ACCforum: Irps And Reinstatement Of Wc - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Irps And Reinstatement Of Wc

#1 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 01 December 2004 - 05:04 PM

Claimants who have had their entitlements reinstated after successful reviews and appeals should beware of ACC's latest trick - insisting that IRPs are signed before payments of weekly compensation can be restarted.
There is no requirement in the legislation that an IRP must be agreed before a claimant can receive weekly compensation.
If you encounter this sort of nonsense from ACC: complain to your MP; let your advocate/support group know about it; and do not sign anything.
0

#2 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 482
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 01 December 2004 - 06:57 PM

MG - Exactly how long do claimants have to put up with the kind of oppressive, harrassing and unlwaful behaviour you describe before someone with authority and influence (the NZ Law Society comes to mind) does something about it.

It seems to me that s.240 of the Crimes Act is very relevant. If people with some kind of influence and authority are prepared to allow this type of conduct to continue, then they are just as guilty and culpable as ACC.

We all thought that sworn lawyers - who are officers' of the court- were supposed to promote and uphold the law and the rule of law.
0

#3 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 01 December 2004 - 07:58 PM

Quote

Crimes Against Rights of Property
Burglary
240  Interpretation





                                Burglary

  240. Interpretation---(1) For the purposes of this section and of
sections 241 to 244 of this Act---
    ``To break'', in relation to any building or ship, means to break
        any part, internal or external, of the building or ship, or to
        open by any means whatsoever (including lifting, in the case of
        things kept in their places by their own weight) any door,
        window, shutter, cellarflap, port, hatch, scuttle, or other
        thing intended to cover openings to the building or ship or to
        give passage from one part of it to another:
    ``Building'' means any building, erection, or structure of any
        description, whether permanent or temporary and includes a tent,
        a caravan, or a houseboat; and also includes any enclosed yard
        or any closed cave or tunnel.

  (2) For the purposes of the said sections,---
  (a) Every one who obtains entrance into any building or ship by any
        threat or artifice used for that purpose, or by collusion with
        any person in the building or ship, or who enters any chimney or
        aperture of the building or ship permanently left open for any
        necessary purpose, shall be deemed to have broken and entered
        that building or ship:
  (b) An entrance into a building or ship is made as soon as any part of
        the body of the person making the entrance, or any part of any
        instrument used by him, is within the building or ship.
    Cf. 1908, No. 32, ss. 271, 272

0

#4 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 01 December 2004 - 08:00 PM

Quote

Crimes Against Rights of Property
Burglary
241  Burglary





  241. Burglary---Every one is guilty of burglary and is liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who---
  (a) Breaks and enters any building or ship with intent to commit a
        crime therein; or
  (b) Breaks out of any building or ship either after committing a crime
        therein or after having entered with intent to commit a crime
        therein.
    Cf. 1908, No. 32, ss. 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279

      As to the application of this section to summary proceedings, see
    the note to s. 1 of this Act.

0

#5 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 482
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 01 December 2004 - 08:09 PM

IDB - That section you quote is from the old Crimes Act - it has since been amended and some sections like s.229A have been repealed. s.240 is now about using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage, benefit, etc.
0

#6 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 01 December 2004 - 08:34 PM

As I've said here many times before, the remedy is political. Forget the Crimes Act - the Courts simply will not entertain the idea and I think any lawyer who brought such an action would end up before the Law Society themselves.
If claimants are being bullied and improperly pressured - written complaints to MP's/ACC chief executive/media, etc. If no domestic remedy - ILO/UN Human Rights Committee. Maybe the CTU, who are due to have a meeting with Helen Clark and senior Ministers soon to discuss issues of concern. I think ACClaim has to get more strategic about its lobyying efforts. That's what the BRT does so well - loathe their ends but can't help admiring their means.
0

#7 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 482
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 01 December 2004 - 08:49 PM

MG, with respect, Political????? - you must be joking - so the law and the rule of law means nothing - there is no equality before the law - ACC and its employees can put themselves above the law with impunity - claimants can be charged for crimes involving deceit but ACC employee's can't - Is that what you are seriously suggesting ????????

Wasn't it Lord Denning in a union case who quoted Thomas Fuller's words "Be ye ever so high the law is above you."

As Lon Fuller said in the 1957 Harvard Law Review "The ramparts of justice, if they were manned by anyone were manned by lawyers and Judges, those ramparts fell almost without a struggle.

God help this country, because the law surely won't.
0

#8 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 01 December 2004 - 09:06 PM

oops, my apologies, just checked online, heres the proper copy:

Quote

[240.Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception—

  (1)Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,— 
 
(a)obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly; or 

(b)in incurring any debt or liability, obtains credit; or 

 
©induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or 

 
(d)causes loss to any other person. 

 
(2)In this section, ``deception'' means— 

 
(a)a false representation, whether oral, documentary, or by conduct, where the person making the representation intends to deceive any other person and— 

 
(i)knows that it is false in a material particular; or 

 
(ii)is reckless as to whether it is false in a material particular; or 

 
(b)an omission to disclose a material particular, with intent to deceive any person, in circumstances where there is a duty to disclose it; or 

 
©a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with intent to deceive any person.] 

 
Cf 1961 No 43 ss 246, 247, 270

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.a...viewtype=search




imho both mike g and magnacarta have good points.

if flyers and advertising material needs a template for printing, please PM me the details.
0

#9 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 01 December 2004 - 09:33 PM

the fact is only when you are receiving compensation that they may ask you to do this. Section 72 Responsibilities of claimant who receives emtitlement. it does not say about to receive or going to receive or any other wording.

it is clear that it is a bulling tactic and think that the harrasement Act could cover it better.

when people look at this section if you are not receiving an entitlement I would suggest that you keep your medical certificates up to date.
0

#10 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 01 December 2004 - 11:18 PM

Well, MG, that's quite a mouthful you spoke me lad - get political, Acclaim groups get strategic. How easy the words roll off the tongue, well-meaning advice perhaps, but impractical.

Acclaim support groups have no funds, all "work" done is voluntarily and individual members are having exactly the problems you describe as well as trying to cope with their injuries.

Lawyers have sucked considerable funds from the pockets of needy claimants over the years, I think it's high time the profession as a whole climbed down off it's high horse and attacked the social issues, theft and fraud perpetrated by ACC. An organisation such as the Law Society has an obligation to the society from whom it makes its living.

As for getting political, just look at the quality of the Christchurch Labour members of Parliament. Lie n Dazzle, stood up in front of Acclaim Canterbury members and lied - who believes that Ruthie did a sterling job with the IPR&C Act Amendment Bill No. 3. Another one, Ruthie herself, she who can't lie straight in bed and continued to sit on the gradual process injury report while wringing fundamental changes into the new legislation. What does that fact alone tell us? The Bill is a done deal and 1.3 million potential ACC claimants are not going to be provided with entitlements.

Bringing political pressure to bear on politicians of whatever evil breed is nothing more than sophistry. Who said that judges would throw out criminal charges against ACC employees and any lawyer who brought such an action would end up before the Law Society. A criminal act is a criminal act, surely it makes not one wit of difference who committs it, and if it does, then equality under the law doesn't exist and the people of this country are in serious trouble. It is appalling to suggest that claimants would be treated differently under the law than ACC workers would be.

Help from the Unions? They sold claimants down the river over the IPR&C Bill, sold their soles to the Devil by bargaining the Employment Contracts Act, and for what, sweet FA. In fact it was the Greens who wrought a number of changes before the Bill was enacted. The CTU is represented on COG, its presence has done nothing to advance claimant interests so don't talk to me about help from the unions. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most claimant union or ex-union members have been told to take a hike and get a lawyer when they have approached their unions for assistance.

It is the Labour Party who has sold us down the river and after having been a staunch Labour supporter since observing my Father's unflinching assistance given to struggling watersiders and seamen in 1951, the Party can now stick its support where the sun don't shine.
0

#11 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 02 December 2004 - 10:38 AM

I have to say I have always voted Labour.... not this time though! They have done us all a grave disservice. They have reneged on promises. They refuse to take claimants cases seriously. They promise everything, deliver nothing. Acclaim has tried to bring them to the party by making comments in the media. They all seem to fall on deaf ears... well apart from the fact I was told that I spoke "too much" and pissed off one of the local MPs. He was not a happy camper....Tough! I'm not either and I'm the one who has to live with the injury and deal with ACC not him! JMHO by the way LOL
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