The “We think you have used a template from the internet” response

Avoidance by a party to honourably respond to your letter/notice can take many forms and  ultimately tries to avoid the matter at hand and move to a new matter.

You may find that a opposite party  may respond to your process once it has completed or  during the administrative process. Such a response can take many forms and will usually avoid honourably responding to your affidavit  or points raised in your process whilst at the same time introduce some other matter.

In fact most responses from a respondent will  be standard responses from a template. Ironically,  a common response is “we believe you have downloaded a template from the internet”. I’m yet to meet a lawyer or a person from an administrative office who does not use standard letters and templates, it makes good business sense.

However, what is really going on here? It’s very simple and often overlooked – the respondent is merely trying to introduce a different matter in order to entice you into an argument  about something else. Many will become confused on how to respond to this latest offer and will end up engaging in this new argument, thus gradually losing their position and established agreement (if one has been obtained or in the process of been obtained). Some will remain  silent thereby agreeing to the assertions.

All responses are offers.

So treat them as such. For example a simple public side response to such an offer from a respondent (assuming that the 3 step administrative process is complete) could be:


CLAIMANT:BOB JONES (Aggrieved Party), 51 Main Street, Orange, New South Wales

RESPONDENT(s): Chief Financial Officer, Paul Coins, Orange City Council, PO Box 35, 135-137 Byng Street, Orange, NSW 2800


Australia Post service Registered Post 3.1100001 with Delivery Confirmation

DATE: 1st March 2015

Re: Your Letter Dated xx of mmmmm, 2015, Ref: abc123

Dear Paul Coins

Claimant conditionally accepts your offer on proof of claim that:

  1. This matter is not now resolved as stipulated by the administrative process, NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND CONSENT TO STIPULATION AGREEMENT TO THE FACTS hereinafter, “THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES”, delivered by Australia Post service Registered Post 3333333 dated 11 February 2015 to Orange City Council, PO Box 35, 135-137 Byng Street, Orange, NSW 2800, that shows agreement between the parties making your offer moot; and

  2. [THIS paragraph IS OPTIONAL, usually left in for harassment and tortuous interference from debt collectors] Respondent(s) are not liable for $1000 per tortuous interference and harassment by the act of contacting the Claimant by telephone, SMS or email as the THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES has resolved the matter; and

  3. Respondent(s) are not now liable for reasonable administrative and legal costs as stipulated in THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES that has resolved the matter.

Included herein, the original offers from RESPONDENT(s) are hereby returned.

Signed:_______________________________ Date: 1st March 2015

BOB JONES (Aggrieved Party)


1. Original Letter dated dd/mm/yy from Orange City Council

There are numerous ways to handle a non-performing offer

If you have an agreement – make sure you keep it v’s remaining silent or arguing. If you are still in process, finish it and return any non-performing offers so it is clear to all parties. Other non-performing responses could be: “We have reviewed the matter and believe it should stand”, “We think someone else has written this paperwork”, “We receive these types of responses all the time and they are invalid” and the list goes on…

If the respondent is sure of their position, then they will have no issue responding under penalty of perjury to your original conditional acceptance notice.