The Federal Court has ordered Get Qualified Australia's CEO Adam Wadi to pay a $500,000 penalty. Credit:Get Qualified Australia "Get Qualified took advantage of vulnerable people wanting to better their careers. This conduct has resulted in significant personal and financial stress for people who put a large amount of time, effort and money into trying to get a qualification," said ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court. "[It] used misleading marketing to create the impression that it could guarantee qualifications for consumers through a quick and simple process. In reality, GQA could not directly offer qualifications." The regulator estimates more than 5000 customers paid between $750 and $8500 to enrol in a course with GQA and did not receive a qualification. In his judgment, Justice Jonathan Beach found GQA engaged in misleading representations and unsolicited consumer agreements.

Adam Wadi, CEO of Get Qualified Australia, which is currently undergoing liquidation. Credit:Facebook He found GQA's chief executive officer Adam Mazen Wadi was the sole director and "controlling mind of the company", who "aided, abetted, counselled or procured and [was] directly and indirectly knowingly concerned in each of GQA's contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law". However he qualified that Mr Wadi was only liable in relation to the "systemic deficiencies giving rise to the systemic unconscionable conduct engaged in by GQA." Get Qualified Australia offered a range of qualifications for the Skills Recognition and Recognition of Prior Learning scheme. Credit:Get Qualified Australia website Mr Wadi, who is believed to be in Dubai, has been contacted for comment.

However in March, he told Fairfax Media the ACCC's court action was "very defendable," and attributed the company's demise to "two government agencies", who ultimately wear responsibility for the 2000 students left without the certificates they paid for, or a refund. Justice Beach argued the company's most notable sales tactic was "to enrol consumers without confirming that they had the required documents or adequately explaining the RPL process". He noted that, in communications with recruitment agents, "Mr Wadi expressed the preference to recruit sales managers who were not from the education industry but who had a solid sales record." GQA sales staff selling trade qualifications had a target of $80,000 per month, while staff selling non-trade qualifications had a target of $50,000 per month. In addition to this, staff were required to log 2½ to three hours of talk time each day, or 100 calls a day, while skills recognition specialists were given significant incentives to make sales, including commissions, Plasma TVs, iPhones, MacBook Airs, and cash bonuses.

Justice Beach noted that the GQA online Free Skills Review purported to be an assessment tool, but was in fact a "very crude marketing device" to gain a customer's phone contact details. This meant every contract entered into in any call (following a Free Skills Review) constituted an unsolicited consumer agreement. The court also found GQA told consumers they were entitled to a "100 per cent money back guarantee," if they were unsuccessful, despite almost always declining students' requests for refunds. In an email tendered to the court, GQA's director of operations Alexandra Sella wrote to Mr Wadi about a customer refund, saying, "this is definitely going the legal route and I really don't want people to carry on talking to Fair Trading, the Office of Consumer and Business Services – as one day that will end up with the ACCC. As you know I was at [Advanced Medical Institute] when the ACCC went after ... the company, and they became like a dog with a bone." In March it was declared the company was "unable to pay its debts" and would be voluntarily wound-up, with Blair Pleash of insolvency firm Hall Chadwick appointed as the liquidator. A hearing on relief against both Get Qualified and Mr Wadi will be held on a date set by the court.



Update: In a statement issued to Fairfax Media after publication, Mr Wadi described the result as "far from being fair." "The judge has judged the matter after hearing only the ACCC, as GQA was not able to make it to the court room due to the ACCC starving the company [of] its financial resources, which could have paid for our legal expenses, GQA would have defended itself if we got to the court room."



He disputed the ACCC's estimate that 5000 students have been left out of pocket, arguing that "less than 1800 students" were affected, "due to the ACCC wrong practices [sic]."