Dear Superannuation Complaints Tribunal,

In late 2007 I lodged a complaint with the SCT and at the time I was unsure of the jurisdiction of the SCT, APRA and ASIC.

In early 2007 I had requested access to the Deeds of this superannuation fund and I had received no response from the purported trustee for early a year.

I, therefore, suspected that there may have been invalid amendments {changes} to the deeds of this Defined Benefit fund that disadvantaged the membership.

Note: In 2007 I did not know that it was a criminal offence to conceal the deeds of a regulated superannuation fund from fund members and beneficiaries.

If my complaint had been that I was concerned that a "mistake" has been made in the determination on my Final Average Salary {FAS} then the SCT had jurisdiction to deal with a complaint that affected only one fund member.

Section 14(6) of the SRC Act states:

"(6) The Tribunal cannot deal with a complaint under this section that relates to the management of a fund as a whole."

If there had been invalid amending Deeds executed then this would have affected all fund members and therefore would relate to "the management of the fund as a whole".

I was advised in a phone call from Phil McGrath on 7 February 2008 that APRA was the appropriate body to deal with changes to Deeds that disadvantage the membership.

The SCT then withdrew my complaint on 6 May 2008 under Section 22(4) because of lack of jurisdiction.

The SCT made no ruling on my Final Average Salary {FAS}.

The document I seek is a copy of the file note on this phone call from Phil McGrath

Yours faithfully,

Phillip Sweeney

Dear Evangelia Karakostas,

Thank you for the update.

Yours sincerely,

Phillip Sweeney