If you’re a regular reader, you’ll know that I recently had a run-in with QANTAS. It related to an overseas trip my GF and I were to go on, until I selfishly broke my toe, and was ordered not to fly.

We had booked our AU-US-AU flights on QANTAS using frequent flyer points. With me being a little over six feet tall, we pre-paid to secure exit row seats, costing a total of $640.

The catch is that QANTAS have thrown in to their T&C the fact that if – for any f**king reason at all – you don’t use the seat, they keep your money. And that is whether it’s a medical reason, a personal choice, or whether you get on the plane, sit in the seat and then have QANTAS staff move you. Yes, you read that right. THEY can move you and then keep your money.

Not being one to shy away from standing up for my rights, I e-mailled QANTAS. Among other complaints, I raised this issue and requested that they contact me to discuss the issue. I waited a week and heard nothing. So e-mailled them again, giving them 24 hours to respond before taking my complaint further.

Predictably, I heard nothing from them. I e-mailled the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission), asking if QANTAS had the legal right to put those conditions on the pre-purchase of the seats.

Their response to me did not address whether the condition is legal, but in true Government fashion, palmed me off by informing me that this is a specific contractual issue, and that I could try to resolve it with QANTAS (who, let’s face it, couldn’t give a shit), or I could seek legal advice.

As I constantly argue, where is the consumer protection? Conditions like “we reserve the right to f**k you over in any way we can, as long as we can keep you rmoney and do nothing for you” are always buried somewhere like section 234.1.23.4c, aren’t they?

Nobody ever reads through three pages of conditions when they’re buying things online. Let’s face it, who has the time? We make the assumption that everyone is inherently good, and no company would be deliberately out to rip us off. And yet it happens, and then the authorities go “Sorry mate, nothing we can do. You should have read the ifne print”.

I always wanted to be a lawyer. Maybe it’s the reason why I know so much about the Trade Practices Act 1974, and how I know that it changed in Australia on 1 Jan 2011, and is now called the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. I know that the four reasons that provide for statutory refund or replacement have been replaced with nine conditions (although these nine are really just an expansion on the four).

My knowledge of the law has saved me thousands of dollars over the years, and I’ve forced companies to do things they refused to do – because I had the law on my side.

So what I want to know is: Why, when Joe Citizen conducts business with a company in goodwill, that they can be royally shafted and then hung out to dry by the authorities whose job it is to protect us?

If it didn’t take near on 10 years to do a part-time law degree, I’d be running my own consumer law business, helping people like you and me get what we’re entitled to our of a*holes like QANTAS. It’s now been two weeks since I first contacted QANTAS to address the issue, and the only thing I have received from them (other than auto-reply e-mails) is one saying they have a 10-day turnaround on e-mails, and mine has been passed to someone. That came 11 days after I e-mailled them.

And if you’re reading this QANTAS, I still haven’t ruled out taking you to small claims court – where there are no lawyers. It’s just me and you pleading our case. Try and explain to a judge why you should keep my money. I dare you.