ACCforum: Privacy Commission Useless? - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Privacy Commission Useless? Roger Reynolds Middlemore's ACC toady consultant

#1 User is offline   Moeroa 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 940
  • Joined: 20-November 09
  • LocationWellington Central City

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:46 PM




Roger Reynolds, Middlemore's ACC go to specialist rheumatologist and treacherous toady doctor.

ACCwas twice found guilty of wrongfully accessing and using my friend's non-claimmedical files for two successive IMAs. Having agreed to destroy and/orreturn the records, ACC then used the same unlawfully obtained medicaldocuments for a subsequent IMA. Then again, in 2010 ACC contracted Middlemore's DrRoger Reynolds, who in turn also violated her medical privacy and accessedprivate non-claim hospital records without her consent, in order that ACC maydis-entitle her (which ACC/Leanne swiftly did). This caused my mate severefinancial hardship during the year off claim, and then once reinstated as well. However contrary to their website about financial harm, the Privacy Commission dismisses the economic penalties my mate suffered. Why?


Quote

Harm can be:
  • Financial loss, or injury
  • Adverse effect on a person’s rights, benefits, privileges, obligations or interests, or






When she was reinstated, she was then double taxed on the arrears (leaving her little more than Invalid benefit weekly rates) and she must also repay full Accommodation Supplement and Student Allowance for the periodwrongfully off ACC as well as the Student Loan repayments (for the Voc Rehab repeatedly denied byACC).


How can you pay $310 weekly rent out of $292 clear a week?


So she continues to suffer ongoing economic penalties because of Roger Reynolds' privacy invasion on ACC's behalf. This two faced little fairy cannot be trusted.



</h2>

Quote

<h2>How to complain
  • Scroll to the bottom of this page to download the Complaint Form.
  • You don't have to fill in a complaint form - you can put it in a letter instead. But please read the notes below to give you guidance on what information we will need so we can consider your complaint.
  • If you're unsure what to do, just contact our enquiries line (Phone 0800 803 909) or email, and our staff will help you.

What information do we need to know?

1. Your name and contact details

We need to keep in contact with you while we are considering your complaint. Since you may not want other people to know that you have made a complaint, give us an address, phone number or email address where we can contact you confidentially.


2. (a) The name and contact details of the person and/or organisation (“the agency”) about whose actions you are complaining

If you believe that someone has breached your privacy, and you want us to investigate what has happened, we will need to talk to that person, and/or the agency they work for. This is so that we can get their view of what has happened.


2. (B) What is your relationship to that agency (eg employee, client, family member, patient)?

We need to know the context of the dispute. This helps us to see how the law might apply to that situation.


3. Have you already contacted the agency about your complaint?

Before coming to us, you should contact the person or organisation and try to sort the problem out with them.

If the organisation has a privacy officer, that is the best person to talk to. If the agency doesn’t have a privacy officer, talk to someone senior, like the manager.

If you are not satisfied with the agency’s response, then send in a complaint. Give us as much relevant information as you can - this will speed up any investigation.

Include with your complaint form:

  • Copies of all letters/emails/other documents you have written and received about your complaint

If you don't have anything in writing, tell us:

  • Who you spoke to
  • The date you spoke to them
  • What you said
  • What their response was.

4. What types of action would resolve your complaint?

Think about what would make the problem go away for you. This gives us the ability to see whether the agency would agree to settling the dispute.

People ask for different things:

Maybe an apology is in order. This is all that many people want. You may want a promise that the same thing won’t happen to you again… or that it won’t happen to someone else. Maybe a meeting with the agency would resolve the problem. You may be able to think of something else which will allow you to move forward.

Sometimes, people get confused about what the Commissioner has power to do. For example:

  • she can’t force an agency to pay compensation
  • she can’t order that an agency sack someone
  • she doesn’t prosecute people.

See our Frequently Asked Questions for some further information on the Commissioner’s powers to resolve complaints.


5. What is the complaint about?

This information helps us to advise you and the agency on how the law applies to your case.

Tell us exactly what it is that the person or agency has done that you think breaches your privacy.

A complaint that involves only one area of law is just as serious as one involving many areas of law. So do not feel that you have to tick many boxes. Only choose what is relevant to what has happened.

If you can focus clearly on what your complaint is about, we will be able to consider it more quickly.

The check boxes indicate the most common areas of complaints. For more information about what each check box means, click on the links below.
(a) access
(B) correction.

If you tick these boxes, make sure you give us copies of your request for access or your request for correction. Also give us copies of the agency’s responses.

If you don’t have anything in writing, give us details of:

  • who you made the request to
  • what exactly the request was for
  • the date you made the request
  • what their response was.

© disclosure
(d) use
(e) collection
(f) security
(g) other.

In each of these cases, tell us exactly what information was disclosed/used etc. Give us background information or documents to show what happened. For example, tell us who the information was disclosed to and why, or who collected it and why.


6. Explain how this action/these actions have caused – or may cause – a negative effect on you (with evidence where available)

Under the Privacy Act, an interference with privacy usually only occurs when an agency has breached a privacy principle, and also has caused some sort of harm.

The only exceptions are in cases involving access and correction, where harm is not relevant.

Harm can be:

  • Financial loss, or injury
  • Adverse effect on a person’s rights, benefits, privileges, obligations or interests, or
  • Significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity, or significant injury to feelings.

Breaches of the privacy principles are serious, and should be brought to the attention of the Privacy Commissioner. Even if – legally speaking – there’s no “interference with an individual’s privacy”, the Commissioner still encourages agencies to improve how they deal with personal information.

But if the Commissioner is going to make a formal finding in your favour, you will need to show us that you have suffered, or may suffer, harm.






http://privacy.org.nz/how-to-complain/


Downloads
Posted Image Privacy-Complaint-Form-2010.doc DOC, 82 KB


3

#2 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1428
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 23 November 2012 - 07:46 AM

The Privacy Commissioner is a mixed bag. The Privacy Act is much more useful as a preventative. For example using Rule 7 of the act to make sure your take on matters is firmly attached to any information flying around out there about you.

However when it comes to redress the Commission stamps and snorts like an angry elephant over breaches that are small in nature and but becomes all helpless and constrained when it comes to bigger issues.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal ruled itself into irrelevancy when it decided that an agency could not be held accountable unless information was actually obtained and that it would only hear matters that the Privacy Commission agreed to hear making the Commission a gatekeeper. Now as far as I can see the Tribunal deals with technical irrelevancies while the bigger issues march on by. This has suited the Corporation very well.

They break all the rules. If they succeed in getting information then they take the hit (wet bus ticket) and use the information anyway. If they do not succeed they claim they cannot be held accountable. To bad for the stress and aggravation they claimant had to go through to defend themselves not to mention the cost.
0

#3 User is offline   Compassion 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 23-July 09

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:40 PM

View PostLupine, on 23 November 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

The Privacy Commissioner is a mixed bag. The Privacy Act is much more useful as a preventative. For example using Rule 7 of the act to make sure your take on matters is firmly attached to any information flying around out there about you.

However when it comes to redress the Commission stamps and snorts like an angry elephant over breaches that are small in nature and but becomes all helpless and constrained when it comes to bigger issues.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal ruled itself into irrelevancy when it decided that an agency could not be held accountable unless information was actually obtained and that it would only hear matters that the Privacy Commission agreed to hear making the Commission a gatekeeper. Now as far as I can see the Tribunal deals with technical irrelevancies while the bigger issues march on by. This has suited the Corporation very well.

They break all the rules. If they succeed in getting information then they take the hit (wet bus ticket) and use the information anyway. If they do not succeed they claim they cannot be held accountable. To bad for the stress and aggravation they claimant had to go through to defend themselves not to mention the cost.



Maybe there needs to be some training for the drs etc reading the reports, that it would be fair to have them summarise the corrections to show that they a( read them and B) took the corrections into consideration.

With files with HEAPS of correction on heaps of reports, I hope that they are paid extra to read these corrections, especially when ACC has misued and handled the info in the first place to which then YOU have to add the corrections. Surely an apology and added fee to ensure these are read and considered by the medical folk.

B)
0

#4 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5633
  • Joined: 20-June 16

Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:29 PM

Answer:

That money is the key factor in their lives.

That some peoples views and opinions can be "bought off".
0

#5 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6838
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:41 PM

View PostLupine, on 23 November 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

The Privacy Commissioner is a mixed bag. The Privacy Act is much more useful as a preventative. For example using Rule 7 of the act to make sure your take on matters is firmly attached to any information flying around out there about you.

However when it comes to redress the Commission stamps and snorts like an angry elephant over breaches that are small in nature and but becomes all helpless and constrained when it comes to bigger issues.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal ruled itself into irrelevancy when it decided that an agency could not be held accountable unless information was actually obtained and that it would only hear matters that the Privacy Commission agreed to hear making the Commission a gatekeeper. Now as far as I can see the Tribunal deals with technical irrelevancies while the bigger issues march on by. This has suited the Corporation very well.

They break all the rules. If they succeed in getting information then they take the hit (wet bus ticket) and use the information anyway. If they do not succeed they claim they cannot be held accountable. To bad for the stress and aggravation they claimant had to go through to defend themselves not to mention the cost.



Lupine

This is exactly why I have been screaming for the newspaper article between PM John key and the UN (via acclaim otago) which he said when answering a question from the UN that administravie stuff ups by ACC can be corrected because of the Human Rights at DC level. I am looking for that piece of paper as what you and others are finding out is that it is not so that Human Rights can be raised at the DC. Well, some one up high is lying and it aint us at the bottom. I am of the understanding that that includes technical issues as well but will not no more until I get the document.

Mini
0

#6 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5633
  • Joined: 20-June 16

Posted 20 May 2017 - 08:49 AM

View PostMoeroa, on 22 November 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:




Roger Reynolds, Middlemore's ACC go to specialist rheumatologist and treacherous toady doctor.

ACCwas twice found guilty of wrongfully accessing and using my friend's non-claimmedical files for two successive IMAs. Having agreed to destroy and/orreturn the records, ACC then used the same unlawfully obtained medicaldocuments for a subsequent IMA. Then again, in 2010 ACC contracted Middlemore's DrRoger Reynolds, who in turn also violated her medical privacy and accessedprivate non-claim hospital records without her consent, in order that ACC maydis-entitle her (which ACC/Leanne swiftly did). This caused my mate severefinancial hardship during the year off claim, and then once reinstated as well. However contrary to their website about financial harm, the Privacy Commission dismisses the economic penalties my mate suffered. Why?







When she was reinstated, she was then double taxed on the arrears (leaving her little more than Invalid benefit weekly rates) and she must also repay full Accommodation Supplement and Student Allowance for the periodwrongfully off ACC as well as the Student Loan repayments (for the Voc Rehab repeatedly denied byACC).


How can you pay $310 weekly rent out of $292 clear a week?


So she continues to suffer ongoing economic penalties because of Roger Reynolds' privacy invasion on ACC's behalf. This two faced little fairy cannot be trusted.



</h2>




http://privacy.org.nz/how-to-complain/


[b]Downloads

Posted Image Privacy-Complaint-Form-2010.doc DOC, 82 KB


To be fair to the PRIVACY COMMISSIONER, his outfit is nowhere as bad as the COMMISsIONER for health. That office should be made redundant.

As should the MEDICAL COUNCIL be brought to account for handing out annual practicing licenses to DOCTORS who can't 'lie' straight in bed and are merely puppets for ACC in writing out dodgy assessment reports.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users