Help
RE ACC2 CONSENTS
Send a letter to CM and ask that this letter be attached to your ACC2 consent on your file.
I hereby revoke all previous consents held by ACC and ask that the following be attached to my file.
"I authorise ACC to collect information as required, but ACC MUST ADVISE ME FIRST, of their intention to obtain any information from any person or organisation, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
I give my consent only on these grounds".
The ACC will accept this and the Team leader told me the other day that ACC have no problem with this form of consent.
Go for it!
But if course ACC may choose to breach the PRivacy Act and go and obtain information without your consent. If they do, you have a good case for the Privacy Commisioner.
Conditional Consent Refusal. Head Office Say No...?
#22
doppelganger 
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 19 February 2008 - 01:15 PM
Section 72 requires that consent must be given and the ACC can operate with out a open consent.
Section 309 requires the ACC to approach a claimant each time that information is required from your Employer or previous employer, any one who supplied rehabilitation (this includes medical treatment) and received a payment in respect of the claimant.
Take note that the claimant should advise the person that the ACC wants the information.
If you don't supply consent on a case by case base th4en there is a $2,000.00 fine coming your way.
Section 309 requires the ACC to approach a claimant each time that information is required from your Employer or previous employer, any one who supplied rehabilitation (this includes medical treatment) and received a payment in respect of the claimant.
Take note that the claimant should advise the person that the ACC wants the information.
If you don't supply consent on a case by case base th4en there is a $2,000.00 fine coming your way.
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. "
#23
Gloria Mitchell
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 98
- Joined: 14-February 06
Posted 19 February 2008 - 02:15 PM
#24
cloudsurfing
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 13-December 04
Posted 17 July 2009 - 09:57 AM
This tread is old, so just wished to check that people are still using the conditional consent form posted in here with no hassles from ACC?
thanks
cloudsurfing
who is starting to feel broken by ACC's tricks
thanks
cloudsurfing
who is starting to feel broken by ACC's tricks
Gloria Mitchell, on Feb 19 2008, 03:15 PM, said:
I am one of four claimants I personally know that have conditional consent un challenged...still.....and my med cert is not on NZ forms and so contains no small print consent at all.
Gloria
Gloria
#25
Gloria Mitchell
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 98
- Joined: 14-February 06
Posted 17 July 2009 - 10:39 AM
#26
fairgo
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 282
- Joined: 15-September 03
Posted 17 July 2009 - 10:11 PM
some people have had their entitlements stopped because they refuse to sign the blanket consent form, others have been threatened with disentitlement only to have that withdrawn at the last minute. Others have still never signed an ACC167 (as they have gone back to that number instead of ACC2) The inconsistancy is glaringly obvious and unacceptable IMHO
Like water, be gentle and strong. Be gentle enough to follow the natural paths of the earth, and strong enough to rise up and reshape the world
#27
Fighter for Justice
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 110
- Joined: 23-August 08
Posted 18 July 2009 - 06:28 AM
ACC have cut my ERC after I refused to sign first an ACC2 form. ACC then wanted me to sign old ACC167 - then new ACC167 form. I have not signed it and ACC cut my ERC on 2 June 2009. I will probably review this Decision (and several others relating to cover, original amount my ERC based on and IRP) - but honestly feel overwhelmed at present with the work. I should explain I have other very pressing matters! I usually enjoy a challenge!
(PS: I did give ACC a claimant conditional consent - but ACC refused to accept it).
For your information I refused to sign the original ACC Consent Forms (ACC167??? I think) in 2000 and had my ERC cut until I complied. I was not backpaid and ACC claim!! I got a letter stating no backpay. I can swear an affidavit that I never received that letter - which conveniently originally was not on ACC's computer record (I think it is called Pathways). At Review I lost and WorkAon won (Peter Barker, Reviewer). I believe ACC is still quoting my case to claimants. PM me if you want a copy of the shitty Review Decision!!!!!
(PS: I did give ACC a claimant conditional consent - but ACC refused to accept it).
For your information I refused to sign the original ACC Consent Forms (ACC167??? I think) in 2000 and had my ERC cut until I complied. I was not backpaid and ACC claim!! I got a letter stating no backpay. I can swear an affidavit that I never received that letter - which conveniently originally was not on ACC's computer record (I think it is called Pathways). At Review I lost and WorkAon won (Peter Barker, Reviewer). I believe ACC is still quoting my case to claimants. PM me if you want a copy of the shitty Review Decision!!!!!
#28
Noddy
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 10-April 04
Posted 18 July 2009 - 06:59 AM
fairgo, on Jul 17 2009, 11:11 PM, said:
some people have had their entitlements stopped because they refuse to sign the blanket consent form, others have been threatened with disentitlement only to have that withdrawn at the last minute. Others have still never signed an ACC167 (as they have gone back to that number instead of ACC2) The inconsistancy is glaringly obvious and unacceptable IMHO
Totally agree Fairgo! Like everything with this outfit, it is down to the individual case manager. Some are really good - and some are shockers. So how do we know where we stand when there is such variation from one to the other?
#29
MINI
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1725
- Joined: 09-October 07
Posted 18 July 2009 - 09:56 AM
Noddy
Just look at this way....they are the boss whether we like it or not.
Do what they want, then see if there is anything that is not kosha about it, If you have done everything by the book they have no reason to have to try to trick you.
However keep vigilant wait for the right time and into it. Like a rate up a drain pipe. They will soon settle down.
The main thing is, be seen to be complying. Then they cant cut you for not compying, that is one of the main reasons I see on here, for cutting weekly compo. Non compliance!!! They have every right to do that.
Then get stuck into the things that you are entitled too, such as assessments for IA and all the other bits and bobs you need to keep your health and safety in the home etc.
You can do nothing if you cause yourself to be cut off through non-compliance. And of course in those situations why should they back date it??? They are not the ones who have done something illegal.
Commonsence rules, if you want your entitlements, you play ball. That doesnt mean to say you have to anything that is not written in the Act. I have been fighting these things and been quite successful so far. Couple more to go.
You buck the things that are not in the Act. All others abide by!! Some of their policys and proceedures leave a lot to be desired and have no law to back them up. Fight the ones that are winnable, dont waste time on the ones that are not.
Good Luck
Mini
Just look at this way....they are the boss whether we like it or not.
Do what they want, then see if there is anything that is not kosha about it, If you have done everything by the book they have no reason to have to try to trick you.
However keep vigilant wait for the right time and into it. Like a rate up a drain pipe. They will soon settle down.
The main thing is, be seen to be complying. Then they cant cut you for not compying, that is one of the main reasons I see on here, for cutting weekly compo. Non compliance!!! They have every right to do that.
Then get stuck into the things that you are entitled too, such as assessments for IA and all the other bits and bobs you need to keep your health and safety in the home etc.
You can do nothing if you cause yourself to be cut off through non-compliance. And of course in those situations why should they back date it??? They are not the ones who have done something illegal.
Commonsence rules, if you want your entitlements, you play ball. That doesnt mean to say you have to anything that is not written in the Act. I have been fighting these things and been quite successful so far. Couple more to go.
You buck the things that are not in the Act. All others abide by!! Some of their policys and proceedures leave a lot to be desired and have no law to back them up. Fight the ones that are winnable, dont waste time on the ones that are not.
Good Luck
Mini
#30
Maraqita
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 25
- Joined: 29-June 09
- LocationWellington Central City
Posted 06 November 2009 - 08:45 AM
fairgo, on Jul 18 2009, 01:11 AM, said:
some people have had their entitlements stopped because they refuse to sign the blanket consent form, others have been threatened with disentitlement only to have that withdrawn at the last minute. Others have still never signed an ACC167 (as they have gone back to that number instead of ACC2) The inconsistancy is glaringly obvious and unacceptable IMHO
Rats up drainpipes for sure Mini!
MINI, on Jul 18 2009, 12:56 PM, said:
Like a rate up a drain pipe.
#31
MINI
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1725
- Joined: 09-October 07
Posted 06 November 2009 - 11:04 AM
Mehmet
Was supposed to be Rats but sometimes my fingers are quicker than my brain. Sometimes it is the other way around!!!
Still if we can understand texted messages we can understand anything!! Right??
Mini
Was supposed to be Rats but sometimes my fingers are quicker than my brain. Sometimes it is the other way around!!!
Still if we can understand texted messages we can understand anything!! Right??
Mini
