Conditional Consent Refusal. Head Office Say No...?
Posted 19 February 2008 - 12:56 PM
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.
Posted 19 February 2008 - 01:15 PM
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.
"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  A.C. at page 337.
In Escoigne Properties Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners  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. "
Posted 19 February 2008 - 02:15 PM
Posted 17 July 2009 - 09:57 AM
who is starting to feel broken by ACC's tricks
Posted 17 July 2009 - 10:39 AM
Posted 17 July 2009 - 10:11 PM
Posted 18 July 2009 - 06:28 AM
(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!!!!!
Posted 18 July 2009 - 06:59 AM
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?
Posted 18 July 2009 - 09:56 AM
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.
Posted 06 November 2009 - 08:45 AM
Rats up drainpipes for sure Mini!