE, TRANSPORT ANALYST, AEGIS: Cabcharge is an exceptional business. It's most exciting area for growth, really, is its bus joint venture with ComfortDelgro. It owns the majority of the buses in Sydney, so it does get that
natural hedge in more difficult economic times when more people are attracted to buses. And of course it's got one of the biggest taxi networks in Australia and its payment systems business is first class as well.

DESLEY COLEMAN: But the court action has investors worried, with shares dropping 13 per cent on Friday, and a further three per cent today.

Concerns about the stock won't be going away any time soon, with this case expected to remain before the courts for at least a year.

--- In, "union_faruque" <union_faruque@...> wrote:
Re: Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47)


In order to bring some justice and fairness in the taxi industry we are working hard to expose the "Taxi Mafia".

Michael Jools is a serial bankrupt and professional fraud. He has misappropriated money from the NSW Taxi Drivers' Association without proper explanation or any approval. We had no choice but to expel him from our association because of a number of reasons. From the day one, Jools has been trying to become "mini taxi mafia" at the expense of taxi drivers' misfortune and misery. To the best of my knowledge, financial institutions and communication companies are not backing him up to become another "Reg Kermode"!


Tonight, in the ABC's Late Line he said, "the biggest problem in the taxi industry is fraud, …..". I do not know whether he was referring to his own fraudulent behavior or the Taxi Mafia's fraudulent behavior continuum!


Nonetheless, we are waiting to expose the whole scam and clean up the taxi industry.


Faruque Ahmed



Cabcharge shares slump as watchdog pounces

Elisabeth Sexton

June 29, 2009


A COURT case that began on Friday could result in lower taxi fares for passengers who do not pay by cash.

The lawsuit attacks the 10 per cent service fee charged in 95 per cent of Australian taxis for every payment by debit card, credit card or charge account.

Lack of competition in taxi-fare processing has allowed the biggest player in the industry, Cabcharge Australia Ltd, to maintain its hefty 10 per cent commission even as its costs have fallen thanks to changes in technology, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission says.


Cabcharge taken to court.  Ian Verrender reports.


Cabcharge shares were hammered further in early trading today. They fell as low as $4.71, 26 per cent lower than Thursday's close of $6.36, before recovering to $5.10.

At that price the shares are 20 per cent lower than their price before news of the regulatory action broke, and 7 per cent below Friday's close of $5.50.

Details of the alleged financial benefits to Cabcharge of having few rivals are contained in an 88-page statement of claim the commission filed in the Federal Court last week.

The commission's analysis indicates that the company has profited handsomely as its system, once used only to process Cabcharge charge cards and credit cards via so-called click-clack manual imprinters, has become electronic and is now also used every time a passenger pays with a bank debit card.

The increasing popularity of Eftpos payments has increased Cabcharge's revenue, while its costs have fallen because electronic processing is cheaper than dealing with paper receipts and vouchers.

The statement of claim says that last year the 10 per cent fee produced revenue for Cabcharge of $113 million, a 51 per cent increase on the $75 million recorded in 2005.

Cabcharge's "transaction processing expense" last year was just $2 million, down from the already skinny $5 million incurred in 2005.

The commission is suing Cabcharge for misusing its market power to ensure that almost all taxis in Australia use its non-cash payment system rather than those offered by its rivals.

The company has not yet responded beyond saying it "always behaves appropriately".

It issued a statement on Friday afternoon saying it had not received any court documents. The commission said on Friday evening that the papers had been served at midday.

According to the statement of claim, in the past five years Cabcharge has increased its grip on the market from having its equipment in 83 per cent of all Australian taxis in 2004 to 95 per cent last year.

Last year Cabcharge processed taxi fares worth $1.13 billion, of which $455 million were paid via Cabcharge charge accounts and the rest by credit and debit cards.

The commission says that the company has seen off its rivals by a combination of methods, including ensuring that most taxis use its Cabcharge charge accounts, that they therefore install Cabcharge's Eftpos machines and that it is therefore uneconomic for them to install other processing machines for bank debit cards or credit cards.

Methods claimed to be in breach of the Trade Practices Act include undercharging to supply taxi meters and integrating Cabcharge's taxi meters with the company's payment processing system.

The statement of claim says that Cabcharge has charged 10 per cent of non-cash payments of taxi fares since 1976 and Cabcharge's costs have steadily dropped as paper vouchers have fallen out of use.

Electronic transactions have grown from 47 per cent of the total in 2002 to 84 per cent last year, but "there has been no downward pressure on the 10 per cent service fee", the statement says.

The service fee is the biggest contributor to Cabcharge's revenue, which totalled $173 million last year.



From: "gjcoates2@..." <gjcoates2@...>


To:  "Faruque" <union_faruque@...>

Cc: … 


Hi Faruque,

Again I must congratulate you.

Very well said.  We have a new Faruque.  Keep it going.

Yours sincerely,

Geoff Coates


From: "gjcoates2@..." <gjcoates2@...>

To: "Abdulla" <robinmiasyd@...>,  …


I suggest consideration should be given to including publication of Faruque's letters to NSW Police – Crime Stoppers Australia and A.C.C.C. in next issue of Squeaky Wheel.

Yours sincerely,

Geoff Coates



From: Minister Perry's Office <Office@...>
Subject: RE: Subject: Removal of anti-competitive laws, regulation, policies and practices under the auspices and control of the NSW Ministry of Transport.
To: union_faruque@...
Cc: "Minister Campbell's Office" <david@...>
Received: Monday, 1 June, 2009, 10:20 AM

Dear Mr. Ahmed


Thank you for your recent email.


Your comments have been noted, however the matter you have raised primarily concerns the administration of the Minister for Transport, the Hon David Campbell MP.


I have referred your email to Minister Campbell for his consideration and direct response to you.



Kind regards

Office of the Hon Barbara Perry MP

Minister for Local Government and

Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health)


Who Is Your Enemy?



Please examine Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47), Dear Patricia and CabCharge's efforts at forcing drivers to provide refunds together to understand;

The Cabcharge was created and prospered by the Authorisation A30112.

This authorisation was obtained by telling lies and not telling the truth including the use of racism on that time.

The same TPC who have authorised the A30112 to the same people for the similar lies and distortions later refused any authorisation like A30152.

The Australian Competition Tribunal (Matter No - 3 of 2005 Australian Competition Tribunal) removed the A30112.

The Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47) of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission prohibit any individual, company, department and state government to have any law, regulation, policy or practice hindering free trade and directly or indirectly supporting anti-competitive and/or monopolistic trade.      


In essence:

A.   Taxi drivers are bailees and not employees.

B.   A department store employee's time/wages/salary (to process creditor debit cards) are paid by the employers.

C.   A department store employee NEVER get penalised for a null and void transaction.

D.   The Cabchrage should be declared as proceeds of crime and assets of that company should be used to improve public and drivers safety.     




Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

GPO Box – 3131

Canberra – ACT – 2601


23 Marcus Clarke Street

Canberra – ACT – 2601

Tel: (02) 6243 1111

Fax – (02) 6243 1199



Our Ref: 899448

Contact Officer: Candice Sng

Contact Phone: 1300 302 502

15th June 2009


Mr. Faruque Ahmed

P O Box – 349

Alexandria – NSW 2015


Dear Mr. Ahmed


Thank you for your letter dated 29 May 2009 to the Australian Competition and Consumer  Commission (the ACCC) regarding the conduct of Cabcharge Australia and the NSW Taxi Council in placing "Safe Swiping" and "Warning Stickers" in NSW taxis.


By way of background it may be appropriate to outline the object of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (the TPA) and the role of the ACCC. The main purpose of the TPA is to promote competition and efficiency in markets within Australia and to protect consumers from unlawful anti-competitive conduct and unlawful market practices.


I understand from your letter that you are concerned with the potential increase in market power of Cabcharge Australia in the market for portable EFTPOS units in taxis as a result of the proposed installation of "Safe Swiping" and "Warning Stickers" by Cabcharge Australia and the NSW Taxi Council in relation to an initiative of NSW Police. Further, I understand that you are concerned that the above practice will cause the public to believe that only Cabcharge portable EFTPOS units will prevent any "skimming" activity by the taxi driver of cards provided for payment.


In assessing any complaint, staff of the ACCC would generally determine whether or not the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the TPA, whether or not there appears likely to have been a breach of the TPA, and if so, whether the impact of the conduct is so serious and widespread that it is appropriate that the ACCC should take some action. The ACCC generally takes enforcement action in circumstances where there are broad flow on benefits for industry and consumers alike.


I have carefully assessed the details of your complaint, and have concluded that in this particular instance there appears to be no evident likely breach of the TPA. In particular, the program you have described appears to be an initiative taken by NSW Police to educate and inform the community about the risks of credit card fraud in an industry which, though predominantly consisting of honest traders, is nevertheless particularly susceptible to fraudulent activity. Cabcharge Australia does not appear to be advantaged by the initiative and on the basis of the information you have provided, it does not appear that a substantial lessening competition is likely to occur as a result of the arrangement.




I have recorded details of your complaint in the ACCC national database. This information will be used in the context of the ACCC monitoring to determine whether there is a pattern of behaviour by a particular trader or in a particular industry that requires attention. The ACCC closely studies the patterns of complaints received to ensure that our enforcement and education actions are focused on the areas of greatest concern to Australian consumers.


Thank you for contacting the ACCC and bringing this to our attention. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact the ACCC's Infocentre on 1300 302 502.


Yours sincerely


Candice Sng

ACCC Infocentre

Information Research & Analysis Branch



Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47)


Faruque Ahmed

P.O. Box – 349, Alexandria - 2015

Mobile: 041 091 4118, Email: union_faruque@...



Mr. Graeme Samuel               

Chairman ACCC               

Level 7, Angel Place                                

Sydney NSW 2000                                                            

Ph: (02) 9230 9133
Fax: (02) 9223 1092


29 May 2009



Subject: Removal of anti-competitive laws, regulation, policies and practices under the auspices and control of the NSW Ministry of Transport.   



Dear Sir


I draw your attention to the actions of the NSW Taxi Council Pty Ltd and to Cabcharge Australia Pty Ltd. I provide a number of copies of recent relevant material from those companies.


The first is a copy of an article from the NSW Taxi Council Pty Ltd's bi monthly magazine called "Meter". The April- May 2009, Pg 3, article is headed, "Safe Swiping."


The second and third copy I provide is the recent information sent out to current Cabcharge Australia Account Holders.


As you would be aware there is a direct link between the NSW Taxi Council Pty Ltd and Cabcharge Australia Pty Ltd. The former is housed in the latter's own building called "Cabcharge House", at 152 Riley St, East Sydney NSW 2010.


To the best of my knowledge the holders of significant amounts of Cabcharge shares are on the Board of Directors of the NSW Taxi Council (NSWTC) e.g. Howard Harrison the current CEO of the NSWTC.


Cabcharge owns the largest taxi Network in Australia which is Combined Communications Network (CCN) which in turn owns Taxis Combined, ABC Taxis and various other taxi networks across Australia.


I allege that in this latest attempt to have placed in NSW taxis the proposed "Safe Swiping" or "Warning Stickers" that there is an attempt being made by Cabcharge and the NSW Taxi Council in combination, to further create a majority market share and domination in the processing of both credit and debit cards, primarily to the benefit of Cabcharge Australia Pty Ltd.


This wrongful, anti competitive, pro monopoly action is currently being sought via manipulation of the NSW Crime Stoppers Department, which is attached to NSW Police, to then influence and coerce the NSW Ministry of Transport to have allowed for placement in taxis these so called "Safe Swiping" or "Warning Stickers" into all NSW taxis.


This alleged manipulation and coercing by the NSW Taxi Council Ltd, as described above is fundamentally based on sparse or non existent evidence or of any substantial supporting data in relation to alleged "skimming" of credit and debit cards by NSW taxi drivers.


In the current media frenzy being generated by the mainstream press in general, regarding the use of "skimming" on ATM machines in the main (none has been shown for taxi drivers), the NSW Taxi Council Ltd is attempting to gain a further stranglehold on the profit derived from the 10% markup imposed on those passengers who present for payment either a credit or debit card to a taxi driver for a taxi fare so the 10% profit goes back to Cabcharge Australia P/L.


As you and your department would be aware all taxis in NSW and Australia wide, have fitted for use Cabcharge Australia P/L EFTPOS units, which in addition to processing Cabcharge cards can also process all other credit cards that are approved by Cabcharge Australia P/L itself, for acceptance for payment of fares. Here I refer to Visa, Mastercard, Amex and JCB.


In addition all banks and other financial institutions that are linked up to the EFTPOS payment system also have their debit (savings account) cards accepted for payment through the Cabcharge P/L, EFTPOS linked payment terminals and it's associated software system.


There is a convoluted system in place in relation to the compulsion for all Taxi networks, Australia wide, to be approved for operation by the various state or territory based Ministry's of Transport and in turn for the almost compulsory need then, for those Taxi Networks to be affiliated with a so called industry representative body or employer group, which is also state based.


The practice then is for that state based Taxi Council Ltd to form an offshoot representative arm with a different title such as the NSW Taxi Industry Association (NSW TIA) to then be an industrial organisation that is registered for representation of that employer (bailor) group (this is the Taxi Council Ltd who claim to represent bailors and plate owners) with the Industrial Commission. These Taxi Council who claim and give all the appearance of representing bailors and plate owners, including non active plate investors, are manipulated to serve the interests of Cabcharge Australia P/L.


The Chairman and Board of Directors of the various state Taxi Councils are beholden to Cabcharge Australia Pty Ltd and Cabcharge allows them to gain or strongly influences their ability to successfully succeed in any bid to gain and hold any position on the Board of Directors of any state or Territory based Taxi Council in the first place.


Cabcharge Australia P/L and it's CEO also have direct influence over who remains as a Board member or a Director of any given state Taxi Council Ltd or any given individual taxi network.


It's influence as you would be aware is enormous.


The veiled, nefarious machinations of Cabcharge Australia P/L and it's CEO is behind all significant bodies and changes or proposed changes in the taxi industry.


Cabcharge Australia is just that, it is Australia wide and it has undue influence and the ability to give or gain approval for any aspiring Board of Directors seeking person for any state or Territory based Taxi Council.      


Cabcharge Australia creates an originator, feedback, and most importantly a control mechanism by in turn firstly controlling who is allowed to get onto and to stay on with any given Taxi Council, Australia wide. This even extends to individual taxi networks.


What is deliberately left out of their equation is the right to choose by the independent business owner and operator, the bailee driver including the lessee driver, who are running their own business when they take on bailment of another business entities (the bailor's) vehicle. This then so that the bailee (including lessee) can then go about conducting that bailees (and lessee's) own business.


That is the nature of any bailment arrangement and Cabcharge Australia P/L, and in the main it's CEO, exploits the lack of grasp of the fundamental uniqueness of bailment and by extension it's implications and chain of accountability and it's chain of obligations by the parties involved, by persons in positions of power such as Commissioners or Judges of the Industrial Relations Commission or Court or of any other taxi industry impacting, government instrumentality. This obfuscation and deliberate muddying of the waters or lack of specific clarity on the full "fallout" of the industrial (remuneration) linked decisions or for approval for operation in some instances, is very much played to advantage by Cabcharge Australia P/L and it's CEO.


Cabcharges Australia and it's CEO's strategy, is the considered assessment of the possible outcome, of any given industrial (remuneration) decision or approval to operate decision, to be slanted as much as possible in Cabcharge's favour. This has historically been shown to be very much their forte.


Meanwhile the general taxi catching public, Australia wide, and certain sections of regulatory bodies and instrumentalities and members of the media strongly sense something is profoundly wrong with the taxi industry as a whole. That the checks and balances are simply not there. That someone is winning massively while others are extremely voiceless and exploited.


The taxi catching public goes on paying somewhat inflated amounts for a service and suspects but cannot accurately pinpoint or deconstruct why it is that bailees, lessees and even plate owners, some of who may also drive, are getting very little profit or return.


I now go back to the reality of a taxi driver who goes out operating their own business. That business is primarily plying for hire for taxi fares from passengers although at times parcels and other small goods are separately carried and the carriage of those goods is paid for.


The choice as to the means or system via which the processing for the payment of the cost involved (the fare) when payment for that fare is via a card, is entirely at the discretion and is rightfully and legally the choice of the taxi driver. All taxi drivers Australia wide, as said, are operating his or her own business. 


As you would know there is an accepted practice of a 10% surcharge placed on any taxi fare that is paid for via any credit or debit card. The 10% profit is partly retained by the bailee driver (including any lessee driver) BUT only if they have available and make use of a non Cabcharge EFTPOS unit which directs the card payment to those bailee (and lessee) drivers own accounts.


At least 3 companies in Australia make these portable EFTPOS units available to drivers. GM Cabs, TaxiEpay and (Gary) Schmidt Meters with the latter 2 based in Melbourne but operating Australia wide as are all of them. I understand there is also an Alex Taxis from South Australia offering a portable EFTPOS unit to taxi drivers.


Should a driver not use one of these non Cabcharge EFTPOS portable units then they are required to use the in built Cabcharge unit, if offered a card for payment.


These proposed "Safe Swiping" or "Warning stickers" are attempting to influence the public to have the belief that only Cabcharge units will ensure any supposed "skimming" activity by the driver does not take place. In reality they are an attempt to manipulate the public to do the "policing" on behalf of Cabcharge Australia to gain a further market stronghold.


This attempt at anti competitive practices is being put forward ostensibly by the NSW Taxi Council on behalf of the protection of the NSW taxi catching public by supposed "skimming" of their card details by some unknown, vague and unsubstantiated element within the taxi industry, that are supposedly the drivers (including bailees and lessees or even active plate owning drivers).


Not surprisingly to some, this attempt at the hoodwinking of the Crime Stoppers Commission to then influence the Ministry of Transport, would if allowed to be "rolled out," only serve to greatly benefit Cabcharge Australia Pty Ltd and deny choice to drivers conducting their own business.


What is in fact happening here is that the NSW Taxi Council Ltd is trying to legitimise Cabcharges domination and market share by stealth and without any valid basis.


I supply 2 pages sent out to all Cabcharge Account Holders recently on this subject of the proposed "Safe Swiping" or "Warning Stickers".


By supplying these to your department I believe this is supportive of my assertions here. The proposed actions of the NSW Taxi Council is wrongful and should be opposed, the actions of Cabcharge Australia P/L are equally abhorrent and warrant intervention

Please investigate and respond to me at your earliest convenience.


Yours sincerely


 Faruque Ahmed






Faruque Ahmed

P.O. Box – 349, Alexandria - 2015

Mobile: 041 091 4118, Email: union_faruque@...


Mr. David Campbell, M.P.                                                          Thursday, May 28, 2009 

NSW Minister for Transport  

Parliament House

Macquarie Street, Sydney

Telephone: (02) 9268 2800
Facsimile: (02) 9268 2900


Subject: Removal of anti-competitive laws, regulation, policies and practices under the auspices and control of the NSW Ministry of Transport.   


Dear Mr. Campbell

I hope you are aware of the ruling of the Australian Competition Tribunal (Matter No - 3 of 2005, Australian Competition Tribunal). This ruling is reinforced and supported by the Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47) of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission that does prohibit forcing any taxi driver regardless of whether they are bailee or bailor, to be compelled to accept Cabcharge as a method of payment for any taxi fare.

Any Cabcharge Australia P/L logo or trademark inserted in or as part of any taxi network's specific livery e.g. door decals placed on taxi cabs, or internally onto and as part of any NSW MOT approved stickers (notices), is construed as anti competitive and monopolistic in it's nature and intent. 

I trust, you will and have advised your compliance section and other relevant departments that there is no need and no basis to question or penalise any drivers should it eventuate that they may have declined to accept Cabcharge for any payment for any fare.

I hope you will or already have informed all taxi networks in NSW to align their Network Byelaws, policies and practices in accordance with and reflecting the Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47) of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

It is my understanding based on advice I have received that a non compliance with the ruling and with the ACC related legislation, mentioned above may lead to an increased focus on your Ministry as well as possible breaches of the Commonwealth of Australian Government (COAG) Agreement.   

With thanks.

Sincerely yours


Faruque Ahmed



Wisdom and Wisdom!

Not if the Cabcharge logo appears on the taxi. That would be false advertising and is an offence.

To remove or cover the Cabcharge logo which appears in many network decals would be a breach of State Regulations and the cab would be defected.

Refusing to take Cabcharge would be utterly stupid as Cabcharge related cards, e-tickets and blue dockets account 20-30% of all non-cash transactions in taxis.




Faruque Ahmed

P.O. Box – 349, Alexandria - 2015

Mobile: 041 091 4118, Email: union_faruque@...




The Chief Executive Officer

Legion Taxi Network

77 Foveaux Street

Surry Hills NSW 2010


Tel: (02) 9211 2300

Fax – (02) 9281 4727


Wednesday, May 20, 2009


Subject: Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47


Dear Sir/Madam


Please be aware of the Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47) of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission that does prohibit forcing any taxi driver, regardless of whether they are bailee or bailor, to be compelled to accept Cabcharge as a method of payment for any taxi fare.


This is supported by the ruling of the Australian Competition Tribunal (Matter No - 3 of 2005 Australian Competition Tribunal).


Any Cabcharge Australia P/L logo or trademark inserted in or as part of any Taxi Network specific livery e.g. Legion Taxis current door decals placed on their taxi cabs, is construed as anti competitive and monopolistic in its nature and in its intent.


It is irrelevant in considering in any counter claim from any taxi network administration that the livery has been approved by the NSW Ministry of Transport (NSW MOT) or that the requirement for the logo is as part of the taxi networks own requirements in alignment with any taxi network bye laws.


The NSW MOT is a state government instrumentality which has regulatory, compliance and policy divisions. Amongst other matters they advise the NSW Minister of Transport for any current state applicable laws or proposed changes to those laws (and regulations) in relation to the Passenger Transport Act. In addition staff at the NSW MOT propose for consideration by the Minister of Transport any changes to existing legislation including the Taxi cab regulations etc.


Of far more importance comparatively, is Federal level legislation and rulings and decisions. Especially those decisions at the Supreme Court level of Australia.


A Federal government department and Federal law and Courts and matters decided by those courts are superior to any state based government policy or decision.


That includes any state based government department such as the NSW Ministry of Transport. Those Federal level courts and Federal administrative bodies override and take precedence on any state based government department, such as the NSW Ministry of Transport.


In brief the ACCC in the decision handed down by the Supreme Court, mentioned above, far out ways and overrides any NSW state based law, decision or approval.


The mere displaying of a Cabcharge logo inserted into the livery of any given taxi network's fleet of taxis, via the door decals or elsewhere(which are part of the external taxi cab livery), or any directive by any given taxi network for the compulsory acceptance of Cabcharge cards by the drivers of it's own taxi network's taxi  fleet, is not sufficient in itself to then use that as the basis for the breaching or even questioning of any taxi driver (bailee or bailor).who declines to accept Cabcharge cards or dockets.


Any "compliance" or "customer service department", as part of any taxi network, will be seen to be engaging in and supporting anti competitive behaviour should they do so.

The incident of disciplining drivers for this reason will leave open any taxi network to serious charges brought by the ACCC with it's associated heavy penalties for those taxi networks.


It would be a brave and some might say foolhardy Board of Directors and their Board Chairman that would risk exposing themselves to the legislative wrath of the ACCC and it's Chairman, Graeme Samuel.


The inevitable fallout by way of bad publicity and share price loss would reflect back on the ongoing standing and security of those taxi network Directors and their Chairman.

And all this merely to promote a separate company, which is Cabcharge, that is consciously misleading and in doing so endangering those individual taxi networks and their executive board members. This is simply to manipulate those taxi networks to further entrench Cabcharge's own anti competitive and monopolistic fervor and practices.

On the surface it appears the taxi networks benefit but at what cost or potential cost? 


The apparent benefit to the taxi networks is the" buying into" and usage of  Cabcharge Australia's payment processing and financial settlement system that handles the charging to the account holders card issuer, the amount for the individual fares.Cabcharge also handles the 10% surcharge on those fares and the proportional allocating of that 10% surcharge plus the initial cost of the fare as shown by the metered amount.


However the weaker parties in this arrangement most definitely is the taxi networks themselves, one of which you represent. Those taxi networks in no small part carry the responsibility for adherence to the fair Trading Act but additionally also carry responsibility for adherence to the Transport Act and the Industrial Relations Act.


Cabcharge and it's directors benefit far more from this arrangement than do any individual taxi network Directors and their plate owning or plate controlling, vote carrying, network affiliated members. The latter of these members are usually bailors but often more so nowadays are bailees also.


The decision in Matter No 3 of 2005 clearly comes down against Cabcharge Australia P/L with a flow on and overlapping effect onto taxi networks. 


The NSW Taxi Council are beholden to Cabcharge Australia and act against the interest of it's own members. Where have the NSW Taxi Council fully informed you as one of their members, of the complete implications of that decision in Matter No 3 of 2005?

They have not and will not as they want you to be unaware of what it means and legally implies for you by extension.


The NSW Taxi Council are failing in their Duty of Care towards you and other networks and their CEO and Board of Directors are deliberately and consciously under in forming you as one of their members.


We suggest to you, as a registered office holder for Legion taxi network, that you seek advice and feedback from independent sources away from the NSW Taxi Council on this matter as an appropriate, proper, ethical course of action.


As part of that action we advise we are able to better inform you and your Board of Directors of our view of the implications of what is occurring here.


As a driver representative organisation we speak directly to you as one of the few remaining true taxi co operatives, who like us, firstly act in the interests of your members and for what is proper and just for the taxi industry as a whole.


We say, the legal situation that you are entangled with here has enormous implications for you and your fellow directors future.


The ACCC favours no one, nor does it's Chairman Graeme Samuel. Witness the recent pursuit of Richard Pratt.


The NSW Taxi Council is in reality Cabcharge which in turn is Kermode and the NSW Taxi Council are wrongfully, consciously and deliberately under informing you and others, so that they can mislead everyone into thinking it is business as usual, when it clearly is not.


There are sanctions available to you under specific sections of the Fair Trading Act.


Ask yourself this, in all your experience in the taxi industry and in business administration in totality, when have you received such a letter as this?


The truthful answer is never.


And would it not be prudent to follow this through to it's outcome?


We consult, we research and we are connected and active and we urge you and your associates to be all of those also. 


Again and again the NSW Taxi Council which is Kermode make decisions that favour them over all others.


As said, there is presently the opportunity for you and your associates to gain the benefit of our hard won experiences and of our thoughts and views on this and on taxi industry related matters. There is a limit to our willingness for discussion and believe you have the wit and intellect to act appropriately, with due consideration and with the required urgency.


I am, and we are contactable via the details provide earlier.   


Nothing more than immediate withdrawal of the present Cabcharge logo contained in any livery (as described) by the covering up of same, or the resubmitting of new non Cabcharge containing door decals etc for further approval to the NSW MOT, and then the placement on affected taxis is required.


I now go on to address the current NSW MOT approved stickers appearing inside of Legion Cab Network's affiliated taxi cabs or any taxi cab Australia wide.


These similarly must be changed to non Cabcharge displaying stickers.        


I trust, you will and have advised your compliance section and other relevant departments that there is no need and no basis to question or penalise any drivers of vehicles that are part of your network should it eventuate that they may have declined to accept Cabcharge for any payment for any taxi fare. 

I ask for your response.        

With thanks

Sincerely yours


Faruque Ahmed (20/05/2009)




Faruque Ahmed

P.O. Box – 349, Alexandria - 2015

Mobile: 041 091 4118, Email: union_faruque@...


The Chief Executive Officer

Combined Communications Network

Sydney, Australia

Email: info@...

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Subject: Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47


Dear Sir/Madam

Please be aware of the Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47) of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission that does prohibit forcing any taxi driver regardless of whether they are bailee or bailor, to be compelled to accept Cabcharge as a method of payment for any taxi fare.

This is supported by the ruling of the Australian Competition Tribunal (Matter No - 3 of 2005 Australian Competition Tribunal).

I trust, you will and have advised your compliance section and other relevant departments that there is no need and no basis to question or penalise any drivers should it eventuate that they may have declined to accept Cabcharge for any payment for any fare.        

With thanks.

Sincerely yours


Faruque Ahmed

Source: Sydney Taxi Corruption



Dear Patricia



Cabcharge and Criminals


Right now action should be taken to declare, "the Cabcharge is the proceeds of crime and all proceeds should be seized by the government and eventually to be utilized for the public and workers' safety, welfare and benefit".     



Contact Officer: Monica Bourke

Contact Phone: 02 6243 153 1

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

GPO Box 3131

Canberra ACT 2601

23 Marcus Clarke Street

Canberra ACT 2601

tel: (02) 6243 11 11

fax: (02) 6243 1 199

18 April 2008

Mr Faruque Ahmed

PO Box 349

Alexandria NSW 2015


Dear Mr Ahrned


Re: Removal of Cabcharge Decals from Taxis



I refer to your emails dated 29 November 2007 and 28 March 2008 regarding the removal of decals advertising Cabcharge products.


Review of Taxi Authorisations

As you are aware, on 11 March 2005 the ACCC issued a determination regarding its review of twelve taxi authorisations (including authorisation A301 12 granted to Deluxe Red and Yellow Cabs) concerning the provision of radio booking services to taxi operators and drivers on the condition that they accept certain forms of non-cash payment (card and voucher payments) and the display of decals of those payment methods.


The ACCC considered that cards and vouchers would continue to be widely accepted with or without authorisation, however decided not to revoke the authorisations on the basis that there existed some small benefit in the certainty provided by the authorisation and negligible detriment.


Tribunal decision

The Commission's determination of 11 March 2005 was appealed to the Australian Competition Tribunal. The Tribunal decided on 27 June 2006 to revoke the authorisations on the basis that the benefit of certainty of acceptance of non-cash payments was not sufficient to sustain the authorisations. The Tribunal agreed with the ACCC's proposition that irrespective of the authorisations, taxi operators and drivers are likely to continue to accept non-cash payments.


Eflect of the Tribunal decision

The revocation by the Tribunal of the twelve authorisations means that the networks which previously had authorisation can no longer engage in the conduct without being at risk of action under the Trade Practices Act. Whether or not specific requirements would raise concerns under the competition provisions of the Act would depend on the specific nature of the requirements imposed.


However, the ACCC and the Tribunal expected that cards and vouchers would continue to be widely accepted absent authorisation. Taxi operators and drivers are entitled to advertise the cards and vouchers they accept. Should certain taxi operators and drivers not accept certain cards and vouchers, but advertise on their taxis that these cards are accepted, such could amount to misleading conduct.



Yours sincerely

Isabelle Arnaud


Adjudication Branch


--- In, "jasonnash80" <jasonnash80@...> wrote:

Re: Dear Patricia


Racism to Long Bay Hilton

The taxi mafia used lies and racism to get the Trade Practices Authorisation back in 1980s.


Because Cabcharge gets so much cash; it gained enormous buying power; legal or illegal. Such a power usually hurts the bailee driver and rest of the society in many ways. Recent procurement of many taxi industry related instrumentalities are a prime example and unless this lawless monster is stopped it will swallow the whole society and no one would be in a position to counter the monopolistic venom of Cabcharge.


TPC Determination P 22 … "By reason , inter alia, of the ethnic diversity of taxi drivers … a need for discipline and clearly and simply defined systems"


--- In, "mamubhi" <mamubhi@...> wrote:

Re: Dear Patricia


Long Bay Hilton for Taxi Mafia



barrybullman said, "Cabcharge is the major user of taxi s in Sydney, It would be stupid to remove their decals or to promote other services irrespective of kermode and all the other idiots."


Probably he did not know the fact that Mr. Faruque Ahmed who is also merely a Media Manager of the NSW Taxi Drivers' association said to the judges, "Taxi co-operatives (not taxi companies or networks) obtained "the authorisation in contention" by not telling the truth, twisting the truth and using racism as well as some other false claims they made to misguide the then Trade Practices Commission. Ultimately, the original applicants, specifically the Red and Yellow Deluxe have used many false claims "for their own narrow benefit" and got away with them. Fortunately most of their typical false claims and lies were detected and eventually correctly rejected by the TPC in matter A30152."


This barrybullman should have refrained to call others stupid because the mighty Cabcharge and the NSW Taxi Council Pty Ltd failed to argue with Mr. Faruque Ahmed or points of contentions presented by him in front of three wise Judges! At the end the taxi mafia lost the case.


Right now Mr. Faruque Ahmed and others should have cornered the taxi mafia properly and organized a permanent residency for Mr. Kermode at the Long Bay Hilton. Alas! Some detractors under the guise of taxi industry activists like Nelson and Jools are always wasting Faruque's time and letting Kermode get away with murder. What a sad state of affairs!!          


--- In, "union_faruque" <union_faruque@...> wrote:

Re: Dear Patricia



Beside the unintelligent and uninformed comment of `nobody', the Cabcharge is a proceeds of CRIME and therefore all assets of Cabcharge should be confiscated by the good government immediately and utilized for public and workers' safety.



--- In, "union_faruque" <union_faruque@...> wrote:


Dear Patricia


I have not received any further information beside your initial note below in response to my original correspondence.


With thanks


Faruque Ahmed

Friday, March 28, 2008




Removal of Cabcharge Decals from Taxis


Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:53:31 +1100


"Infocentre" <info.centre@...>   Add to Address Book




Classification: UNCLASSIFIED


Dear Mr. Faruque,


Thank you for your email of 3 December 2007 to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) requesting the removal of Cabcharge decals from Taxis.


The role of the ACCC is to ensure compliance with the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA), which is designed to encourage fair trading and discourage anti-competitive conduct through a specific set of competition and consumer protection rules. It is only when there is a contravention of the TPA that there may be a role for the ACCC.


The information provided in your email has been passed on to the relevant area of the ACCC. You will only be contacted if further information is required.


As part of its role the ACCC also monitors emerging trends across consumer and business complaints to determine whether there is a pattern of behaviour by a particular trader or in a particular industry that requires attention. In this regard, your complaint has been recorded and is an important part of our ongoing analysis.


Thank you for contacting the ACCC with your concerns. 


Yours sincerely



ACCC Infocentre

1300 302 502


From: Faruque Ahmed [mailto:union_faruque@...]
Sent: Sunday, 2 December 2007 7:35 PM
Subject: Removal of Cabcharge Decals from Taxis




Faruque Ahmed

P O Box – 349

Alexandria – 2015

Mobile: 041 091 4118

Thursday, November 29, 2007




Mr. Graeme Samuel

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
GPO  Box 3131
Ph: 02 6243 1244
Fax: 02 6243 1210 
Email: foi@...


Re: Removal of Cabcharge Decals from Taxis


Dear Mr. Samuel,                  

I request that the ACCC move to take action forcing requirement that taxi entities be compelled to remove from surface areas of taxi cabs, decals proclaiming and advertising Cabcharge products.


Originally taxi cooperatives (not taxi companies or networks) obtained "the authorisation in contention" to subject workers in the taxi cab industry to perform for Cabcharge from the then Trades Practices Commission by not telling the truth, twisting the truth and using racism. Ultimately, the original applicants, specifically the Red and Yellow Deluxe have used many false claims "for their own narrow benefit" with impunity.


Fortunately this issue was largely dealt with to my satisfaction in TPC in matterA30152.


Since then, we have been asking the ACCC and other relevant departments to remove the Authorization A30112. Surprisingly, they are very reluctant about it.


Finally, in Matter No - 3 of 2005 of the Australian Competition Tribunal, Justice Goldberg and three other eminent Judges revoked the contentious authorization which gave the Cabcharge the "exclusive power" and "monopoly" in the first place. It is interesting to note that during the proceeding neither the taxi network nor the Cabcharge made representation as to the (their) case.


The fact is, the then TPC then made a mistake back in 1984- since then the Federal Competition Tribunal corrected the anomaly.


The ACCC used it's power, authority and creativity to compel all taxi owners of this country to display the Cabcharge decals and therefore accept the Cabcharge cards and dockets.


Now, the ACCC must do everything to remove the Cabcharge decals from all taxis as they are false advertisement and NOT legally required in the first place.


With thanks


Faruque Ahmed

Source: Sydney Taxi Corruption




CabCharge's efforts at forcing drivers to provide refunds


Faruque Ahmed wrote:




Please read Exclusive dealing and third line forcing (s47) before organising any revolution.

Ernie Mollenhauer <destodesperate@...> wrote:
RE: CabCharge's efforts at forcing drivers to provide refunds



Thanks heaps for your interest but I am, by no means, able or authorised to commit the NSW TDA to anything. Neither to cover ANY costs concerning a court case nor even to commission an action. I have committed to meet with drivers at 4pm Monday June 1st, at Blacktown Sports & Social Club, Reservoir Rd Blacktown so would not be able to meet anyone in Darlinghurst on that day.  I have also been talking with AAMI who are considering making some changes to the way they hire/pay for taxis. (My current contact is Michael Finlay, NSW Claims Service Manager, 8925 9441).


I have asked drivers to fax me copies of dockets that they felt were unfairly rejected and to date have received only one (Geoff Coates').

At the docket exchange at Auburn I have been shown a number of rejected dockets, of other drivers, which I would have been inclined to reject too, most were higher than I would have expected.


Mr Finlay (and also David Cicurel, AAMI accounts Manager, 8925 9360 who is junior to MF) has been sympathetic to the unfairness of banning taxi plate numbers (punishing all and future drivers) where fraud was suspected by just one previous driver of that plate. I am hopeful that the bans will be refined to drivers' authority numbers, only.


I will report back to both Peer and Kingsley after meeting with those drivers who attend Monday's meeting. Until then I would suggest that no further moves be made.

Please pass on my apologies to the barrister whose time I may have unfairly taken.


Kind regards,



From: kingsleyliu3@...
To: peer.lindholdt@...; erniethecabbie@...
Subject: RE: CabCharge's efforts at forcing drivers to provide refunds
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 07:58:19 +0000

Dear Ernie
Once I have locked in the barrister, I will contact you guys for venue, date and time.
Of course it would be a no win no pay from my side, and possibly the barrister as well. Filing fees and court costs if not waived may have to be paid... if we get that far.
Would a Monday or Tuesday afternoon 5.30 at Taxi Club be OK?? 


Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:04:18 +1000
Subject: Re: CabCharge's efforts at forcing drivers to provide refunds
From: peer.lindholdt@...
To: erniethecabbie@...; kingsleyliu3@...

Dear Ernie,

For ten years I have published articles questioning Cabcharge's legal right to refuse ANY payment made through its system unless it can prove that the driver or operator has committed an act of fraud. It is therefore pleasing to me that you have decided to pursue the AAMI and similar cases so vigorously and are seeking legal advise. We can only hope Kingsley is willing and up to it. Here are a few pointers to help him along.

1.     Cabcharge operates on two levels; as a merchant for card providers (banks etc) and by providing charging facilities to its own clients, mostly corporate and government.

2.     The system works identically to a supermarket chain. The cab driver is the shop assistant, the operator the shop manager, the network or docket exchange the shop's administrations office and Cabcharge is the supermarket company/owner/merchant.

3.     AFAIK in law neither the "shop assistant" "shop manager" nor the staff of the "administrative office" can be held financially responsible for disputed transactions. That responsibility rests solely with the company/owner/merchant, in this case Cabcharge.

4.     AFAIK no driver or operator has signed a contract with Cabcharge or its agents (networks) that they will reimburse Cabcharge should a card provider or one of its clients dispute or reject a transaction and even if they had, in the case of drivers and maybe even operators, I have no doubt the IRC would declare such a contract invalid being in breach of industrial relations legislation.

5.     Cab drivers and operators are providing free labour to Cabcharge in return for it providing free payment systems to them as a service to the public.

6.     According to the ACCC, Cabcharge or their affiliated taxi networks cannot force taxis to use the Cabcharge payment system, or any other system for that matter. We are only obliged to take cash. However, through third line forcing and the collusion of the MoT all cabs, to belong to a network, must carry the decals of their network which more often than not include the Cabcharge logo. Thus, as we are advertising Cabcharge, we are obliged by law to accept it.

7.     Although Federal Law overrides State Law, the ACCC has persistently refused to address this issue despite it being anti-competitive, third line forcing and an abuse of market power by Cabcharge and or its paid agents (the networks).

If the above is correct, especially taxi operators, who would have extensive records of rejected transactions, would have cause to launch a class action potentially worth millions of dollars against both Cabcharge and the networks.

Worth thinking about


On 28/5/09 1:06 AM, "Ernie Mollenhauer" <erniethecabbie@...> wrote:

Attention Kingsley Liu,
The People's Solicitors

Dear Kingsley,

This is a request for some free legal advice. I am optimistic that you might accept the request as it is for the information of taxi drivers, generally, and does not deal in specifics. In particular is does not concern ME directly.
The situation is this: A large number of taxi drivers have had blue CabCharge dockets "bounced" by either CabCharge or CabCharge customers, most notably the insurance company AAMI. Typically the drivers have accepted a hiring in good faith in one of two forms. Either they ranked up at an AAMI reception centre where AAMI customers drop off their damaged vehicles for repair and those customers are given a free taxi ride by AAMI to either get to work or get home as they choose. Alternately drivers get radio bookings to collect passengers from the passengers/homes/work, or even an AAMI reception centre, and take them as directed, most often to a smash repair centre to collect their repaired car.

Sometimes their trip is to and from a car rental centre such as Hertz. Upon arrival at a smash repair centre a clerk from the centre typically reads the taxi meter and records that figure on a CabCharge docket provided by AAMI for the purpose. For the trips emanating from an AAMI reception centre a docket is given to the passenger, by AAMI, with instructions(?) to complete the docket upon arrival at their destination and give the docket to the driver.
Subsequent to those hirings, often many months later, drivers are being told that their dockets are being charged back to them for a range of reasons most often accusing the drivers of overcharging. In the typical case the driver has tendered a docket, duly filled in, by the smash repairer or customer of AAMI with charges accepted by the AAMI agent at the time.
So here are the legal questions:
1)      Who is the legal hirer of the taxi? If the driver must recover his fare from some other source after a CabCharge chargeback, is the hirer:

a)      The AAMI customer who traveled in the cab? Or;

b)      The smash repairer who issued the docket? Or;

c)       AAMI who led various parties to believe that the cabbie would indeed get paid for his efforts?

2)      How are drivers to ascertain whether a tip included in a docket total, and authorised by the person completing the docket, is a valid charge against the account holder, in this example AAMI?

3)      What defences are open to cabbies faced with such a demand for a refund and under what circumstances can/could a driver refuse to give a refund to CabCharge/AAMI?

4)      If a taxi driver wishes to contest CabCharge's or AAMI's refusal to pay the amount showing on a blue CabCharge docket (or their demand for a refund) would you be interested in representing them either individually or as part of a class action?

5)      If such disputes are pursued through legal channels what chances of achieving a net benefit would you foresee for the drivers (assuming no deliberate fraud or collusion is proven)?

A meeting of taxi drivers is planned for 4pm Monday June 1st at Blacktown Workers Sports Club, Revervoir & Holbeche Rds Blacktown where you would be most welcome to meet some of the affected drivers. I am aware of the usual conditions of use of a CabCharge account described on the flyleaf of the booklet of dockets which include the following words: 10,2,b due to their nature Account Coded Dockets are not open to cancellation? and also 10,2,c ?The Account Holder remains liable for any lost or stolen Account Coded Dockets dated on or prior to the date of notification [of loss or theft]? So it seems that although CabCharge imposes strict conditions of use on their customers the conditions for redemption of dockets by drivers are not so stringently prescribed (if at all). I don't know what the conditions of redemption, if any are. Perhaps you can guide us there too?

Looking forward to receiving any advice or comments that you may wish to provide.

Kind regards,

Ernie Mollenhauer


0416 335 576

V. 9629 1039
Fax: 9629 9457