[unicorn57]

Hi Y'all

Im wanting some help with getting my friends Interest portion of his backdated weekly compensation...

This is whats happening:

He is asking his case manager, and the claims manager, to please provide him with the Interest on his backdated weekly compensation that he has not recieved yet and that ACC have been withholding from him for a long time - since 2006.

What he keeps getting back from ACC Claims Manager is:

no response

What he keeps getting back from his CM is:

I am looking into your request for backdated weekly compensation.

So he keeps telling her he wasnt asking for his backdated weekly compensation - he already has that. Its the missing Interest on that backdated weekly compensation that he is asking for....

Same answer - re backdated weekly comp - and absolutely no mention of the word Interest in her responses.

Its become a joke now - theyre ignoring his request in the first place, so this means that he needs to find a way to hand this onto the OCI, so that they can do their usual denying everything thing that they do, so then he can take the request onto review.

HOW?????? PLEASE

[kittyhawk]

Maybe it is time to consider a review on grounds of excessive delay. Does anyone know what the waiting time is for a hearing?

Is there a go very slow on any outstanding debt payments, heard a number of complaints much on the same lines.

[greg]

Tell your friend to get a letterhead [lawyer/advocate] to write to ACC and quote the legislation.

[Mark]

kittyhawk, on 08 July 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

Maybe it is time to consider a review on grounds of excessive delay. Does anyone know what the waiting time is for a hearing?

Is there a go very slow on any outstanding debt payments, heard a number of complaints much on the same lines.

Indeed if their is a paper trail showing a request for interest on back-dated compensation then a complaint about ACC failing to issue a decision in a timely manner is warranted.

Otherwise a formal letter to ACC asking for interest on backdated weekly compensation is required.

As for time to get a review hearing. Admittedly DRSL are struggling to get so many cases heard but the law states 3 months to set a hearing down...

If you really wanted to push the boundaries then to my knowledge the case-law at present is O'Neill v Accident Compensation Corporation HC Auckland CIV 2008-404-8482 [2010] NZHC 2410

Quote

The High Court in O'Neill has set the precedent for the Distict Court by judging that a single date for a substantive hearing on the merits must be set within the three month time limitation - any future date set outside that limit will not suffice.

[not their victim]

if you check the dates of case law

from review to appeal is roughly 2 years...

and no i havent had time to collate the statistics correctly

but then you read of when these were lodged, to date of appeal hearing...roughly 2 years....

[Mark]

not their victim, on 09 July 2012 - 07:03 AM, said:

if you check the dates of case law

from review to appeal is roughly 2 years...

and no i havent had time to collate the statistics correctly

but then you read of when these were lodged, to date of appeal hearing...roughly 2 years....

Depends upon the Jurisdiction.

I my case it was six months to have my appeal heard by the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority.

The delay was only because the Judge was unwell. At the end of the day my barrister insisted a hearing be set down before her appointment as a Judge in that jurisdiction became official.

[malhar]

[quote name='unicorn57' timestamp='1341723294' post='132705']
Hi Y'all

Im wanting some help with getting my friends Interest portion of his backdated weekly compensation...


I got awarded interest at a disputes hearing, ACC paid it within weeks but are going to the District Court to try and get it back. This has been in the system for 18 months with no word of hearing date, have you actually been awarded interest or are you fighting for it. You will only get interest depending on the information ACC had at the time and which periods of legislation your back pay covers. Mine went right back to 1990 from 2009.

For instance up until the 1998 Act came into force ACC didn’t need WINZ information as there was no legal obligation for ACC to refund WINZ even though they may have chosen to do so. My hearing ruled in my favour on this point.

[MINI]

not their victim, on 09 July 2012 - 07:03 AM, said:

if you check the dates of case law

from review to appeal is roughly 2 years...

and no i havent had time to collate the statistics correctly

but then you read of when these were lodged, to date of appeal hearing...roughly 2 years....

Your point being??

The sooner you get it started the sooner you get the right outcome??

Mini

[greg]

A mate contacted Hazel Armstrong law this year and has been paid out $6k+

[MINI]

greg, on 10 July 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

A mate contacted Hazel Armstrong law this year and has been paid out $6k+

Yes Greg It depends what reason you have had your w/c taken off you.

For instance if you are only going for a wrong calculation in w/c by ACC, then they will not hassle about your interst payment. There are cases like this that are paid at REview, so we don't get to see them all either.

BUT if you go for interest on w/c, where ACC wrongfulness is not so noticeable, and they they they have had a right to take you off, such as no medical or medical shows illness instead of injury as in TC case, they will take you the extra mile then some.

I have e-mail from Hazels office, agreeing that ACC are all over the place in who they pay interest too, and why!! I did a little resreach into it as the post Kearney cases came through and noted the ones that had been 'heard' before, and declined were actually making it thru Judge Beattie onto the H/C without getting 'Res Judicata" flung at them as mine was by ACC Legal. Yet it has been through the Court a Month or so ago and am awaiting the decision. Now I am wondering why would the Judge hear a cases that should not get that far because it has been heard before.

When I mentioned the Res Judicata in Court he said that it was a matter of law. So I am thinking that he has already made up his mind that it wasnt heard properly perviously and/so Kearney had turned the tide, to make the 'heard before' obsolete. Hope so anyway, as that will mean a proper decision that I can take to H/C if it is negative. Same as Beattie has allowed for others, lined up behind Miller.

The whisper is that some legal are contacting legal for Miller and asking what is taking so long. So that is a good sign. We are not the only ones awaiting a date to be set. Mind you it is only a whisper, I don't know how true, but it may hurry things along.

Maybe KTH can help us by confirming how long ACC has got before they have to file, after application to Appeal has been accepted??

[Fighter for Justice]

QUESTION FOR MINI: Have you taken a recent case to High Court? If yes, what were the filing fees, did you represent yourself, and did Court award ACC costs awarded against you?

[jocko]

ACC and the Government is bust. They have no money and are being investigated.Deny delay will become super intense as we move closer to Greece on the economic ocean of financial desperation created by faggot globalists and their brainless property loving mates.

[MINI]

Fighter for Justice, on 11 July 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

QUESTION FOR MINI: Have you taken a recent case to High Court? If yes,

what were the filing fees, did you represent yourself, and did Court award ACC costs awarded against you?

Yes to H/C but not ACC....filing fee was $1500 if I remember correctly and
yes I did represent myself, and no costs were awarded as Judge said we both had some success.

Mini

[MINI]

Fighter for Justice, on 11 July 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

QUESTION FOR MINI: Have you taken a recent case to High Court? If yes, what were the filing fees, did you represent yourself, and did Court award ACC costs awarded against you?

yes I did take a H/C case, but not with ACC. Filing fees $1500. Yes I did represent myself. No award of costs as Justice said that both sides had some sucesss.

Hope that helps in your travels.

Mini

[unicorn57]

OK after reading all your great input (thankyou), Ive decided to suggest the following:

He will put in a complaint with the ACC OCI regarding the lack of reasonable response, and lack of timely response. Once he gets the standard NO back from them, he will give it to his Legal to handle and see what happens next.

[MINI]

Unicorn

I would not bother complaining as it takes up too much time.

If as Mark says there is a paper trail of your friend asking for interest I would put in a Review under section 134 and s 54 of the 2001 Act and see how fast they move.

If you read those section you will see what wording to use to do it.

Use your past docs as reference/evidence that you have been waiting too long.

He may only end up getting in behind Miller, but at least it is on the go, ready to be paid out dependent on Miller.

If WINZ is involved in his past, I do not think you will get it straight away, but then you don't know if you dont try.

Good Luck
Mini

[unicorn57]

Thanks MINI

WINZ is involved in his past - but it was repaid at the same time as his ACC restarted. It was a condition, that ACC couldnt pay him his backdated weekly comp until they had the WINZ figure from WINZ.

[malhar]

unicorn57, on 11 July 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

Thanks MINI

WINZ is involved in his past - but it was repaid at the same time as his ACC restarted. It was a condition, that ACC couldnt pay him his backdated weekly comp until they had the WINZ figure from WINZ.

Unicorn57, Be careful ACC aren’t trying avoid paying interest using the story they needed WINZ info, they didn’t need this by law until the 1998 Act came into force. This point was ruled in my favour at a hearing. All weekly payments before the 1998 Act came into force are subject to interest if ACC had all the necessary information to calculate payment at the time.

[unicorn57]

malhar, on 11 July 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

Unicorn57, Be careful ACC aren’t trying avoid paying interest using the story they needed WINZ info, they didn’t need this by law until the 1998 Act came into force. This point was ruled in my favour at a hearing. All weekly payments before the 1998 Act came into force are subject to interest if ACC had all the necessary information to calculate payment at the time.

The time period was from 2002 (start of disnetitlement) until start 2007 (reinstated weekly comp).

ACC calculated the amount of backdated weekly comp.
ACC taxed it
WINZ supplied the WINZ debt amount.
ACC subtracted this from the balance after tax.

Balance paid to his bank account.

No interest appears anywhere in the ACC calculations.

So where does he stand on this today?

[malhar]

unicorn57, on 11 July 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

The time period was from 2002 (start of disnetitlement) until start 2007 (reinstated weekly comp).

ACC calculated the amount of backdated weekly comp.
ACC taxed it
WINZ supplied the WINZ debt amount.
ACC subtracted this from the balance after tax.

Balance paid to his bank account.

No interest appears anywhere in the ACC calculations.

So where does he stand on this today?

You have to request interest, but ACC will decline on the grounds they needed WINZ info to calculate payment, but you may have a case on the grounds that ACC stopped payments unlawfully. There is a court case where a judge ruled that because ACC stopped payments illegally any further information ACC needed at latter date was irrelevant and therefore ACC had to pay interest. I will look through my files and see which court case it was.