It’s taken seven months to get a response, and when I finally followed up, all hell broke loose.
On 17 March 2025, I first emailed Richard Gannon, Head of Credit and Collections at TPG Telecom, raising serious compliance issues:
- Customers referred to debt collectors while their TIO cases were still open.
- Internal “write-off” flags and incorrect account data breaching privacy obligations.
- A pattern of systemic complaint mishandling contradicting AICM and ACCC/ASIC RG96 standards.
There was no reply. Not a single acknowledgment from Mr Gannon.
Then, in October 2025, I sent a short, polite, professional follow-up, asking whether he had reviewed the evidence.
Within a few days, TPG Legal suddenly appeared in my inbox.
Their message was curt and vague, but the timing was unmistakable.
Just prior, External Communications staff from TPG began viewing my personal social-media accounts, activity I’ve now documented and timestamped.
So after seven months of silence, why did a single follow-up email trigger a full-scale legal and PR reaction inside TPG HQ?
If it was truly a minor customer inquiry, why mobilise Legal and External Comms?
None of this looks like professional engagement. The sequence of events – legal intervention, social media monitoring, and the CEO contact – raises obvious questions about how the company chooses to manage scrutiny.
⚖️ Ethics Under Fire
What makes this even more bizarre is Mr Gannon’s standing with the Australian Institute of Credit Management (AICM).
As a current AICM member, he is bound by a formal Code of Ethics that demands fairness, transparency, and respect in credit conduct.
Yet my experience, and that of hundreds of others, shows the opposite.
The AICM itself had earlier published a glowing “Spotlight” profile on him, praising his commitment to “supporting customers through hardship.”
Now, that same article has been taken down from the AICM website. 👀 👀
Was this removal coincidental with my email to the AICM?
Or a quiet acknowledgment that something had gone very wrong?
Because when an organisation showcases a senior executive for “ethical credit management,” and that same executive is later associated with privacy breaches, disputed debts, and regulator scrutiny – that’s not optics you can spin away.
🧩 A Chain Reaction of Accountability
My case is already with:
- The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) – referred to its Systemics Team for potential escalation to the ACMA.
- The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) – accepted for privacy-breach assessment.
- The ASX – provided with a disclosure reference regarding complaint handling and investor transparency.
And now, the AICM itself has been asked to explain whether its members are living up to the code they publicly promote.
These aren’t “isolated” matters. They’re systemic, and the chain of reactions from TPG proves it.
💥 The Bigger Question
Why does sending a single follow-up email about documented regulatory breaches result in:
- TPG Legal intervention,
- External Comms social-media monitoring, and
- the CEO allegedly calling my employer?
What does that say about the company’s leadership culture and governance standards?
If this is how TPG Telecom handles scrutiny, what happens to ordinary customers who don’t have the evidence or persistence to push back?
In the past week, two vulnerable Australians have reached out after seeing my content – one a widow whose husband died by suicide, and another a domestic violence survivor. Both describe serious distress linked to Vodafone/TPG’s credit management practices. These are not isolated anecdotes – they’re human stories behind the statistics. If two people from such vulnerable backgrounds have independently found their way to this campaign, how many others are still suffering in silence?
🗣 The Campaign Will Continue
The intimidation, the silence, the surveillance – it all points to a corporate mindset that still thinks it can outmuscle accountability.
But that era is over.
This campaign will continue. Every attempt to apply pressure or redirect scrutiny will only draw more attention to the underlying issues.
Because ethics aren’t just slogans on LinkedIn profiles, they’re measured by what you do when someone asks a hard question.
While we remain open to a direct and transparent resolution with TPG Telecom, our expectations are measured.
It is disappointing to note that, rather than engaging constructively, TPG has since blocked further email communication – an approach that speaks volumes about how the company chooses to “resolve” legitimate compliance concerns.
📨 Right of Reply
All parties named or referenced are invited to provide clarification, comment, or correction.
Verified responses and supporting evidence will be published transparently and in full context where appropriate.
This publication is not a personal attack on any individual, but a critique of the processes, governance, and corporate culture that have contributed to the issues discussed.
Any individual or organisation mentioned is encouraged to exercise their right of reply – this publication is committed to accuracy, fairness, and accountability.
⚖️ Disclaimer
This publication expresses the author’s honest opinions and analysis, based on publicly available data, regulator correspondence, and first-hand experiences.
It is provided for informational and public-interest purposes only.
It does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice, and readers should conduct their own research or seek professional guidance before acting on any information contained herein.
No allegation of criminal conduct is made unless adjudicated by a competent authority.
All claims are presented as opinions or reported facts supported by evidence to the best of the author’s knowledge at the time of publication.
Leave a Reply