Help
Why does ACC require Photo ID????
Attached File(s)
-
photo_id.jpg (44.62K)
Number of downloads: 16
Photo Identification ACC are demanding this
#1 Guest_NoRehab_*
Posted 19 December 2003 - 01:09 PM
This letter received by a claimant.
Why does ACC require Photo ID????
Why does ACC require Photo ID????
#2
BillyBob 
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 16-September 03
Posted 19 December 2003 - 01:30 PM
My uninformed opinion on this is that this could be in breach of our privacy.
I would be inclined to take some form of identification into acc and let them view it but not photo copy it and have a letter placed on file that ID has been viewed and is the said person
buggered if they are getting my photo to use as a dart board.
cheers
I would be inclined to take some form of identification into acc and let them view it but not photo copy it and have a letter placed on file that ID has been viewed and is the said person
buggered if they are getting my photo to use as a dart board.
cheers
#3
twostickswalking
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 25-September 03
Posted 19 December 2003 - 07:53 PM
check out the privacy website
I am unsure of the Privacy Word Issue but they have the backdated copies on
file.
Mr Bruce Slane, the then Privacy Commissioner states that the use of D/L
ID is a breech of Privacy, because the D/L was not intended to be used as a
national ID. and that no organisation can demand that this be produced other
than the LTSA, and then it must be for a particular reason.
I think that the person that recieved that letter, should write to the
Privacy Commissioner at Privacy@prolink.co.nz , and make a formal
complaint about the use of D/L, as a form of ID.
Also if your files were lost, and your D/L was used as a identification, and
the ACC has asked for this, then this would be a breech of Privacy Principle 12
Unique Identifiers.
Perhaps someone should advise them. dont comply to the letter, if this is
what it states. check out the website and get the "Privacy Word" Issue.
I am unsure of the Privacy Word Issue but they have the backdated copies on
file.
Mr Bruce Slane, the then Privacy Commissioner states that the use of D/L
ID is a breech of Privacy, because the D/L was not intended to be used as a
national ID. and that no organisation can demand that this be produced other
than the LTSA, and then it must be for a particular reason.
I think that the person that recieved that letter, should write to the
Privacy Commissioner at Privacy@prolink.co.nz , and make a formal
complaint about the use of D/L, as a form of ID.
Also if your files were lost, and your D/L was used as a identification, and
the ACC has asked for this, then this would be a breech of Privacy Principle 12
Unique Identifiers.
Perhaps someone should advise them. dont comply to the letter, if this is
what it states. check out the website and get the "Privacy Word" Issue.
#4
bruce
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 16-September 03
Posted 23 December 2003 - 06:53 PM
For audit purposes????
Audits are ACCs internal problem, nothing to do with the clients.
Arrogance and ignorance.
Nothing in any Act gives ACC any right or excuse to ask for photo IDs.
Suggest you send them a $50 invoice for consultation services when you tell them that. They have asked you to do something, you are entitled to charge for the time wasted in replying to that total arrogant nonsense.
Or if you want to stir the pot, take the "decision" (that ACC NOW REQUIRE client mugshots) to review and ask them if clients are now to be treated like the Beagle Boys, convicted crims with numbers accross their chests.
Audits are ACCs internal problem, nothing to do with the clients.
Arrogance and ignorance.
Nothing in any Act gives ACC any right or excuse to ask for photo IDs.
Suggest you send them a $50 invoice for consultation services when you tell them that. They have asked you to do something, you are entitled to charge for the time wasted in replying to that total arrogant nonsense.
Or if you want to stir the pot, take the "decision" (that ACC NOW REQUIRE client mugshots) to review and ask them if clients are now to be treated like the Beagle Boys, convicted crims with numbers accross their chests.
#5 Guest_flowers_*
Posted 23 December 2003 - 08:07 PM
Fingerprinting and DNA. are next and you wont be allowed to say no.
bloody nazi's
bloody nazi's
Attached File(s)
-
My_Case_Manager.gif (32.56K)
Number of downloads: 2
#7
Shannon
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 23-September 03
Posted 24 December 2003 - 02:44 PM
Maybe im wrong but I would have thought that acc would have photo id of every claimant anyway because you are being filmed on every visit to the cm!
so to ask for your lisence and threaten suspension of erc to me is pure harassment
so to ask for your lisence and threaten suspension of erc to me is pure harassment
#8 Guest_flowers_*
Posted 24 December 2003 - 08:56 PM
Policy?
What the does Policy have to do with it?
Policy cannot over rule the LAW or, can it?
What does policy have to do with the act?
It seems to be used to get the client to comply or sue.
What the does Policy have to do with it?
Policy cannot over rule the LAW or, can it?
What does policy have to do with the act?
It seems to be used to get the client to comply or sue.
#9
BillyBob
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 16-September 03
Posted 25 December 2003 - 06:35 AM
Call me thick if you want but i cant see anywhere in the legislation mentioned that a photo ID is required.
This appears to be blatant harrassment or maybe they are after a photo to make it easier for their investigators to try and trump up some form of fraud against the claiment.
Whichever way it goes I would not give them the copy of the ID but take ID in to the office and make them sign a form saying the ID had been sighted and was the person concerned.
Buggered if i would let them copy it and would put a complaint in about the (in my opinion) nazi tactics being used.
cheers
This appears to be blatant harrassment or maybe they are after a photo to make it easier for their investigators to try and trump up some form of fraud against the claiment.
Whichever way it goes I would not give them the copy of the ID but take ID in to the office and make them sign a form saying the ID had been sighted and was the person concerned.
Buggered if i would let them copy it and would put a complaint in about the (in my opinion) nazi tactics being used.
cheers
#12 Guest_flowers_*
Posted 26 December 2003 - 08:27 AM
Yeah terror!
Attached File(s)
-
flwrznzavatar.gif (1.61K)
Number of downloads: 0
#13
greg
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 277
- Joined: 15-September 03
Posted 26 December 2003 - 09:42 AM
When I collected my files I was asked for ID. I supplied them with their
letter addressed to me, but they said it was not good enough.
If this form of ID. was good enough to get a licence, it should be ok.
I ended up giving them a credit card, silly me.
I went to the Hamilton office of NZ First, as they are opposite ACC. ,
but when I asked them to check out if the law had been changed about
Photo licences being used for ID. , remember this was brought in while
NZ First was in coalition, no more was said.
They took the gold when it was offered also.
letter addressed to me, but they said it was not good enough.
If this form of ID. was good enough to get a licence, it should be ok.
I ended up giving them a credit card, silly me.
I went to the Hamilton office of NZ First, as they are opposite ACC. ,
but when I asked them to check out if the law had been changed about
Photo licences being used for ID. , remember this was brought in while
NZ First was in coalition, no more was said.
They took the gold when it was offered also.
#14
twostickswalking
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 25-September 03
Posted 28 December 2003 - 08:34 PM
re: photo id. the previous privacy commissioner Bruce Slane wrote an
article about photo id in "Privacy Word" found on the Privacy website.
he stated that the D/L should not be used as a national id, it should only
be used for what it was intended for. i e Ltsa when stopped by police and
requested, otherwise this could be considered a breech of privacy. and most certainly if acc requests this information, then looses the file, it then could
or may be considered as a breech of privacy principle 11, &12 unique identifiers
you may wish to ask the Privacy Office themselves at privacy@prolink.co.nz
#15
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 29 December 2003 - 07:37 PM
that is including there debt colecting agency.
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. "
#16
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 31 December 2003 - 09:14 PM
This is bulk harasement and get together and lay a complaint. read the Harassment Act 1997 and it show you that you can class this Act as harassment
3.Meaning of ``harassment''—
(1)For the purposes of this Act, a person harasses another person if he or she engages in a pattern of behaviour that is directed against that other person, being a pattern of behaviour that includes doing any specified act to the other person on at least 2 separate occasions within a period of 12 months.
(2)To avoid any doubt,—
(a)The specified acts required for the purposes of subsection (1) may be the same type of specified act on each separate occasion, or different types of specified acts:
(b)The specified acts need not be done to the same person on each separate occasion, as long as the pattern of behaviour is directed against the same person.
3.Meaning of ``harassment''—
(1)For the purposes of this Act, a person harasses another person if he or she engages in a pattern of behaviour that is directed against that other person, being a pattern of behaviour that includes doing any specified act to the other person on at least 2 separate occasions within a period of 12 months.
(2)To avoid any doubt,—
(a)The specified acts required for the purposes of subsection (1) may be the same type of specified act on each separate occasion, or different types of specified acts:
(b)The specified acts need not be done to the same person on each separate occasion, as long as the pattern of behaviour is directed against the same person.
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. "
#17
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 31 December 2003 - 09:17 PM
this is not done by me so i can't do anything about it
The web site is http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.a...et=pal_statutes
Doppelganger
The web site is http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.a...et=pal_statutes
Doppelganger
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. "
#18
roamy
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 14-October 03
Posted 02 April 2004 - 12:58 AM
http://www.accforum....p?showtopic=432 read this page folks, stumpy has done some research on the photo id issue and as far as i can see it is resolved, you don't have to hand over drivers licence.check it out.roamy
#19
flowers
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 25-March 04
Posted 02 April 2004 - 09:19 AM
Meanwhile, down on the farm.
Attached File(s)
-
wilsonmorph.gif (164.66K)
Number of downloads: 1
#20 Guest_I love chocolate_*
Posted 03 April 2004 - 09:59 PM
Hi IDB
Re: the advice posted from another site,
Quote: #2 request a copy of the case managers ID as proof that they are who they say they are.
ACC sanctioned the use of at least one false name, so how can we be sure that the ID issued by the ACC is in fact the real name of the holder of the ID?
In my opinion, some caseworkers can be intimidating. As ACC staff can use false names when dealing with us, is it possible for us to use false names in dealings with the ACC?
Re: the advice posted from another site,
Quote: #2 request a copy of the case managers ID as proof that they are who they say they are.
ACC sanctioned the use of at least one false name, so how can we be sure that the ID issued by the ACC is in fact the real name of the holder of the ID?
In my opinion, some caseworkers can be intimidating. As ACC staff can use false names when dealing with us, is it possible for us to use false names in dealings with the ACC?
