Help
Attached File(s)
-
acc_lie.jpg (37.74K)
Number of downloads: 63
Page 1 of 1
Its Ok To Lie - Acc Says So
#1 Guest_ACC's Nightmare_*
Posted 31 January 2004 - 03:18 PM
thats what acc have said.
#2
doppelganger 
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1381
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 31 January 2004 - 04:31 PM
the ACC like telling lies all the time so why do they think that it's all right. If everyone is doing the lie telling then what is wrong in just telling a bigger lie next time.
My File is full of wee lies growing all the time
the Corporation even went to a judicial hearing and lied to the judge. now they lie to cover up the lie. latest one is that the investigated the above lie in the pathways file and its not even in the file. the review officer also lied in his review decision as he could not have reviewed the investigation with out readig the pathways file to see what information is in the file.
wee lies;
big lies; 
to bigger lies; 
and then to even bigger lies. 
there is no stopping of these lies unless punishment is given to the affender.
Doppelganger
My File is full of wee lies growing all the time
the Corporation even went to a judicial hearing and lied to the judge. now they lie to cover up the lie. latest one is that the investigated the above lie in the pathways file and its not even in the file. the review officer also lied in his review decision as he could not have reviewed the investigation with out readig the pathways file to see what information is in the file.
wee lies;
big lies; to bigger lies; and then to even bigger lies. there is no stopping of these lies unless punishment is given to the affender.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. "
#3
accvictim
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 04-November 03
Posted 16 March 2004 - 09:06 PM
My File is full of lies as well, I suspect what we read on this site is just the tip of the iceburg, it will soon become common knowlege for every-one to see, and we will see what those lying cheating pirates are going to do then, it all stems from the top.
#4 Guest_IDB_*
Posted 16 March 2004 - 09:58 PM
I have a file thats getting to be several inches thick,
quite some time ago a Case Manager( Loss Adjustor) wrote on paper an event, their version is not a true version of events,
seems the Office of the Complaints Investigator, after they "thoroughly investigate your complaint" are really only there to legitimise a lie that began at an acc branch,
that lie it seems, through the processes ACC has in place, has now been endorsed by non other than G.Wilson as being fact., and that issue is not the only discrepency in my file.
and yet i am not on ACC, i have never been paid by them, in fact ACC have been trying hard not to accept a legitimate injury claim that began several years ago,
so this is how the world leading first class injury scheme gets to be so successful, and soon they are to celebrate 30 years,
Delay,Deny,Delay,Destroy,Delay,Decline,Disentitle. ACC's A B C of how they have to operate with their case managers.
Perhaps ACC see that as something to celebrate.
IDB
From the broad spectrum of injured people I have met, one cannot escape the sheer scale of hurt and loss one see's when you take the time to listen, it is inescapable. Its got to stop. Case managers and other public servants have far too much power, its got to be put on a leash.
The ACC lies have to stop. enough is enough..
quite some time ago a Case Manager( Loss Adjustor) wrote on paper an event, their version is not a true version of events,
seems the Office of the Complaints Investigator, after they "thoroughly investigate your complaint" are really only there to legitimise a lie that began at an acc branch,
that lie it seems, through the processes ACC has in place, has now been endorsed by non other than G.Wilson as being fact., and that issue is not the only discrepency in my file.
and yet i am not on ACC, i have never been paid by them, in fact ACC have been trying hard not to accept a legitimate injury claim that began several years ago,
so this is how the world leading first class injury scheme gets to be so successful, and soon they are to celebrate 30 years,
Delay,Deny,Delay,Destroy,Delay,Decline,Disentitle. ACC's A B C of how they have to operate with their case managers.
Perhaps ACC see that as something to celebrate.
IDB
From the broad spectrum of injured people I have met, one cannot escape the sheer scale of hurt and loss one see's when you take the time to listen, it is inescapable. Its got to stop. Case managers and other public servants have far too much power, its got to be put on a leash.
The ACC lies have to stop. enough is enough..
#5
bruce
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 16-September 03
Posted 23 March 2004 - 10:40 PM
What a remarkable letter!
Two acc toadies encouraging a claimant to defraud prospective employees by lying about a known work disabilty.
Remember the Canadian CEO of something or other that went to jail for fraud for falsifying his resume?
So acc take their levies from employers and then try to shaft them too.
Unbelievable that anyone would be stupid enough to sign their name to it.
What a piece of evidence to put before an enquiry.
Two acc toadies encouraging a claimant to defraud prospective employees by lying about a known work disabilty.
Remember the Canadian CEO of something or other that went to jail for fraud for falsifying his resume?
So acc take their levies from employers and then try to shaft them too.
Unbelievable that anyone would be stupid enough to sign their name to it.
What a piece of evidence to put before an enquiry.
#6
Down
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 16-September 03
Posted 24 March 2004 - 07:04 AM
In my opinion, IDB you have this very right .....and appears to be a common ACC practice, add a Technical Claims Manager to the list of putting lies on paper as well.
Then at reveiw DRSL also accept those same lies.
Then at reveiw DRSL also accept those same lies.
Quote
quite some time ago a Case Manager( Loss Adjustor) wrote on paper an event, their version is not a true version of events,
seems the Office of the Complaints Investigator, after they "thoroughly investigate your complaint" are really only there to legitimise a lie that began at an acc branch,
seems the Office of the Complaints Investigator, after they "thoroughly investigate your complaint" are really only there to legitimise a lie that began at an acc branch,
#7
BillyBob
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 16-September 03
Posted 25 May 2004 - 02:35 PM
Speaking of lies, I have just obtained a copy of a letter sent to my GP Querying why my medical certificate had changed to fully unfit.
This letter was an obvious attempt to bully the GP into stating i was in fact fit for work and basically how dare he upset the cm's nasty little plans for me.
CM also put in the letter:
"I am in reciept of an incomplete medical certificate for xxxxxx which indicates that xxxx is fully unfit to perform any work tasks. Previous certificates have indicated that xxxx is capable for at least 2 hours per day"
So there you have it, because the GP said i couldnt work the medical cert according to acc was incomplete.
The comments of xxxx is capable of at least 2 hours per day is a blatant lie and an attempt to influence the GP.
The most i have had on a medical certificate is 2hours per day 3 days per week and in my week there are 5 working days so how does cm come up with at least 2 hours per day.
bloody manipulaters and liars.
cheers
billybob
This letter was an obvious attempt to bully the GP into stating i was in fact fit for work and basically how dare he upset the cm's nasty little plans for me.
CM also put in the letter:
"I am in reciept of an incomplete medical certificate for xxxxxx which indicates that xxxx is fully unfit to perform any work tasks. Previous certificates have indicated that xxxx is capable for at least 2 hours per day"
So there you have it, because the GP said i couldnt work the medical cert according to acc was incomplete.
The comments of xxxx is capable of at least 2 hours per day is a blatant lie and an attempt to influence the GP.
The most i have had on a medical certificate is 2hours per day 3 days per week and in my week there are 5 working days so how does cm come up with at least 2 hours per day.
bloody manipulaters and liars.
cheers
billybob
#8
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1381
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 25 May 2004 - 07:50 PM
tis is a reviewable decision as it does affect your entitlements. the outcome of the review will be that the CM rewrites the letter to the GP with an appoligies.
this will up set the CM as the CM has to say that he lied to your GP for Remunation.
FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this will up set the CM as the CM has to say that he lied to your GP for Remunation.
FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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. "
#10
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1381
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 15 October 2008 - 02:22 PM
Well in the last 4 years some of us have more that just the case manager lying..
Some that have gone on to collect parts of the workings of the ACC show that the Staff get paid to lie, and paid well to even lie
One of the biggest is that the case manager will lie about covered injuries when they are not on the acceptance letter. the policy tells the case manager to check to see if the incapacity is caused by the covered injury. the policy then goes on and describes the covered injury as in the acceptance letter.
we all know that the cover is extended to all injuries as result of an accident and some gradual process. so why is it that the policy shows the staff how to lie when the policy maker knows the policy is not correct.
the policy can not be corrected as this would mean that every claim that the injury was looked at would need to be looked at again.
I still see the same practices used to day as in 2004. Claimants are given the same advice and we are getting the same answers. ACC may have changed there approach but claimants are still following what was done.
Some that have gone on to collect parts of the workings of the ACC show that the Staff get paid to lie, and paid well to even lie
One of the biggest is that the case manager will lie about covered injuries when they are not on the acceptance letter. the policy tells the case manager to check to see if the incapacity is caused by the covered injury. the policy then goes on and describes the covered injury as in the acceptance letter.
we all know that the cover is extended to all injuries as result of an accident and some gradual process. so why is it that the policy shows the staff how to lie when the policy maker knows the policy is not correct.
the policy can not be corrected as this would mean that every claim that the injury was looked at would need to be looked at again.
I still see the same practices used to day as in 2004. Claimants are given the same advice and we are getting the same answers. ACC may have changed there approach but claimants are still following what was done.
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. "
#11
gabby
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 25-November 07
Posted 16 October 2008 - 08:32 AM
In 1998 i went to a job trial at a car groomers which was arranged through workbridge..i was told by both workbridge and my case manager not to mention the extent of my disability or injury and no way was i to mention i was heavily medicated for depression..well you can imagine what happened i was unable to change car tyres or complete my so called duties..my case manager then turned on workbridge and all hell broke loose all because i was told to tell lies..i have just obtained my full file from acc and there is so many half truths and straight out lies i just couldnt believe it.even a conversation between a case manager and a reviewer at drsl who wanted to go to mediation has been twisted by cm to suit the acc.i could write a book on the bullshit and lies these people have told over the past 13 years to try and exit me out of the system and they finally came up with a dodgy specialist and reviewer to do it..they are a disgrace.
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1