Help
Even though by law ACC has to pay interest on any late payments including back-pay does everyone realise that you have to officially ASK ACC for the interest which accrued over the time they did not pay your entitlements? You will not otherwise get what you are lawfully entitled to!
What sort of ridiculous and no doubt illegal situation is this?!!! The mind boggles!
Page 1 of 1
Interest On Back-payments You have to ask for it!
#2
Kiwee 
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 14-September 03
Posted 26 May 2005 - 04:02 PM
If anyone doubts that acc will actually pay out on the interest owed, I will state that the time I did ask acc for a payment of interest on money (that I hadnt realised they owed me, it was because of an internal audit they found they owed me it), acc actually paid out the interest fairly promptly. It took a bit of sqeaky wheel work to get it and i think they were surprised I knew i was entitled to it. I was also surprised at the amount when I got it (over 100 percent of the money paid out originally)
SO they aint all bad
cheers
now to see about those overpayments to IRD on winz payments ....
SO they aint all bad
cheers
now to see about those overpayments to IRD on winz payments ....
#3
Tomcat
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 748
- Joined: 14-September 03
Posted 26 May 2005 - 04:50 PM
Greetings,
I asked for interest at the time or shortly after court decision, ordering
re instatement and back pay for 26 years.
ACC took from April 2003 to Oct. 2004 sort this out... Deliberately.
and have only paid interest from the date they claim they had all WINZ info was available... Oct 2004.
and paid a few months of interest...
My records show, as do ACC's, that they have had WINZ info back in 1991, if not a lot earlier.
There have been several Court decisions, ordering ACC to pay interest from date of injury or Exit... Stating that WINZ info is not nessecary or required. They ignored all this... Other Docs I have show a clear intent to deny/ deduct/ reduce the true payout...
and ERC entitlement.
Nothing less than criminal intent.
Be aware Mr Wilson/ Mr McGreevy... This one aint ganna "go away"
WINZ HAVE DONE AS THEY SAID THEY WOULD...in part. and refunded the "Overpayment"...
now its your turn to put it all right.
TC.
I asked for interest at the time or shortly after court decision, ordering
re instatement and back pay for 26 years.
ACC took from April 2003 to Oct. 2004 sort this out... Deliberately.
and have only paid interest from the date they claim they had all WINZ info was available... Oct 2004.
and paid a few months of interest...
My records show, as do ACC's, that they have had WINZ info back in 1991, if not a lot earlier.
There have been several Court decisions, ordering ACC to pay interest from date of injury or Exit... Stating that WINZ info is not nessecary or required. They ignored all this... Other Docs I have show a clear intent to deny/ deduct/ reduce the true payout...
and ERC entitlement.
Nothing less than criminal intent.
Be aware Mr Wilson/ Mr McGreevy... This one aint ganna "go away"
WINZ HAVE DONE AS THEY SAID THEY WOULD...in part. and refunded the "Overpayment"...
now its your turn to put it all right.
TC.
IT IS NOT WISE TO STOMP ON THE SLEEPING TIGERS TAIL.
THATS THE WAKE UP CALL FOR DINNER
THATS THE WAKE UP CALL FOR DINNER
#5
magnacarta
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 293
- Joined: 22-October 04
Posted 28 May 2005 - 11:16 AM
That is right about Howley and SB but then in ACC v Robinson AP 12/03 High Court, Whangerei, 1/803, Justice Heath held that interest is not payable for any period prior to 1 July.
Reviewer's and Judges have then cited ACC v Robinson but I'm not satisfied that this case has been properly interpreted and applied by the Reviewer's and Judges.
Robinson did not have cover until the 1998 Act.
The question must surely be - on what date did the interest accrue not on what date it was applied for.
Reviewer's and Judges have then cited ACC v Robinson but I'm not satisfied that this case has been properly interpreted and applied by the Reviewer's and Judges.
Robinson did not have cover until the 1998 Act.
The question must surely be - on what date did the interest accrue not on what date it was applied for.
#6
BIDD
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 16-October 03
Posted 28 May 2005 - 12:11 PM
HI i was injured in 1988 and was underpaid until 2000 when i finaly found out that acc had been didling me all those years ,,i won a case against them butt''' was never paid any interest,i always thought they should have squared me up for thier mistake,,,would i be intitled to any form of interest payments,,was told earlier ledgistlation did not cover this,,Hmmmmmmmcheers BIDD
#7
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 30 May 2005 - 05:19 PM
Bidd the ealier act might not have had an intrest but they did have other forms of compensation for ACC mistakes. the 72 Act has it for sure and will check the 82 Act because if yu are not intitled for intrest then you are entitled to this.
In regard to your wish to attend Polytech, which you advise you could only do with financial assistance; we regret that we are unable to assist in your situation as if you wish to improve your employment possibilities beyond pre-accident level, this must be considered your personal choice and responsibility. Case manager Mr D. J. Lamond 26 May 1988
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
#9
Mark
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 503
- Joined: 13-April 11
- LocationHorowhenua
Posted 28 June 2012 - 07:38 AM
BIDD, on 28 May 2005 - 12:11 PM, said:
HI i was injured in 1988 and was underpaid until 2000 when i finaly found out that acc had been didling me all those years ,,i won a case against them butt''' was never paid any interest,i always thought they should have squared me up for thier mistake,,,would i be intitled to any form of interest payments,,was told earlier ledgistlation did not cover this,,Hmmmmmmmcheers BIDD
Well done.. Make sure ACC have included all your "perks" in your weekly comp calculation.. see Lewis vs ACC & Davis vs ACC
Interest on arrears in ERC/weekly comp appeared in the 1992 act.
Quote
72. Payment of interest where Corporation or exempt employer makes late payment of compensation based on weekly earnings---Where any payment of compensation based on weekly earnings to which a claimant is entitled is not paid by the Corporation or exempt employer within 1 month after the Corporation or exempt employer has received all information necessary to enable calculation of the payment, interest shall be paid on the amount payable by the Corporation or exempt employer at the rate for the time being prescribed by or for the purposes of section 87 of the Judicature Act 1908 from the date on which payment should have been made to the date on which it is made.
Put politely that means 1 month after ACC initially had all the info needed to make payment.
So yes indeed put in a claim for interest on all your backdated ERC/weekly comp. ACC must issue a decision and that decision is reviewable.
Also check that ACC have applied all the Order in Council payrises to your payments.
The mechanic's of the payment are simple... All outstanding payments are accrued up until june 1992 when they start earning interest at the time being prescribed by or for the purposes of section 87 of the Judicature Act 1908.
It is worth fighting for. Interest accrues at 11% 1992 - 2002, 8% 2002 - 2008, 5% from 2008 (rough figures from memory)
Interest on backdated ERC/weekly comp is tax free! (IRD vs Buis, Burston)
Keep the shiny side up.
#10
chroy
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 54
- Joined: 05-July 11
Posted 28 June 2012 - 04:00 PM
Great thanks, so if I've already received backdated ERC to 1987, then I can get interest for the total ERC paid to me up until 2008 when I was reinstated ERC back to 1987. Say I got 300k, say $200k went to WINZ would I then get interest on the $100k gross payment I receive? And the 11% etc will be applied from 1987 or 1992 as I come under the 1982 Act?
#11
Mark
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 503
- Joined: 13-April 11
- LocationHorowhenua
Posted 28 June 2012 - 06:34 PM
chroy, on 28 June 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:
Great thanks, so if I've already received backdated ERC to 1987, then I can get interest for the total ERC paid to me up until 2008 when I was reinstated ERC back to 1987. Say I got 300k, say $200k went to WINZ would I then get interest on the $100k gross payment I receive? And the 11% etc will be applied from 1987 or 1992 as I come under the 1982 Act?
Did ACC calculate your ERC correctly.. ie all perks, must be included as income.. eg cheap housing, staff loans, company car, insurance policy's etc..
Interest payments start from July 1992 on all outstanding ERC from 1987 - 1992. Interest is calculated weekly. Established by Kearney. See ACC's guidlines re Kearney (now outdated/reworked to save money)
The tricky part is now the WINZ repayment...
ACC are claiming that the WINZ repayment is the date they had the full info to pay so are trying to restrict interest payments to be only available from the day WINZ supplied the info for a repayment.
ACC are also trying to claim the money repaid to the claimant and then re-imbursed to WINZ doesn't qualify for interest.
Hence cases such as Miller going through the Appeal court are holding things up.
Keep the shiny side up.
#12
hukildaspida
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2355
- Joined: 24-August 07
Posted 28 June 2012 - 06:45 PM
This section is in part the very reason ACC staff don't like admitting there own wrongdoing / misconduct to it's clients whom have had these entitlements robbed from them when ACC staff have acted dishonestly.
It is overdue ACC apologised to those whom in the course of pre-accident occupations obtained these entitlements through honest means & have been subjected to wrongful action.
How many have been diddled of their correct entitlements due to documents been removed from files prior to having to pursue Legal action to obtain what is rightfully theirs? Or only had the lessor costing injury acknowledged as it costs ACC less?
The files that in IT Sweeps are referred to as L-Drive files will show where ACC staff & there legal representatives have acted dishonestly, files that we understand they are withholding from clients, and it may well be because you may have received and been entitled to something that ACC staff at the time would never have been entitled to themselves as it was not included in their ACC/ PSA employment contracts.
When a person has something some else has and they can't have it, it's called jealousy and it's ugly.
S.52(2)(a) of the 1982 Act which reads as follows -
"(a) Any wages, salary, allowances (including
allowances of any of the kinds referred to in S.72
of the Income Tax Act), holiday pay, overtime pay,
long-service leave pay, bonuses, gratuities, extra
salary, commissions, directors' fees, honoraria,
emoluments, or remuneration of any kind paid or
payable (whether in cash or otherwise) to any
person in respect of or in relation to the
employment of that person as an employee ..."
It is overdue ACC apologised to those whom in the course of pre-accident occupations obtained these entitlements through honest means & have been subjected to wrongful action.
How many have been diddled of their correct entitlements due to documents been removed from files prior to having to pursue Legal action to obtain what is rightfully theirs? Or only had the lessor costing injury acknowledged as it costs ACC less?
The files that in IT Sweeps are referred to as L-Drive files will show where ACC staff & there legal representatives have acted dishonestly, files that we understand they are withholding from clients, and it may well be because you may have received and been entitled to something that ACC staff at the time would never have been entitled to themselves as it was not included in their ACC/ PSA employment contracts.
When a person has something some else has and they can't have it, it's called jealousy and it's ugly.
S.52(2)(a) of the 1982 Act which reads as follows -
"(a) Any wages, salary, allowances (including
allowances of any of the kinds referred to in S.72
of the Income Tax Act), holiday pay, overtime pay,
long-service leave pay, bonuses, gratuities, extra
salary, commissions, directors' fees, honoraria,
emoluments, or remuneration of any kind paid or
payable (whether in cash or otherwise) to any
person in respect of or in relation to the
employment of that person as an employee ..."
#13
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 09 July 2012 - 04:29 PM
Just a little not on the amount of interest libable
This provision was made as a result of a decision from the Court of Appeal that affects ACC’s liability to pay interest for persons
whose weekly compensation was stopped during the periods of the Accident Compensation Act 1972, Accident Compensation
Act 1982 and Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992, but was later reinstated.
Provision made during the year 2010 $32,488,000.00
Reversal of unused provision 2011 $17,996,000.00
ACC was able to litigate away $14,962,000.00
Source Page 125 ACC Annunal Report.
Just a thought why ACC is not paying out on any interest. Tomcat your case will cost ACC $17 + Million.
At 11% that means they had paid back something like $180,000,000.00 in over due compensation. Or is it $325,000,000.00.
This provision was made as a result of a decision from the Court of Appeal that affects ACC’s liability to pay interest for persons
whose weekly compensation was stopped during the periods of the Accident Compensation Act 1972, Accident Compensation
Act 1982 and Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992, but was later reinstated.
Provision made during the year 2010 $32,488,000.00
Reversal of unused provision 2011 $17,996,000.00
ACC was able to litigate away $14,962,000.00
Source Page 125 ACC Annunal Report.
Just a thought why ACC is not paying out on any interest. Tomcat your case will cost ACC $17 + Million.
At 11% that means they had paid back something like $180,000,000.00 in over due compensation. Or is it $325,000,000.00.
In regard to your wish to attend Polytech, which you advise you could only do with financial assistance; we regret that we are unable to assist in your situation as if you wish to improve your employment possibilities beyond pre-accident level, this must be considered your personal choice and responsibility. Case manager Mr D. J. Lamond 26 May 1988
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. .... It follows, of course that the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of others.The court will not require whether the evidence or representations did work to his prejudice. Sufficient that they might do so. The court will not go into the likelihood ofprejudice. The risk of it is enough."Lord Denning [1962] A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] AC 549 Lord Denning said at pp 566:
"Thus one of the best ways, I find, ofunderstanding a statute is to take some specific which, by common consent, are intended to be covered by it. I can say at once: "Yes, that is the sort ofthing Parliament intended to "cover". The reason is not far to seek. When the draftsman is drawing the Act, he has in mind particular instances which he wishes to cover. He frames aformula which he hopes will embrace them all with precision. But the formula is as unintelligible as a mathematical formula to anyone except experts: and even then they have to know what the symbols mean. To make it intelligible, you must know the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind. So you have resort to particular instances to gather the meaning. "
#14
MINI
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1725
- Joined: 09-October 07
Posted 09 July 2012 - 05:24 PM
doppelganger, on 09 July 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:
Just a little not on the amount of interest libable
This provision was made as a result of a decision from the Court of Appeal that affects ACC’s liability to pay interest for persons
whose weekly compensation was stopped during the periods of the Accident Compensation Act 1972, Accident Compensation
Act 1982 and Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992, but was later reinstated.
Provision made during the year 2010 $32,488,000.00
Reversal of unused provision 2011 $17,996,000.00
ACC was able to litigate away $14,962,000.00
Source Page 125 ACC Annunal Report.
Just a thought why ACC is not paying out on any interest. Tomcat your case will cost ACC $17 + Million.
At 11% that means they had paid back something like $180,000,000.00 in over due compensation. Or is it $325,000,000.00.
This provision was made as a result of a decision from the Court of Appeal that affects ACC’s liability to pay interest for persons
whose weekly compensation was stopped during the periods of the Accident Compensation Act 1972, Accident Compensation
Act 1982 and Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992, but was later reinstated.
Provision made during the year 2010 $32,488,000.00
Reversal of unused provision 2011 $17,996,000.00
ACC was able to litigate away $14,962,000.00
Source Page 125 ACC Annunal Report.
Just a thought why ACC is not paying out on any interest. Tomcat your case will cost ACC $17 + Million.
At 11% that means they had paid back something like $180,000,000.00 in over due compensation. Or is it $325,000,000.00.
Far out where do your figures for Tomcats case come from?? And Litigating away the $14 Million, you have to be joking??. No one was litigating 'interest' except Kearney, everyone was awaiting the outcome of his case.
If your figures are correct someone certainly needs to bring that to the Auditor Generals attention. There has only been two cases litigated on interest this year, that is mine and Dalziel.
Mini
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1