Australian Recoveries & Collections

So you've received a payment demand from Australian Recoveries and Collections?  The demand will be a parking fine from Australian National Car Parks, Parking Patrols (Vic), PriPark, Car Park Compliance Services, Parking Enforcement Services or a similar payment demand from UPS, Publicity Monster or several other companies.  This page and surrounding links explains how to handle demands from Australian Recoveries and Collections.
ARC staff named in ANCP prosecution

The NSW Office of Fair Trading started a lawsuit against Australian National Car Parks in 2013.  Australian Recoveries and Collections are the debt collection arm of Australian National Car Parks and the lawsuit by Fair Trading alleged that ARC employees had engaged in unlawful harassment of drivers.  Vehicle owner's had complained in large numbers to the NSW Office of Fair Trading that they have been harrassed by people collecting debts for Australian National Car Parks.  Fair Trading had so many complaints, they launched a lawsuit in Parramatta local court on criminal charges of harassment.  One of the people mentioned in the law suite was Australian Recoveries Collections staff member Hamish Smith.  Note: Fair Trading are not taking court action against ARC itself, but Fair Trading had made allegations that employees of ARC had engaged in illegal harassment.  The lawsuit between the parties was eventually settled out of court. 
Australian Recoveries and Collections letters of demand
If you have come to this page, it is probably because you have received one of the following letters of demand from Australian Recoveries and Collections.  In this letter, Australian Recoveries and Collections say "if legal action is taken to recover this debt, legal fees, charges and interest may be incurred".  This statement is questionable.  Australian National Car Parks rarely take legal action (although they have on occasions).  The receiver of this letter was based in Victoria and, even if it went to court, in Victoria a creditor cannot claim legal fees for debts under $500.  It also says and "your credit rating may be adversely affected by this action" and "your next communication from us may result in legal action".  This is statement fails to mention that your credit rating can only be affected if the creditor took the matter to court and won in court.  
But the following letter takes the cake.  It came in a plain envelope which did not identify who the sender was.  The person who opened the envelope found simply the message "MAILGRAM: Please contact Claire Martyn on (02) 8570 9209 regarding an urgent business matter."  There was also a 5 digit number quoted as reference.  But there was no further information about which companies were involved, who this Clarie Martyn was, or what the matter was about.  Clearly it was not a business matter at all, although the sender was obviously trying to make it look like it was related to the person's business and hoping they would innocently ring.  Well the person did ring the number and a young woman answered the phone with the greeting "Good morning Australian Recoveries and Collections, you're speaking with Claire".  The caller hung up at this point.  So this so called mail gram was just a ruse to try to get you to call ARC so they could question you about money they claimed you owed Australian National Car Parks.  According to the ACCC Debt Collection Guidelines:
 - A debt collector must not misrepresent their identity in any way.
 -  A collector must identify themselves to the alleged debtor at the first opportunity.
But wait, there is still more.  For sheer nastiness, the following letter from Australian Recoveries and Collections wins hands down.   This letter, signed by Andrew Stewart, Recovery Manager at Australian Recoveries and Collections, states:
"Should legal proceedings be instituted and decided in favour of our client, judgment may be entered against you for the amount claimed.  The judgment debt may be recovered by the following actions:
- An Oral examination Summons compelling you to attend Court to complete a full financial statement before a Registrar and product all Accounts, Ledgers, Bank Statements and Taxation Returns;
- Seizure and sale of your assets; and/or
- An Attachment of Earnings Order compelling your employer to deduct money from your earnings each pay period and apply it in payment of the Judgement debt."
Basically ARC claim they can do everything except kill your cat.  But lets examine this.  Those three point actions are all theoretically possible.  But a lot has to happen before that:
- ARC's client must firstly give instructions to take legal action.  This hasn't even occurred yet according to the letter from Andrew Stewart. 
- ARC must issue a complaint to the court against you and serve the court papers on you personally.  This hasn't occurred yet.
- A court case must take place.  This hasn't occurred yet.
- ARC must win the case.  This is impossible because the person who received this letter from ARC wasn't the driver and wasn't a party to the contract.
- Finally, even if ARC did win in court, the person would have to refuse to pay the judgement amount.
- ARC would then have to come back to court to ask the court to grant one or more of the above orders.  The court may not necessarily grant those orders because the person is retired and on a pension.
There are way too many assumptions involved in this letter from ARC, and especially given the fact that the person was not the driver.  
This final letter, signed by Hamish Smith a collector at ARC, says "If you are responsible for this payment notice and legal action is taken to recover this debt, legal fees, charges and interest may be incurred and recovery of these charges may be enforced. Your credit rating may be adversely affected by this action and your next communication from us may result in legal action" .  By virtue of the "if you are responsible of this payment notice" it is clear that ARC don't know who the driver of the vehicle was.  In that case, how can they threaten the vehicle owner with legal action and with affecting their credit rating?  In fact, the vehicle owner in this case was not the driver, and had already written to ANCP and ARC advising them he was not the driver.  So ARC shouldn't have been continuing collection action against this person.
How to contact Australian Recoveries and Collections
Phone: (02) 8570-9296
Note: If you have also received a letter from both Australian Recoveries and Collections and Freedman and Gopalan Solicitors, it is better to contact Freedman and Gopalan instead of Australian Recoveries and Collections.  The reason is that lawyers are bound by professional conduct rules and you are therefore more likely to receive a reasonable response from Freedman and Goaplan.   If sending by email, email to MBBF's email address and cc.   If you don't receive a response from Freedman and Gopalan or ARC, or don't receive a reasonable response, please let me know (my email address is on the contact page of my site).

Contact and Complaints

Not happy with your response from Australian Recoveries and Collections?  Or perhaps, if you are like most people, you didn't receive any respond from your email or letter to Australian Recoveries and Collections.  In that case, you should go straight to the top and contact Daniel O'Connell.  Daniel O'Connell is the managing director of Australian Recoveries and Collections.  A sample email is here.
Complaints: Daniel O'Connell
Phone: 02-8570-9295

Other officers at Australian Recoveries and Collections

ARC Named in Parliament
In Victorian Parliament on 14th June 2011, Mr Michael O'Brien, the Victorian Minister for Consumer Affairs, said he will ask his department, Consumer Affairs Victoria, to look into complaints about a debt collection company called Australian Recoveries & Collections.  The complaint was raised by Victorian Member of Parliament Mr Robin Scott (member for Preston) who said he sought "an investigation into the actions of Australian Recoveries and Collections Pty Ltd, particularly those of Mr Craig Brugman, who has been demanding payment of debts which had already been resolved" (i.e. double dipping).  The Minister said "private car parks have a right to operate, but they have to operate within the law and they do not have the power to issue fines".  Read more...
Ownership and officeholders of ANCP (source ASIC register):
Company shareholders: Paul Gyles and Victor Nudler
Company directors: Paul Gyles and Victor Nudler
Company secretary: Paul Gyles
Ownership and structure of ARC (source ASIC register):
Company shareholders (either direct or indirect): Paul Gyles (30%), Victor Nudler (30%), Andrew Smith (25%), Craig Brugman (7.5%), Nayomi Brugman (7.5%)
Company directors: Paul Gyles, Victor Nudler, Craig Brugman
Company secretary: Paul Gyles, Victor Nudler, Craig Brugman
 So you can see from the above that Australian National Car Parks and Australian Recoveries and Collections is almost the one and the same company.
So why, you ask, do they have a separate company to follow up on its debts?  Why doesn't ANCP just send out its own reminder letters?  Well, research by the debt collection industry has shown that people respond quicker if they receive a letter from a different company to the one they are alleged to owe the debt to. 
In 2001, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ASIC) investigated alleged harrassment of consumers by phone company "OneTel" for its use of a "ghost company" to collect some of its debts.  See Sydney Morning Herald April 19th 2001 ACCC investigates One.Tel's ghost, a debt collector by Kevin Morrison.   During this case, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman put out a media release saying "If you are contacted by a debt collector representing the One.Tel liquidators, you are entitled to request (and receive) an itemisation of the bill the collectors are pursuing. It is the view of the TIO and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) that consumers should not have to pay a bill unless a proof of the debt can be provided" and that "The debt collectors are required to act in accordance with debt collection guidelines and must not engage in any undue harassment or coercion in collecting the debts.  People disputing a One.Tel debt should immediately contact the debt collection agency which is requesting payment of the account."  (see 

Office of Michael Roper

When Michael Roper was the solicitor that handled ARC legal issues, the phone number Mr Roper listed on his letter heads was a number at the Australian Recoveries and Collections office.  When you rang that number, you never got Mr Roper.  It was answered by Australian Recoveries and Collections staff members Caroline Collins or Claire Martyn.  The phone number also often went through to voice mail during business hours.  The male voice on the voice mail message was not Mr Roper's voice.  And if you left a message for Mr Roper, he did not call you back.  Rather ARC employees Caroline Collins or Clarie Martyn would call you back.  Further, people have advised us that Australia Post registered mail that they sent to Mr Roper's PO Box was signed for at the post office by Paul Gyles.  Paul Gyles is a majority share holder in Australian Recoveries and Collections.  Why was Mr Gyles accessing a lawyer's PO Box?

Enforceable undertaking

On 31st August 2016, Australian Recoveries and Collections were forced to enter an Enforceable Underataking with the Privacy Commissioner for breaches of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).  These breaches involved the loading of the names and addresses of alleged debtors onto a publicy available database for "research and analysis" purposes.   

In this enforceable undertaking, ARC admitted to breaches of Australian Privacy Principles 6.1 and 11.1.   Principe 6.1 provides that "an APP entity must not use or disclose personal information collected for a particular purpose for another purpose unless the individual has consented, or an exception applies".  Principle 11.1 provides that "an entity must take reasonable steps to protect the personal information it holds from misuse, interference and loss and from unauthorised access and disclosure".

ARC undertook to:
a) not repeat the conduct that led to the privacy incident
b) implement improved information security
c) implement privacy training for staff
d) offer to reimburse the cost of a 12-month credit monitoring alert service for any individuals whose personal information was disclosed in this privacy incident
e) in consultation with the OAIC, engage a qualified third party to review ARC’s handling of personal information, with specific reference to the security of personal information it holds, and implement any subsequent recommendations.

ARC accepts the fish that Dun and Bradstreet rejects

According to reports, Australian Recoveries and Collections has taken some business off a rival debt collection company called "Dun and Bradstreet".  Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) is well known for its ethical stance and often rejects contracts with companies that have "questionable debts".  The Sydney Morning Herald ran an article on 28 August 2012 about how Dun and Bradstreet had walked away from a lucrative contact with a company called "Publicity Monster" after D&B discovered that Publicity Monster was asking it to chase debts that were in dispute (it is illegal to harass consumers over a debt that is in dispute).  A Dun & Bradstreet spokesperson said that it had been "having issues with Publicity Monster asking it to chase invalid customer debts" and that D&B had ceased recovery attempts on all accounts that were found to be in dispute. The spokesperson said that Dun & Bradstreet has "informed Publicity Monster that the satisfactory resolution of these issues will be required for the continuance of their contract together".  Well, guess who is now chasing debts for Publicity Monster?  None other than Australian Recoveries and Collections!  But the "link" between ARC and D&B goes further than that.  When Australian National Car Parks first started its car park business, it used Dun and Bradstreet to collect its "debts".  It is not known for sure why this relationship between creditor and debt collector ceased, but history says that ANCP's business was moved from D&B to ARC in early 2011.  It is suspected that it is connected with the fact that ANCP were sending disputed debts to D&B for collection.  But it goes further than that again.  When ANCP created ARC from scratch on 7th February 2011, ANCP wanted staff that knew its business well. So they poached the collection staff at D&B that had been working on the ANCP account.  The D&B staff that moved across to ARC from D&B are:
- Andrew Smith (was managing director of ARC until April 2015, now a director and shareholder at Australian Recoveries & Mercantile Agents Pty Ltd (ARMA) ).
- Daniel O'Connell (now managing directory at ARC)
- Craig Brugman (now director of ARC)
- Caroline Collins (now collector at ARC)
- Ken Torres (collector at ARC)
- Gwenda C (now senior account manager at ARC)
- Shane A (was business development manager at ARC)
- Christina R (collector at ARC)
Note: Gwenda, Shane and Christina do not work on the collection of payment notices, they work in other areas of the business, and for this reason I have left their surnames off.
It is known that several people who have been chased by ARC for alleged Publicity Monster debts are now suing ARC in court.  The detail of one of the court cases is as follows.
WOLLONGONG: 9:15 AM Tuesday, 2 Apr 2013, Level 3/43 Burelli Street Wollongong NSW
GEN 13/11159 – Stephen De Hosson v Publicity Monster Pty Ltd & Australian Recoveries & Collections Pty Ltd

Woman felt "stalked" by ARC employee

A women said she felt "stalked" after an Australian Recoveries and Collections employee tracked down where she worked and phoned her work number and her mobile phone number.  Read more on the My Story page.

Further reading about Australian Recoveries & Collections

Australian Recoveries and Collections

From left to right: Terry Clews, Andrew Smith, James English, Shane Ashton.  Click on image to see high res version.

the author of this website is not a lawyer and this site does not constitute legal advice.

Johnny Smithson,
May 14, 2014, 7:28 PM
Johnny Smithson,
May 14, 2014, 7:28 PM
Johnny Smithson,
May 14, 2014, 7:28 PM
Johnny Smithson,
May 14, 2014, 7:28 PM
Johnny Smithson,
May 14, 2014, 7:28 PM