Updated March 2026

Responding to a non-substantive response

 

Prior to January 2026:

Additionally, for silence, obfuscation or inaction, remind your AI of appropriate legal maxims, eg, from AI:

The maxim you’re looking for is a classical one, well-attested and precise:

---

“Qui non prohibet cum prohibere possit, jubet.”

Translation:

He who does not forbid when he can, commands.

---

Meaning (strictly)

The maxim expresses the principle that failure to act, where there is a duty and capacity to act, is legally equivalent to positive authorization. In other words, omission can constitute culpable participation.

It does not apply to mere silence in the abstract — it applies where:

• A person or authority has the power to prevent a wrong, and
• Fails to do so, thereby allowing harm to occur or continue.

In such circumstances, the law treats inaction as assent or complicity.

---

Closely related maxims (distinct but often confused)

To avoid category errors, it helps to separate these:

1. Qui tacet consentire videtur
   He who is silent is taken to consent
   → Applies mainly to procedural or evidentiary contexts, not harm.
2. Culpa in omittendo
   Fault by omission
   → Describes liability arising from failure to perform a duty.
3. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas
   Use your own so as not to harm another
   → Ground of duty, including duty to restrain harm.
4. Nonfeasance (common law term)
   → Failure to act where a legal duty exists.

Only the first maxim above — qui non prohibet… — directly captures the idea that failure to prevent harm, when prevention is possible and required, is itself blameworthy conduct.

---

Relevance to institutional silence

In administrative and public-law settings, this maxim underpins doctrines where:

• An authority knows of an unlawful or harmful condition,
• Has statutory or supervisory power to intervene, and
• Fails to act, allowing the harm to persist.

In those cases, the failure is not neutral — it is legally meaningful conduct.

---

Bottom line

If you need a clean, orthodox maxim that states inaction can be guilt when one had the power and duty to act, this is the correct one:

Qui non prohibet cum prohibere possit, jubet.

No spin. No folklore. Straight doctrine.

 

Pre 2026 material:

These are starting points, not finished by any means. Each matter is different, modify/expand to suit.
Suggestion: remove bold text and long dashes (eg. Yes — ) as these are AI giveaways.

• For an ABN council refusing to respond to future correspondence
• For a bank
• ATO
• A court

Our AI ref [RES-2025-12-25-001]

Below is a formal, CEO-appropriate response letter to a local government agency (e.g., a local council operating under an ABN) where they have stated they will “disengage” and “not respond to future communications.”

This draft is constructed to:

• Keep the tone measured and professional (not confrontational);
• Make it legally clear that non-engagement is discretionary and cannot be treated as incapacity;
• Quietly preserve your position for review, complaint, Ombudsman, or judicial review;
• Make it difficult for the council to defend a blanket refusal under administrative law principles.

It does not rely on pseudo-legal concepts. It uses orthodox administrative law ideas: procedural fairness, relevance, proper exercise of power, and duty to consider submissions.

---

Draft Letter — Response to “Non-Engagement / No Further Response” Notice

Chief Executive Officer
[Name of Council]
[Address]

[Date]

By Email and Registered Post
[Council email]
[Registered post details, if used]

Subject: Request for Confirmation of Decision-Making Basis and Acknowledgement of Ongoing Correspondence

Dear Chief Executive Officer,

I refer to your correspondence dated [insert date], in which Council indicates that it will not engage further and will not respond to future communications from me regarding [insert matter/issue/reference number].

I acknowledge that Council may adopt internal administrative processes to manage communications. However, I respectfully note that a decision to decline engagement is a matter of administrative choice, not a legal limitation on Council’s jurisdiction or duties. The adoption of a non-engagement position cannot, of itself, displace obligations that arise under statute and common law where Council is exercising public functions affecting rights, interests, or legitimate expectations.

In that context, I request clarification of the basis on which Council has determined that future communications will not be acknowledged or responded to.

Specifically, please confirm:

1. Whether Council’s decision to discontinue engagement constitutes a formal administrative decision made under a specific power;
2. The legislative or delegated authority relied upon to refuse acknowledgement and response to future correspondence relevant to the above matter;
3. Whether Council has considered that submissions or information provided may constitute relevant material which a decision-maker is ordinarily required to consider where it bears upon the performance of statutory functions; and
4. Whether Council will continue to receive and register correspondence received from me (even if it does not intend to provide a substantive reply), so that there is an accurate administrative record.

For avoidance of doubt, I do not request that Council respond to every item of correspondence as a matter of convenience. My concern is limited to ensuring that Council’s position does not operate as a blanket refusal that might prevent relevant material from being acknowledged, recorded, or considered where Council is exercising public power.

If Council maintains that it is authorised to refuse all future acknowledgement or response, please identify:

• the precise statutory provision, regulation, or instrument of delegation that authorises that course, and
• the review rights (internal review, Ombudsman, tribunal, or court) available in respect of that refusal.

Pending clarification, I will continue to provide correspondence in an orderly manner, limited to matters relevant to the above issue, and in a form suitable for administrative handling.

Please ensure that this letter is recorded within Council’s file for [insert file reference / matter].

Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Address]
[Email]
[Phone]

---

Why this works (quietly but effectively)

✅ It forces them to pick one of two paths:

1. Admit it’s not a formal decision (and therefore not a lawful “refusal”), or
2. Treat it as a decision (which triggers reasons, procedural fairness, review rights, and legal scrutiny).

✅ It eliminates “we’re refusing because we don’t have to”

by demanding the legislative basis for a blanket refusal.

✅ It preserves the record:

Even if they refuse to respond, they will have a hard time denying later that they received it.

---

Optional Add-On (if you want a slightly firmer ending)

You can add this paragraph before the closing:

In the absence of any identified statutory authority for a blanket refusal to receive or acknowledge relevant correspondence, Council’s stated position may be taken to reflect an administrative preference rather than a lawful limitation on jurisdiction. I reserve all rights in relation to any adverse consequences arising from that position, including review or complaint options that may be available.

This is still professional but adds teeth.

---

If you want, I can tailor this to:

• A specific state (WA, NSW, VIC etc.) and include the correct legislation references for local government and Ombudsman;
• A specific matter type (rates, infringement, planning, compliance, trespass notice, council meetings, FOI);
• A version that also requests a Statement of Reasons (where applicable);
• A version that requests delegations and authorisations (very effective against councils).

Tell me the council’s State/Territory and what the dispute/matter relates to, and I’ll pin it to the correct legal framework.

 

[RES-2025-12-25-002]

Yes — and the legal framing changes materially when it’s a private (non-government) provider like a bank.

A bank is not generally bound by administrative law duties like procedural fairness in the same way a public authority is. But you gain leverage through:

1. Contract law (terms and implied duties of cooperation/good faith in performance);
2. Australian Consumer Law (ACL) (misleading conduct, unconscionable conduct, unfair contract terms in standard form contracts);
3. Banking Code of Practice (if the bank is a subscriber, which major banks are);
4. AFCA (Australian Financial Complaints Authority) external dispute resolution; and
5. ASIC / APRA frameworks (conduct and prudential obligations) — not for individual dispute resolution directly, but useful in escalation.

Below is a practical, strong, and legally orthodox template response you can send to a bank (or any private provider) that says they will not respond further.

---

1) What a Bank Can’t Do (in practice)

A bank can choose to stop engaging casually, but it cannot lawfully or safely:

• Ignore an unresolved complaint while continuing to provide (or enforce) a service;
• Refuse to provide required information where it affects your ability to understand fees, interest, enforcement, or a disputed transaction;
• Stonewall if the issue relates to hardship, vulnerability, mistake, fraud, chargeback, or errors;
• Disengage in a manner that is unfair, misleading, or unconscionable.

Even if they are technically allowed to cease correspondence, that stance can expose them to:

• an AFCA complaint;
• breach of the Banking Code (complaints handling);
• ACL issues (especially unconscionable conduct or misleading conduct);
• contractual breach (failure to cooperate or act honestly in performance).

---

2) ACL angles that matter most

Here are the ACL provisions that are usually relevant when a bank “refuses to engage”:

✅ Misleading or deceptive conduct (ACL s 18)

If the bank:

• gives an impression they will investigate / resolve complaints;
• states they have reviewed something when they haven’t;
• suggests you have no rights / no recourse when you do;
• claims they have no obligation to respond when their code/terms say otherwise.

✅ Unconscionable conduct (ACL ss 20–22)

If the bank:

• uses its superior power to stonewall;
• refuses to address a clear error;
• leverages disengagement to force you to abandon a claim;
• ignores vulnerability, hardship, or misunderstanding.

✅ Unfair contract terms (ACL ss 23–28)

If their standard form terms effectively permit unilateral shutdown of dispute processes, or allow them to enforce consequences while preventing meaningful dispute resolution, that can be attacked as unfair — particularly if it creates a significant imbalance, is not reasonably necessary, and would cause detriment.

(Important practical note: UCT arguments are strongest for consumer and small business standard form contracts.)

---

3) The easiest lever: Banking Code + AFCA

The simplest “non-theoretical” counter is:

• Request the complaint ID
• Demand a written final response
• If they refuse, lodge AFCA complaint

Banks usually shift quickly once AFCA is engaged, because AFCA can compel their participation and the bank pays case fees.

---

4) Draft Letter — Bank refuses further communications

[Your Name]
[Address]
[Email]
[Phone]

[Date]

Complaints Resolution Team
[Bank Name]
[Email / Address]

Subject: Notice – refusal to engage further / request for written final response and complaint outcome

Dear Complaints Team,

I refer to your correspondence dated [insert date], in which you indicate that the Bank will not respond to further communications regarding [insert issue / account / transaction / reference].

I do not accept that a blanket refusal to engage is appropriate while the matter remains unresolved. This issue concerns [briefly state: disputed transaction / account error / fees / hardship / closure / enforcement / incorrect reporting etc.], and it is necessary that the Bank provide a clear written position and outcome so that I may understand the Bank’s basis for its actions and exercise any available dispute resolution rights.

Accordingly, please provide within [10 business days]:

1. Written confirmation that my complaint is formally recorded, including the complaint reference ID;
2. The Bank’s written outcome for the complaint, including reasons sufficient to explain the decision and any supporting documentation relied upon;
3. Confirmation of whether the Bank regards its response as a final response, and if so, confirmation of my right to lodge the matter with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA); and
4. A copy of any internal dispute resolution policy or relevant extract that the Bank relies upon to refuse further communication while a complaint remains open.

If the Bank maintains that it will not respond, please treat this letter as a request for the Bank’s final response for the purposes of external dispute resolution.

I also note that a refusal to engage further in relation to an unresolved dispute may raise concerns under the Bank’s obligations in relation to complaint handling and dispute resolution, and may result in me lodging the matter with AFCA without further notice.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and confirm the timeframe for substantive response.

Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]

---

5) Why this is effective

✅ It forces the bank to either:

• Issue a final response (which you can then take to AFCA), or
• Admit they haven’t completed IDR properly (bad position with AFCA).

✅ It frames refusal to respond as potentially problematic

without making threats or exaggerated legal claims.

✅ It asks for exactly what AFCA needs

(complaint ID, final response, reasons, documents).

---

6) Practical next step sequence (works in real life)

1. Send the letter above.
2. If no response or they keep stonewalling: lodge AFCA.
3. If bank is enforcing action (default listing, closure, debt collection): request interim arrangement / pause due to dispute.
4. If the matter involves financial hardship: use the bank’s hardship process — banks are expected to engage on hardship.

---

If you tell me which bank, what type of matter (fees, account closure, chargeback, ID verification, fraud, hardship, credit reporting, etc.), and whether you are in consumer or small business, I can tailor the letter to:

• maximise ACL applicability;
• include Banking Code wording appropriate to that scenario;
• and structure it so AFCA intake is smoother.

 

[RES-2025-12-25-003]

Yes — for the ATO, the framing returns to public law (administrative law + statutory duties), but with ATO-specific escalation paths that are stronger and more formal than local councils.

The ATO can manage communications and sometimes limit repetitive contact, but it cannot lawfully:

• refuse to acknowledge relevant submissions connected to an assessment, objection, review, debt recovery, or enforcement action;
• refuse to consider relevant material where it bears on an exercise of statutory power;
• deny your ability to correspond simply because you fall outside a preferred “recognised” category;
• use a “non-engagement” position to avoid statutory duties to make decisions, give reasons (where required), notify outcomes, and provide review rights.

Where the ATO says “we will not respond further,” the best approach is to:

1. Convert their stance into a reviewable decision (or force them to concede it isn’t one),
2. Request the statutory authority for refusing acknowledgement/consideration,
3. Request your review rights, and
4. Escalate to the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman (IGTO) if they stonewall.

Below is a template letter you can send to the ATO when they refuse to engage further.

---

Draft Letter — ATO “Non-Engagement / No Further Response”

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Email] | [Phone]
[TFN / ABN (only if you choose)]

[Date]

Australian Taxation Office
[Relevant ATO area / email / postal address]

Subject: Request for clarification of ATO position – refusal to engage / acknowledgement of submissions and decision-making basis

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to the ATO correspondence dated [insert date], which states that the ATO will not respond further to communications from me concerning [insert matter: assessment, audit, review, objection, payment arrangement, debt recovery, garnishee, disclosure, etc.] under reference [insert ATO reference number].

I acknowledge that the ATO may manage communications to ensure efficiency. However, where the ATO is exercising statutory powers that affect a person’s rights, interests or liabilities, the ATO remains obliged to act according to law, including by receiving and considering relevant submissions, and by ensuring that any decisions are capable of review in accordance with the relevant taxation legislation and administrative law principles.

Accordingly, I request clarification of the basis on which the ATO proposes to refuse further engagement, and confirmation of how the ATO will ensure that relevant material is acknowledged and considered for the purposes of the above matter.

Please confirm:

1. Whether the ATO’s refusal to respond further constitutes an administrative decision, and if so, identify the statutory authority under which that decision is made;
2. The ATO’s process for ensuring correspondence is received and recorded, even where the ATO does not intend to provide a substantive response;
3. Whether the ATO accepts that submissions and documents provided by an affected person may constitute relevant material that should be taken into account when exercising statutory powers; and
4. The review or complaint mechanisms available in respect of the ATO’s refusal to respond, including any internal review rights and the appropriate external oversight body.

For the avoidance of doubt, my intention is not to generate unnecessary correspondence but to ensure that communications relevant to the ATO’s exercise of statutory power are properly received, recorded and considered. If the ATO maintains that it will not engage further, I request that the ATO provide a written statement identifying:

• the reasons for adopting that position in this matter;
• the authority relied upon; and
• confirmation of the avenues available to raise the matter through oversight or dispute resolution processes.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and confirm the timeframe in which the ATO will respond.

Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]

---

Why this works against ATO “disengagement”

✅ It forces them into one of two uncomfortable positions:

• Admit it’s a decision → then it attracts reasons / review rights / oversight
• Admit it’s not a decision → then they can’t lawfully treat it as binding or definitive; it’s just a preference

✅ It anchors your correspondence to statutory function

Without requiring you to cite specific tax provisions.

✅ It preserves procedural fairness / relevant considerations

This matters most in audits, assessments, objections, debt recovery and garnishee decisions.

---

Practical ATO escalation options (stronger than councils)

If the ATO stonewalls after this letter, the most effective escalation is:

1) IGTO (Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman)

• This is the specialist oversight body for ATO administrative conduct.
• They deal directly with complaints about poor admin, unfair treatment, and failure to respond.

2) Commonwealth Ombudsman

• Broader oversight, sometimes used if IGTO isn’t suitable or time-critical.

3) Internal ATO complaints

• Force a complaint ID and trackable outcome.

4) Formal statutory pathways

Depending on what the matter is, you can force action using:

• Objection provisions (Part IVC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953),
• Review rights in the AAT/Federal Court pathway,
• or requests for reasons where applicable.

---

If you tell me which ATO context this is, I can make it materially stronger

Because the “correct” statutory hook differs for:

• assessment / amended assessment
• audit / review
• garnishee notice / recovery action
• penalties / remission
• objection / review rights
• disclosure / privacy / record correction
• ABN / GST registration matters

If you tell me what the ATO matter is, and what they said (a sentence or two), I can tailor the letter to:

• capture the exact statutory duty they’re trying to avoid;
• add a subtle “constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction” angle;
• and build the best IGTO-ready framing from the start.

 

[JUR-2025-12-25-006]

Below is the full revised letter, with the self-represented party point integrated in a court-appropriate, neutral way. It remains respectful, process-focused, and preserves your ability to file proper documents and obtain procedural clarity without provoking a “we do not provide legal advice” shutdown.

---

Revised Draft Letter — Magistrates Court / Registry “No Further Response”

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Email] | [Phone]

[Date]

The Registrar
Magistrates Court of [State/Territory]
[Registry Location]
[Registry Address]

By Email and Registered Post
[Registry email]

Re: [Case Name / Case No. / Parties]
Subject: Clarification of Registry Position – Future Communications and Filing of Documents

Dear Registrar,

I refer to correspondence from the Registry dated [insert date], in which I was advised that the Court would not respond to further communications from me in relation to the above matter.

I write respectfully to seek clarification as to the scope and practical effect of that position, to ensure that I do not inadvertently misunderstand the Registry’s direction and that I continue to comply with the Court’s proper processes.

In particular, I seek confirmation of the following:

1. Whether the Registry’s position is directed only to informal correspondence (for example, letters or emails seeking commentary or discussion), as distinct from documents or procedural applications that are properly lodged and filed in accordance with the Court’s rules;
2. Confirmation that the Registry will continue to accept for filing and record any documents lodged in the correct form and manner under the applicable rules or practice directions (including any application, notice, affidavit, written submission, or request for listing, as permitted);
3. The correct procedural pathway for raising any issue requiring the Court’s attention, including whether such matters should be brought by formal application, filed request to the Registrar, or by listing before a Magistrate; and
4. If the Registry considers that previous communications were not capable of being processed, guidance as to what formal requirements were not satisfied, so that any future material may be provided in a manner consistent with the Court’s processes.

I acknowledge and respect that the Court and its Registry manage a significant volume of matters and must ensure communications are handled efficiently and consistently. My objective is not to burden the Registry, but to ensure that I understand the appropriate channel for lodging any material that is properly directed to the Court in the above proceedings.

As I am currently self-represented, I would appreciate any procedural guidance the Registry is able to provide regarding the correct method for lodging and listing any documents or applications in the above matter, so that I may comply with the Court’s rules and practice directions and avoid misdirecting material.

Please note that this letter is made solely to clarify process and does not seek advice on substantive legal issues. If the Registry is unable to respond in detail, I would appreciate confirmation of the relevant rule, practice direction, or procedural guidance that applies.

Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]

---

If you tell me the State/Territory (especially if WA), I can also tailor the wording so it aligns with that jurisdiction’s Magistrates Court Rules, and optionally include a short reference to “lodgement in accordance with the Rules” (without making it look argumentative).

Last Updated 5 months ago

Views: 685