After leaving Space Haven negative reviews these customers say they were targeted | 7.30

Key Concepts:

• Negative online reviews
• Defamation threats and legal action
• Substandard product quality and incomplete deliveries
• Deposit disputes and cancellation issues
• Cease and desist letters
• Regulatory dealings and public warnings
• Business practices of Space Haven/Project XG Group
• Gorsier George Sealoski's history with consumer protection agencies

Customer Experiences with Space Haven:

• Alan Lorn: Purchased an outdoor pod and posted a negative review after receiving substandard materials. Received a threatening phone call accusing him of being a pedophile and demanding he remove the review. Faced legal threats for defamation, with Space Haven claiming $120,000 in lost sales due to his review.
  • Quote: "you're a monster you're disgusting next time you look at yourself in the mirror just just stop and think I really should not be doing this this is wrong" - Threatening caller.
  • Quote: "i am not a pedophile i need to get paid so you get paid to take down reviews on like review websites kind of thing that's right exactly" - Alan Lorn
• Chris Fitzpatrick: Bought a pod for nearly $34,000 and experienced delays and missing materials. Received incorrect floor thickness and wrong-sized windows. Had to spend extra money to buy missing parts.
• Kang: Paid a $5,250 deposit on a $44,000 contract but sought to cancel within 36 hours due to an unexpected additional $19,000 invoice for flooring. Is in dispute with Space Haven over the deposit refund and received a cease and desist letter claiming her review cost them $9,000.

Space Haven's Business Practices:

• Advertises Australian-made, precision-engineered buildings with delivery in as little as 2 weeks.
• Customers report receiving substandard materials, incomplete deliveries, and a lack of design certification.
• Sends legal letters threatening defamation lawsuits to customers who post negative reviews.
• Operated by Project XG Group, with Gorsier George Sealoski as director and shareholder.

Regulatory Scrutiny:

• Gorsier George Sealoski has a history of regulatory dealings with New South Wales Fair Trading, including a prosecution, two public warnings, and a 2015 Supreme Court ruling restricting his supply of goods to consumers.
• He has also received public warnings from WA Consumer Protection and the Office of Fair Trading in Queensland.
• New South Wales Fair Trading has flagged Mr. Skiloski as a person of interest with ASIC.
• Building Commission New South Wales is also looking into his businesses.

Space Haven's Response:

• Did not respond to an interview request.
• In a statement, Space Haven said it was disappointed they were unable to resolve the interactions and claimed significant differences exist in the customers' versions of events.
• Space Haven did not answer questions about the threatening phone calls received by Alan Lawn.
• Claims the response from customers in person and online is overwhelmingly positive.

Impact on Customers:

• Alan Lorn experienced psychological turmoil and sought mental health support due to the threats and accusations.
  • Quote: "i would rather have received a physical beating than this uh psychological um turmoil I think it's been over the last few months" - Alan Lorn
• Chris Fitzpatrick incurred additional expenses to complete his pod due to missing materials.
• Kang faced stress and fear of legal action after posting her review.

Conclusion:

The video highlights serious concerns regarding Space Haven's business practices, including alleged threats against customers, delivery of substandard products, and legal action against those who post negative reviews. Gorsier George Sealoski's history with consumer protection agencies raises further questions about the company's operations. The experiences of Alan Lorn, Chris Fitzpatrick, and Kang demonstrate the potential financial and emotional distress faced by customers who have dealt with Space Haven. Despite Space Haven's claims of positive customer feedback, the evidence presented suggests a pattern of problematic behavior that warrants further investigation by regulatory bodies.