Peter Mericka Explains - My Problem With Real Estate Agents

Comments

# interested bystander said on June 16, 2011 2:21 AM:

Peter,

You seem to have identified the problem as being the indifference of police in establishing a charge when the issue appears to be "minor" by their judgement rather than following their obligation to uphold the integrity of the law.  Because police officers are not lawyers (and most are not even familiar with the law) they tend to only chase what they believe to be "big" crimes that will potentially earn them promotion or some other form of peer recognition.  So many times my own request for an investigation have been trivialised and ignored.  As an individual cannot charge for a criminal offence, if the police refuse to handle it, there is more crime committed and no consequence afforded to the activity.

# Peter Mericka said on June 16, 2011 5:59 AM:

As a former policeman myself I can say from experience that police are unlikely to refuse to investigate a matter because it seems minor.  Police know that minor matters can quickly escalate if nothing is done about them - road rage is an example of this.

Usually, complaints about police inaction are the result of a misunderstanding, particularly where the matter is an emotional one (and most are).

In the case of real estate deceptions, the first requirement is that sufficient evidence must be put to the police to warrant an investigation.  This is where the incompetence of Consumer Affairs Victoria becomes evident, as CAV's investigators do not have the resources, the departmental support or the initiative to recognise and to investigate criminal conduct.

I recently wrote to CAV in an effort to have the bribery problem investigated (See http://www.lawyersconveyancing.com.au/news/conveyancing_goodman_group_bribes.asp) but they wrote back to me stating that is the belief that "such payments are permitted..." under the Conveyancers Act.