Month: February 2020

As at 10 Feb. 2020, the photo and editorial shown below appeared on Brydens Lawyers’ website. On that date, an email was sent to Mr Hagipantelis, using the ordinary email address – info@brydens.com.au – alleging that the claim in the editorial that “Mr Ian Bryden” “was the founder of Brydens Lawyers” was A LIE, and asking for a response. This was followed up 2 days later, 4 days later and 7 days later with “I’m wondering whether you received this email?” As at 18 Feb. 2020, the only thing that’s happened is that the editorial has been taken down, as far as we can see – the 4 emails haven’t even been acknowledged, let alone been responded to.

We would have thought that it was kindergarten stuff to decide that trying to deal with an organisation that has Mr Hagipantelis as it’s principal may not be such a good idea!!!

If you need help in dealing with Brydens Lawyers, we may be able to provide it – that’s the business we’re in.

To us, everything is about questions, questions are where people are at.

Use info@questionsmisc.info to send us your questions.

We certainly don’t claim to know everything – if we can’t help you, we may be able to direct you to people who can.

It’s guaranteed that, under no circumstances will your identity be disclosed or that you will be expected to pay a cent for any help that WE provide, although those to whom  we refer you may have fees and charges.

A chat one of our readers had recently with Brydens Lawyers.

Reader.

A Mara, from Brydens.

A Stephen, from Brydens.

Reader.

A Stephen, from Brydens.

Reader.

A Stephen, from Brydens.

 

In the words of Donald Duck, “Such dumbness might be catching!”

A 16 Feb. 2020 update: A copy of this post was emailed to Brydens at 1.52 pm two days ago, for their “information and comment.” Not even an acknowledgement yet. We would have thought that, if we don’t receive a reasonable response within a reasonable time, trying to deal with them in any way may not be such a good idea.

To us, the best people and organisations to deal with have people in their employ who have ordinary email addresses readily available which can be used to seek help and information in relation to dealing with them, and that when these ordinary email addresses used in this way, it results, within a couple of days or so, (there’s seldom any urgency,) in receiving high quality responses.

But, of course, this can only happen if these people are high quality people – highly intelligent and highly knowledgeable – and such people don’t come cheaply.

S0, for people and organisations it becomes a balancing act – seeking to have as many people as possible as customers/clients, seeking to be successful, while employing as few of such people as possible, if any.

Of course, whether they can be successful while employing as few of such people as possible, if any, is, completely and utterly, in the hands of us, the people.

To the extent that we, the people, become discriminating, seeking, as far as possible, to only deal with people and organisations who have such people in their employ, the more it will gradually dawn on people and organisations that to be successful they HAVE to employ enough of such people, and the world will become a very different place, it will become easier and easier to find people and organisations that provide high quality responses to our requests for help and information.

Of course, finding out whether people and organisations have such people in their employ is simple these days – just send them an email about something that’s concerning you, (our experience has been that if they don’t have an ordinary email address readily available, they’re not worth bothering with,) or use their chat facility, if they have one, and see how you get on.

Whatever means we’ve used, we are yet to come across any indications that Brydens Lawyers employ ANY such people!

One of the possibilities, of course, is that Brydens have found that spending money to get their name on the clothing of hundreds of footballers gets them more business than spending money on employing any of these people – hopefully none of our readers are fooled by this, that they will give preference to those people and organisations that provide high quality responses to their emails rather than those who have their names on the clothing of hundreds of footballers and so on???!!!

One of us has just, on 12 Feb. 2020, at 10.58 am, used the chat facility on the Brydens Lawyers website to ask this question:-

which led to us ending up chatting with a “Stephen.” After spending more than 20 minutes of precious time, it appeared that Stephen lacked the intelligence to even understand the question, or else he did understand it but wasn’t about to provide a response anyway.

In our experience, with the chat facilities many organisations have, you DO end up with an email setting out the details, i.e. having these details in writing – one of the attractions of using such chat facilities. To us, this is important, as we always feel that those who put things in writing are much less likely to include rubbish in what they tell you, and  much more likely to stand by what they do and say, and that chat facilities where you don’t end up with anything in writing are no different to phone discussions and face-to-face consultations in which, what your told, often includes rubbish.

By the way, we recently asked an organisation the question shown above, and they indicated that they DID send out such emails – but 4 days later we still hadn’t received one! No wonder this organisation has so many one star out of five star Google ratings.

An email sent to Brydens Lawyers, on 12 Feb. 2020 at 11.18 am.

We’ll let you know if we get a response.

A same day update: We’ve realised this is a really dumb question! You simply go to the beginning of “Enter your message,” and start typing. It will be interesting to see if they respond anyway.