ACCforum: Fairway is already registered as a 'tribunal' Privacy Act 1993 section 2(1)(b) - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Fairway is already registered as a 'tribunal' Privacy Act 1993 section 2(1)(b) 'unable to investigate any alleged privacy breaches by a tribunal.

#1 User is offline   Aurora 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 12-December 13
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 17 March 2015 - 11:01 AM

This is from an Email received from the Privacy Commissioner's office regarding their role in Fairway.

Unfortunately, the Privacy Act 1993 specifically excludes tribunals from being agencies under section 2 (1) b. This means that we are unable to investigate any alleged privacy breaches by a tribunal. We have previously investigated similar complaints about this issue and are satisfied that Fairway Resolution is a tribunal and we are therefore unable to investigate.

This is rather alarming and concerning!!

The Privacy Commissioner's office also state that as I took the Fairway Reviewers wrong decision to court, this amounts to "that section 71(1)(g) allows our Office to decline to take any action with regard to a particular matter, if the complainant has an alternative remedy available to them. In this case, I am satisfied that you have made use of an alternative remedy, with regard to the proceedings you have brought on Appeal to the District Court."

Umm, does an Appeal that raises the serious matter that there was wrong decision making by a Reviewer become the remedy?? I do not understand how a court appeal that raises the concerns and questions of an appellant is appropriate remedy for a clear breach of privacy?? The reviewer used material provided by the ACC to uphold the ACC officer decision poor quality making. The Judge cannot be seen by making comments as to breaches committed as the 'alternative remedy'? The Judge says she could not address specific concerns - she had to deal with the Reviewer decision - and that is all. Due to the OCI using the 'flawed' Reviewer decision, overturned internally, to state 'no code broken' the matter went to appeal. The OCI considered the flawed decision of the Reviewer was more preferable to the internal investigation undertaken by ACC which overturned the original flawed decision made by a scu officer.

So let me get this straight. A Judge finds a Fairway Reviewer to have made 'unwise' and 'wrong' decisions on a claimant file and this publishing of his name in a court decision (aka wet bus ticket) is the only remedy?? Therefore the entire appeal is ignored?? What was the purpose of going to court when and if Fairway Reviewers can make 'unwise' and 'wrong' decisions and these cannot be investigated (they are protected in law) as they have tribunal status??????

No wonder this government wants this move to an ACC tribunal - more ways to hush the public of New Zealand up. This is very disturbing indeed and the Privacy Commissioner has a very poor understanding of what remedy is. The Judge even stated she could not provide remedy as they can only deal with the Review and ACC decision which was overturned internally, so clearly not robust in the first place. Notwithstanding the claimant still had the trauma of the poor decisions in entitlements declined, a further distressing review, additional assessments to counteract ACC's now stated flawed assessment, costs and distress. Then a court hearing as OCI refused to abide by the internal overturned decision (which overtook the Reviewer decision) and instead referred to the 'unwise' and 'wrong' reviewer decision as being the authority - thus 'no code broken'!!!

As far as I am concerned the remedy of the District Court now opens the way to an inquiry of what ACC allowed to happen on my claimant file. They steadfastly refused to accept that service failures had occurred more than once!! This court appeal was to raise ACC awareness of many flaws that the OCI consistently and regularly refused to uphold.

The Privacy Commissioner must now surely investigate matters raised in a court appeal when requested by a New Zealand citizen - not related to Fairway - who has tribunal Privacy Protection in place already?!?!

Fairway is now protected and can make many many more 'unwise' and 'wrong' decisions on our claimant files as they cannot be investigated for Privacy breaches when they mis-use information provided by ACC?!?!?!

I am at a loss!!
1

#2 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7725
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 17 March 2015 - 12:15 PM

 Silenced!, on 17 March 2015 - 11:01 AM, said:

This is from an Email received from the Privacy Commissioner's office regarding their role in Fairway.

Unfortunately, the Privacy Act 1993 specifically excludes tribunals from being agencies under section 2 (1) b. This means that we are unable to investigate any alleged privacy breaches by a tribunal. We have previously investigated similar complaints about this issue and are satisfied that Fairway Resolution is a tribunal and we are therefore unable to investigate.

This is rather alarming and concerning!!

The Privacy Commissioner's office also state that as I took the Fairway Reviewers wrong decision to court, this amounts to "that section 71(1)(g) allows our Office to decline to take any action with regard to a particular matter, if the complainant has an alternative remedy available to them. In this case, I am satisfied that you have made use of an alternative remedy, with regard to the proceedings you have brought on Appeal to the District Court."

Umm, does an Appeal that raises the serious matter that there was wrong decision making by a Reviewer become the remedy?? I do not understand how a court appeal that raises the concerns and questions of an appellant is appropriate remedy for a clear breach of privacy?? The reviewer used material provided by the ACC to uphold the ACC officer decision poor quality making. The Judge cannot be seen by making comments as to breaches committed as the 'alternative remedy'? The Judge says she could not address specific concerns - she had to deal with the Reviewer decision - and that is all. Due to the OCI using the 'flawed' Reviewer decision, overturned internally, to state 'no code broken' the matter went to appeal. The OCI considered the flawed decision of the Reviewer was more preferable to the internal investigation undertaken by ACC which overturned the original flawed decision made by a scu officer.

So let me get this straight. A Judge finds a Fairway Reviewer to have made 'unwise' and 'wrong' decisions on a claimant file and this publishing of his name in a court decision (aka wet bus ticket) is the only remedy?? Therefore the entire appeal is ignored?? What was the purpose of going to court when and if Fairway Reviewers can make 'unwise' and 'wrong' decisions and these cannot be investigated (they are protected in law) as they have tribunal status??????

No wonder this government wants this move to an ACC tribunal - more ways to hush the public of New Zealand up. This is very disturbing indeed and the Privacy Commissioner has a very poor understanding of what remedy is. The Judge even stated she could not provide remedy as they can only deal with the Review and ACC decision which was overturned internally, so clearly not robust in the first place. Notwithstanding the claimant still had the trauma of the poor decisions in entitlements declined, a further distressing review, additional assessments to counteract ACC's now stated flawed assessment, costs and distress. Then a court hearing as OCI refused to abide by the internal overturned decision (which overtook the Reviewer decision) and instead referred to the 'unwise' and 'wrong' reviewer decision as being the authority - thus 'no code broken'!!!

As far as I am concerned the remedy of the District Court now opens the way to an inquiry of what ACC allowed to happen on my claimant file. They steadfastly refused to accept that service failures had occurred more than once!! This court appeal was to raise ACC awareness of many flaws that the OCI consistently and regularly refused to uphold.

The Privacy Commissioner must now surely investigate matters raised in a court appeal when requested by a New Zealand citizen - not related to Fairway - who has tribunal Privacy Protection in place already?!?!

Fairway is now protected and can make many many more 'unwise' and 'wrong' decisions on our claimant files as they cannot be investigated for Privacy breaches when they mis-use information provided by ACC?!?!?!

I am at a loss!!


From my point of view it is always open to the claimant to go that step further.

ie if you do not agree with the decision on the Judge, in that it didn't take all of you problems into consideration, which is a question of law, you may take the step of submitting a appeal on that question of law, if that doesn't work either you can go another step to special leave to appeal to the high court, if the outcome of that is yes you can go to the High Court, but the H/c says No, after looking at it again, you may go to High Court Appeal.

My understanding is that unless you have taken all the steps available to you, there is no point in complaining.

This is obviously so that you will get stopped by the H/c and have no right of appeal. Therefore no where else to go.

After that you have Breach of claimants rights (but they only started in 2003/4, and or Ask for a payment outside the legislation. If neither of these win you only have a civil case of malfeasance or such, which would cost you about $30.000 so I have been quoted. This also gives you the right of damages on top of any new hearings that may overturn the first ones and allow a payment to be made.

I do hope you are aware that ACClaim in Otago has just been given a grant to cover these exact topics ie our right to justice and the way in which it is processed.

They may be interested in your case.

Mini
2

#3 User is offline   Battleaxe 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8096
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 18 March 2015 - 05:44 PM

On 10 December 2014 I wrote a letter to the Attorney General. I pointed out that the N.Z. Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 27 "Right to justice", affirms the right "to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law", and that it also provides that "every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination."

A quotation from a letter dated 11 February 2015 written by Hon. Amy Adams in response follows; "Decisions of the Privacy Commissioner cannot be appealed to a Court of Tribunal. However, decisions by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner can be reviewed by the Office of the Ombudsman pursuant to the Ombudsman Act."

Hope this helps.
0

#4 User is offline   Aurora 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 12-December 13
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 19 March 2015 - 03:19 PM

 Battleaxe, on 18 March 2015 - 05:44 PM, said:

On 10 December 2014 I wrote a letter to the Attorney General. I pointed out that the N.Z. Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 27 "Right to justice", affirms the right "to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law", and that it also provides that "every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination."

A quotation from a letter dated 11 February 2015 written by Hon. Amy Adams in response follows; "Decisions of the Privacy Commissioner cannot be appealed to a Court of Tribunal. However, decisions by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner can be reviewed by the Office of the Ombudsman pursuant to the Ombudsman Act."

Hope this helps.



Thank you - the Ombudsman has written today saying they are investigating the Privacy Commissioner's refusal to investigate concerns that have been upheld at appeal. Hopefully this will resolve the matter!

What a performance to get the Privacy Commissioner to investigate when a court judge raises matters!!! All this of course adds to stress and distress ......
2

#5 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7725
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 20 March 2015 - 08:19 AM

Silenced

What part of the juridicial system were you at. You say Appeal.

Was it DC appeal from Review?

It would be very helpful if I knew exactly what type of appeal you are speaking of, as off the top of my head, their are four appeals or is it five after the District Court appeal from Review.

Cheers

Mini
0

#6 User is offline   Aurora 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 12-December 13
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 23 April 2015 - 12:31 PM

Any ideas or has anyone successfully take a case against a Tribunal? Fairway is registered as a Tribunal so how do we obtain justice when this Tribunal refuses to investigate a Reviewer found by the courts to be unwise and wrong?

We have options of Civil Courts, HRRT under certain codes like Privacy and HDC, and Disputes Tribunals ..... has anyone been successful?? Tried NZLII but nothing specifically there or are Tribunal decisions out of the loop??
1

#7 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 23 April 2015 - 08:18 PM

All tribunal stuff IS under district court rules. I have recorded evidence of a reviewer using outdated case law and abuse of process
Reported and covered up with fraud yet again.
Don't forget, the privacy commission initially denied the existence of party status files
The never ending round of unaccountability
..
Its all so sordid, time consing and wrong
0

#8 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 23 April 2015 - 08:19 PM

If the reviewer was an actual lawyer, report it to the Law Society.
0

#9 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 23 April 2015 - 08:25 PM

And make sure a cc goes to Sir Geoffrey Palmer...
0

#10 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7725
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 24 April 2015 - 10:41 AM

 not their victim, on 23 April 2015 - 08:25 PM, said:

And make sure a cc goes to Sir Geoffrey Palmer...


Good idea NTV

I wondered if DRSL was a tribunal as well. If so, there may be more information as to how it was handled back then.

I think FairWays is a Ltd Company isn't it. If so maybe the Companies office can give you rules as to what is required of it, as such.

You are making good progress, Aurora, so don't give up. It is important that we all understand how FairWays tribunal is to work as new law written is always written to hide surprises for the likes of us, and for the good of the govt dept.

Mini
0

#11 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 24 April 2015 - 10:53 AM

Drsl was a subsidiary of acc.
In the interest of justice check all your documents, as it is missing specialist reports that determine the "loaded" outcome..
0

#12 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 24 April 2015 - 10:59 AM

Check the companies register..
This will show who has a vested financial interest in how fairways is managed

Pays to do some research before any tribunal hearing as certain "reviewers reputations" preclude the hearing..

Oh and please check the "referral to tribunal" documents as well
Check that the reference number pertains your claim number...VERY IMPORTANT!!!
0

#13 User is offline   malhar 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 26-July 09

Posted 24 April 2015 - 11:51 AM

 not their victim, on 24 April 2015 - 10:59 AM, said:

Check the companies register..
This will show who has a vested financial interest in how fairways is managed

Pays to do some research before any tribunal hearing as certain "reviewers reputations" preclude the hearing..

Oh and please check the "referral to tribunal" documents as well
Check that the reference number pertains your claim number...VERY IMPORTANT!!!



Company registrar.
Allocation 1:1 shares (50.00%)

Minister Of FINANCE C/- Parliament Buildings, Molesworth St, Wellington, 6160 , New Zealand Allocation 2:1 shares (50.00%) Minister For ACC C/- Parliament Buildings, Molesworth St, Wellington, 6160 , New Zealand

2

#14 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7725
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 24 April 2015 - 12:20 PM

 malhar, on 24 April 2015 - 11:51 AM, said:

Company registrar.
Allocation 1:1 shares (50.00%)

Minister Of FINANCE C/- Parliament Buildings, Molesworth St, Wellington, 6160 , New Zealand Allocation 2:1 shares (50.00%) Minister For ACC C/- Parliament Buildings, Molesworth St, Wellington, 6160 , New Zealand


yes Malhar, and being own 50%/50% makes the Ltd equally responsible, which should ensure we get Justice.

It is either a Ltd company in the real sence which will make both shareholder be equally responsible or there has to be some SPECIAL rules allotted to a Ltd Company that is fully owned by the Crown, BUT called Disbute by Tribunal, giving it special status and rules when it comes to law.

I have written about this before, and I gather the Tribunal Key wants to but ACC into will be of significant benefit to the govt, in the case of a fully owned entity of any sort.

We would need all the public documentation as to how it is set up from go to woo, before we could answer this correctly.

This would mean library or OIA to study what is expected of these Tribunals and then will have the answer.

Find an entity that using tribunal for dispute. One I could think of would be the small claims courts, is a tribunal. The community law office or citizens advice should be able help with this.

Even the crown law office us.

mini
0

#15 User is offline   Aurora 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 12-December 13
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 24 April 2015 - 08:06 PM

 MINI, on 24 April 2015 - 12:20 PM, said:

yes Malhar, and being own 50%/50% makes the Ltd equally responsible, which should ensure we get Justice.

It is either a Ltd company in the real sence which will make both shareholder be equally responsible or there has to be some SPECIAL rules allotted to a Ltd Company that is fully owned by the Crown, BUT called Disbute by Tribunal, giving it special status and rules when it comes to law.

I have written about this before, and I gather the Tribunal Key wants to but ACC into will be of significant benefit to the govt, in the case of a fully owned entity of any sort.

We would need all the public documentation as to how it is set up from go to woo, before we could answer this correctly.

This would mean library or OIA to study what is expected of these Tribunals and then will have the answer.

Find an entity that using tribunal for dispute. One I could think of would be the small claims courts, is a tribunal. The community law office or citizens advice should be able help with this.

Even the crown law office us.

mini


Thanks for your support! I have today sent the original privacy breach back to the Privacy Commission regarding FAIRWAY with the news that they are registered on the company shareholder list and perhaps they do not have tribunal status!?!?! lol

FAIRWAY instructed me to go to court to get a wrong review decision overturned - which I did. The Judge overturned the review decision and gave her opinion regarding the reviewer failings - so I expected them to honour that they would investigate.

But no. They advised me that they would ensure the reviewer read the Judgment and they would have some internal discussions. WHAT??? I went through the court system for FAIRWAY to ignore the findings that the reviewer was incompetent and I am still waiting for the crap he failed to sort with acc in Jan 2013 to now be sorted?! I am waiting for 22 questions to be answered in a File Review including the question "Did acc wrongly interfere with cover?
You got it the Reviewer was supposed to have run a cover review ...... and now 2 years plus later another reviewer is sorting out the acc crap that he failed to in 2013. And FAIRWAY refusing to take any responsibility for their unprofessional reviewer - he will read the court disposal.

He is not a lawyer sadly. However the reviewer now sorting out the acc bulls up is a barrister so I am finally hopeful justice will be served! Then I get to make a few decisions regarding remedy and FAIRWAY is part of it for providing such a poor reviewer in the first place 2 years ago .....resulting in a court decision to prove the reviewer was incompetent and they have chosen to take 'no action'. I want to know why he did what he did, when he knew it was wrong, acc advised him! - along with a certain scu TCM implicated - who has finally been shafted from scu!

The reviewer now doing the File Review is fine - I would not be in this position 2 years after the event if reviewer 1 had done his job properly! FAIRWAY hold a contract with the Minister of ACC and Minister of Finance so I guess if any naming is done it is to their shareholders?
3

#16 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7725
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 25 April 2015 - 09:20 AM

 Aurora, on 24 April 2015 - 08:06 PM, said:

Thanks for your support! I have today sent the original privacy breach back to the Privacy Commission regarding FAIRWAY with the news that they are registered on the company shareholder list and perhaps they do not have tribunal status!?!?! lol

FAIRWAY instructed me to go to court to get a wrong review decision overturned - which I did. The Judge overturned the review decision and gave her opinion regarding the reviewer failings - so I expected them to honour that they would investigate.

But no. They advised me that they would ensure the reviewer read the Judgment and they would have some internal discussions. WHAT??? I went through the court system for FAIRWAY to ignore the findings that the reviewer was incompetent and I am still waiting for the crap he failed to sort with acc in Jan 2013 to now be sorted?! I am waiting for 22 questions to be answered in a File Review including the question "Did acc wrongly interfere with cover?
You got it the Reviewer was supposed to have run a cover review ...... and now 2 years plus later another reviewer is sorting out the acc crap that he failed to in 2013. And FAIRWAY refusing to take any responsibility for their unprofessional reviewer - he will read the court disposal.

He is not a lawyer sadly. However the reviewer now sorting out the acc bulls up is a barrister so I am finally hopeful justice will be served! Then I get to make a few decisions regarding remedy and FAIRWAY is part of it for providing such a poor reviewer in the first place 2 years ago .....resulting in a court decision to prove the reviewer was incompetent and they have chosen to take 'no action'. I want to know why he did what he did, when he knew it was wrong, acc advised him! - along with a certain scu TCM implicated - who has finally been shafted from scu!

The reviewer now doing the File Review is fine - I would not be in this position 2 years after the event if reviewer 1 had done his job properly! FAIRWAY hold a contract with the Minister of ACC and Minister of Finance so I guess if any naming is done it is to their shareholders?


I should image that the way it is set up, every letter you sent to ACC as 50% shareholder of Fairways, you could/should send to the Minister of both parties. This should get you some action from one Minister or the other. You have done well with a very important and extremely complicated set of issues.

It sounds as though you are going to get it sorted now. Keep us up to date. Your case will be good as case law. I would love a copy of the appeal. As old DRSL has some answering to do in my Breach of Claimants rights.

Cheers and Good Luck

Mini
0

#17 User is offline   Aurora 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 12-December 13
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 25 April 2015 - 04:16 PM

 MINI, on 25 April 2015 - 09:20 AM, said:

I should image that the way it is set up, every letter you sent to ACC as 50% shareholder of Fairways, you could/should send to the Minister of both parties. This should get you some action from one Minister or the other. You have done well with a very important and extremely complicated set of issues.

It sounds as though you are going to get it sorted now. Keep us up to date. Your case will be good as case law. I would love a copy of the appeal. As old DRSL has some answering to do in my Breach of Claimants rights.

Cheers and Good Luck

Mini


Hi Mini, I sent a copy of my protest to Fairway - regarding their decision to get the reviewer to read the appeal - and to the courts. Last time I did this it sparked an appeal - well out of time - now heard against acc and the Judge was not impressed with acc and what they have done in my claim. I fall into the pitfalls of one TCM in the scu unit and Trapski rightly states "the public of New Zealand are entitled to overt protection from administrative deficiencies in return for the statutory removal of something as serious as their common law right to sue in the ordinary courts of the land."

I am looking for a way to appeal against them and all they seem to understand is money so it has to be civil ..... but not using my own claim .....legals have a few ways I can pursue them - still waiting for another Reviewer to sort out the Jan 2013 reviewer who failed to carry out a COVER review. Honestly one would expect this to be a simple straight forward reading of clinical material on file and then making a decision. The reviewer could not manage this - he was too keen to support his TCM friend at scu - which will come out in the courts ...... that will make interesting reading .....
1

#18 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7725
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 25 April 2015 - 08:53 PM

 Aurora, on 25 April 2015 - 04:16 PM, said:

Hi Mini, I sent a copy of my protest to Fairway - regarding their decision to get the reviewer to read the appeal - and to the courts. Last time I did this it sparked an appeal - well out of time - now heard against acc and the Judge was not impressed with acc and what they have done in my claim. I fall into the pitfalls of one TCM in the scu unit and Trapski rightly states "the public of New Zealand are entitled to overt protection from administrative deficiencies in return for the statutory removal of something as serious as their common law right to sue in the ordinary courts of the land."

I am looking for a way to appeal against them and all they seem to understand is money so it has to be civil ..... but not using my own claim .....legals have a few ways I can pursue them - still waiting for another Reviewer to sort out the Jan 2013 reviewer who failed to carry out a COVER review. Honestly one would expect this to be a simple straight forward reading of clinical material on file and then making a decision. The reviewer could not manage this - he was too keen to support his TCM friend at scu - which will come out in the courts ...... that will make interesting reading .....


The public way does cost a mint and they know that most of cant afford it. What about special appeal to h.c or Breach of claimants rights?

Good luck which ever way you go.

Mini
0

#19 User is offline   Aurora 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 562
  • Joined: 12-December 13
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:05 PM

 MINI, on 25 April 2015 - 08:53 PM, said:

The public way does cost a mint and they know that most of cant afford it. What about special appeal to h.c or Breach of claimants rights?

Good luck which ever way you go.

Mini


Special Appeal to the High Court has to be on a point of law - the Judge informed acc they were acting outside legislation when making claimants reach the DSM threshold before they provided cover ..... many agencies fought acc on this front for years so have welcomed the ruling!

Can I appeal that a Fairway Reviewer could not carry out a cover review perhaps?? The OCI are a waste of space!! I have had 9 senior acc staff answer the cover question and none of them measure up to what the Judge told me on the day and before Ms Becroft - who by the way could not answer for acc as to why the specific injuries were not recorded on my file.

How can a Branch Manager of a unit get it so badly wrong?? And her lead TCM?? And the TCM under her. 4 OCI reviewers refused to consider the clinical records already on file. The question being answered is "Did the OCI Officer approach the decision on the complaint under the Code of ACC Claimant Rights, with a proper understanding of the law as it relates to providing and amending cover?"

The Judge said I had cover - acc clearly failed to record the injuries - and in 4 years scu have been unable to provide any s(54) 'reasonable' explanation as to why they failed to record specific injuries when they held them on the claimant file - the OCI rehash all the scu excuses ..... without any consideration for the law or a proper understanding!! Won't attempt the OCI as they have no idea what a breach is. Customer Services by comparison are far more reasonable and like the Judge found acc processes wanting!

Want to set a precedent Mini so that claimants have some way of fighting these perverse and adversarial staff. I am with Trapski - it could have been written about scu today and is over 16 years ago!! Talk about wheels of change being slow - they are non existent in my book!
0

#20 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7725
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 26 April 2015 - 09:36 AM

 Aurora, on 25 April 2015 - 10:05 PM, said:

Special Appeal to the High Court has to be on a point of law - the Judge informed acc they were acting outside legislation when making claimants reach the DSM threshold before they provided cover ..... many agencies fought acc on this front for years so have welcomed the ruling!

Can I appeal that a Fairway Reviewer could not carry out a cover review perhaps?? The OCI are a waste of space!! I have had 9 senior acc staff answer the cover question and none of them measure up to what the Judge told me on the day and before Ms Becroft - who by the way could not answer for acc as to why the specific injuries were not recorded on my file.

How can a Branch Manager of a unit get it so badly wrong?? And her lead TCM?? And the TCM under her. 4 OCI reviewers refused to consider the clinical records already on file. The question being answered is "Did the OCI Officer approach the decision on the complaint under the Code of ACC Claimant Rights, with a proper understanding of the law as it relates to providing and amending cover?"

The Judge said I had cover - acc clearly failed to record the injuries - and in 4 years scu have been unable to provide any s(54) 'reasonable' explanation as to why they failed to record specific injuries when they held them on the claimant file - the OCI rehash all the scu excuses ..... without any consideration for the law or a proper understanding!! Won't attempt the OCI as they have no idea what a breach is. Customer Services by comparison are far more reasonable and like the Judge found acc processes wanting!

Want to set a precedent Mini so that claimants have some way of fighting these perverse and adversarial staff. I am with Trapski - it could have been written about scu today and is over 16 years ago!! Talk about wheels of change being slow - they are non existent in my book!


You ask some very important questions for SCU claimants. I am not one. So I really do not have much idea how their administration works.

I think if I were you I would go to Judicial review on a point of law, but that costs over $1000 just for the court fees in the High Court.

The point of law would be something like: Has Fairview done what the Appeal court expected them too regarding your cover? And as a tribunal are they legally responsible for doing so?

I would expect the H/c Judge to tell them to pull there finger out as a court higher than review has already said you have cover. So get it sorted.

BUT I still think that learning what Fairview is allowed to do maybe helpful as caselaw for others coming behind you or longaside you. BUT in all decisions take care of your own needs first. If it helps others it all and good. If it doesn't, well I can only say, from what I have seen you get bugger all thanks at the end of the day, so worry about yourself first.

As with Kearney who got us changes for Interest on w/c and Buis who proved that interest was untaxable by IRD, these people individually paid lawyers massive amounts to make caselaw that saved claimant literally millions and millions of dollars. But I cant see anyone putting their hand in their pockets to help them pay the lawyers bills. But then I could be wrong.

You are Number one and it is your issue that you are fighting, for you. If it helps others so be it. Every case is unique its it own way, and no doubt others will be slightly different than yours, so different thinking and law may apply to others.

You can help others by steering them in the direction on your case, even though you have anonymity. It is up to you if you want to remain that way. you can even give your troublesome Review to people if you want too, that is your right, however I have had it said to me by a Reviewer that another review cannot be used as caselaw and they have taken it out. I have yet to have appeal so don't know the outcome to that issue yet.

Must go plenty to do. Sorry I cant be of more help.

Mini
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 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