ACCforum: Security Guards at Review Hearings - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Security Guards at Review Hearings

#1 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1232
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 06 July 2015 - 09:15 AM

In another tread http://accforum.org/...n-limited/(well worth reading) a link is posted to the confidentiality agreements Security Guards at Review Hearings must sign.

Sadly (angrily?)I can advise it is not worth the paper it is written on.

At a Review hearing I was a party to the Guards were objected to on the grounds that they were known to the person but the Reviewer dismissed the objection relying upon the confidentially agreement.

Subsequently one of the Guards took it upon himself to reveal information that was both significant and possibly dangerous to the person to have known in the community. As he had dome this via electronic communication as well as verbally both the electronic record and the witness statements were provided to Fairway.

It turns out Fairway, while admitting to being 'very embarrassed' then either could not or would not do anything about it.

That is, there are no sanctions to the Guards and the agreement is worthless.

The matter was also taken to the Privacy Commissioner who did look into it but concluded as the Guards were no longer in the employ of the Security Firm the matter was closed.

So no one - not Fairway nor the Guards nor the Security firm - wore any punishment and there was no recompense to the person.

All up Guards are a loose cannon of a security risk and Fairway's response to any breach is a joke.
0

#2 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1212
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 06 July 2015 - 09:32 AM

If its going to be like that cant we draw up our own agreement, or have a template agreement a claimant can bring in that only needs the name of the security guard written into it to ensure some protection ???? and then have the security guard sign that ?????
0

#3 User is offline   kittyhawk 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 298
  • Joined: 27-July 10

Posted 07 July 2015 - 12:50 PM

View PostHuggy, on 06 July 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

If its going to be like that cant we draw up our own agreement, or have a template agreement a claimant can bring in that only needs the name of the security guard written into it to ensure some protection ???? and then have the security guard sign that ?????


Huggy, while a reasonable suggestion, it would be doubtful a security guard would sign an agreement. Isn't the issue also about the privacy commission begin the gate keeper to justice!
0

#4 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1232
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 07 July 2015 - 01:23 PM

What is even more aggravating in the case I refer to is that the person simply is not a security risk in any manner that any ‘ordinary person’ might think.

It is true that he/she has made the occasional ‘interesting’ (even unusual) response to things ACC have done to him/her but to maintain that anyone was in any way at ‘risk’ is simply silly – in my view he/she is more at risk from ACC.

Taking on board that the Guards are simply not required a request has been made to set up a mediation conference to try to resolve the differences. That is, it might be thought that the parties could discuss the relationship and look to repair it and (hopefully) Guards might not be sought in the future.

I am not hopeful of either such a discussion taking place or ACC changing its mind however. ACC can be downright bloody minded once they decide to pick on someone I am afraid.

Sadly Fairway – which always pretends to be independent of ACC – have advised me (in several cases now) that they consider themselves obliged to accept ACC defined the security status of any person and REFUSE to negotiate or require ACC to show due cause or question any such due cause.

In my view - and long-time readers of accforum will know that I am pretty well disposed to Fairway Resolution and its predecessor DRSL – this establishes WITHOUT DOUBT that Fairway is not independent of ACC and that Reviewers do not ‘control’ Review Hearings – they are instead first subservient to ACC.
0

#5 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1593
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 08 July 2015 - 08:30 AM

I have to disagree that Fairway is not independent of ACC and the Reviewer does not control Review hearings.

What we have here is the Corporation using and misusing the Health and Safety laws that Fairway has to have in place to ensure the reasonable protection of their staff. Fairways obligations have to be considered in the context of what happened in the Ashburton shooting. The Ministry of Social Development is being prosecuted under Health and Safety. This is what would happen to Fairway if a Reviewer was injured or killed by a claimant. Fairway have stringent legal requirements that they must follow and the Corporation has the opportunity to manipulate that process which is standard Corporation behavior. That does not mean that Fairway is not independent it means the Corporation is up to its usual tricks. Fairway cannot simply override a care indicator and avoid legal liability if they guess incorrectly.

There is a solution that is not perfect but will prevent privacy issues and the general atmosphere of having a guard at the hearing. As an advocate I would instruct my client to attend by phone. Additionally Fairway are looking at hooking up video conference equipment which will be very helpful. Diverting people from the real issue which is the Corporation and focusing on Fairway is very helpful to the Corporation. The problem exists but the focus must remain on the cause which is and always will be the Corporation.

I can say with hand on heart that I have found Fairway to be very helpful and constructive and very willing to address clearly identified problems that are presented to Fairway management in a constructive and professional manner. Recently Fairway have started implementing processes that I believe will hugely assist Sensitive Claimants. I have total confidence in Fairway and its management and any Sensitive Claimant should now feel confident that they will go through a fair and reasonable process. The key to success is quality representation and evidence.

I also acknowledge that there is a small percentage of Reviewers who are questionable. I also have strong confidence that Fairway will deal with that issue appropriately as time and circumstance allows.

It is concerning that there is a lot of misinformation about Fairway being published on this site that will cause claimants to either avoid the appeal process or go into the appeal process with an attitude that will be detrimental to their success. For example the constant attacks on Reviewer Woodhouse's integrity and commitment to fair process have the potential to deprive claimants of an excellent Reviewer. I have worked with Mr Woodhouse extensively over the last few weeks and I know for a fact that he is a quality Reviewer who I would be more than happy to have Review my claim or any of my clients.

Advocates are the key. We need to work with Fairway and clients to make sure that processes are as fair as they can be. Only advocates who deal with a large number of Reviewers are in a position to know who is what in the scheme of things. The best thing an advocate can do is keep their client focused on the evidence and to provide the means for claimants to assert their legal rights. I say once again that I have full confidence in Fairway as a whole and those who know me know that I am a very suspicious person who would not make that statement lightly. I do recognize that some claimants have been burnt by one of the less shall we say capable Reviewers and I have been burnt myself. What I do know is that Fairway is committed to fair and reasonable process and that if claimants are demoralized to the point they avoid the appeal process the Corporation wins.

Problems with Fairway should be discussed between advocates in private to determine what needs to be taken to Fairway to discuss potential resolution to those problems. Frightening claimants (and Sensitive Claimants get frightened easily sometimes) only helps the Corporation and we need to be smarter than that..
0

#6 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 08 July 2015 - 11:07 AM

I have 2 cases, of BLATANT FRAUD....

done within the Review Arena

there is no other way to call it than blatant fraud

party status means that acc legals had already litigated against me to find what they perceived to be loophole to keep me off claim

300 pages of a Brief of Evidence, mainly from acc own files showed quite clearly how many laws were broken, and who was involved in these deliberately fraudulent actions..

the Purpose of the Social Contract was to avoid litigation...

and many of us do our own court work...so who do we discuss blatant fraud with?
0

#7 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7803
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 08 July 2015 - 11:07 AM

As a fulltime worker in an area that used to dealer with all level of risk clients. I can tell you that it was downright bad manner to not tell a client if guards or tape recorders were to be at a meeting.

In fact tape recorders were not allowed to be in a court submissions if the client didn't know they were about to be used by the entity.

As far as extra people being included in the meeting, even if I took a lawyer from the firm with me the client would have to be informed before hand in writing.

This especially happened if I wanted a paper signed as being correct, having been sent out to
the client previously.

ACC sent a cover paper with all Review hearings with details of where, when etc for the Review hearing to take place. They also send a cover paper with the bundle of documents that are going to be used so that we can add or have our say on the documents they use right?
So what is so wrong insisting on letting us know who is going to be there by name, including the guards by name and entity they belong too. When I questioned ACC's right to muck about with the steering in my car, by sending it to Auckland and the outcome being that no one had responsibility of the working being done to a required standard because they would not let me know who the people were that did it, the Judge ordered another car be bought to replace my older one, as I had a valid point. He said that he would be suspect as well, so I can see this point used for guards being having the same result at Appeal.

You simply need to take a case to appeal to get it resolved as it is a real issue it would seem, where privacy is likely to have a real chance of leaking. And can be shown as having done so, if what I read here is correct.

Mini
0

#8 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 08 July 2015 - 11:13 AM

some poor guy said to acc I will come down and show you (in reference to the right to taxi chits)

acc "heard it as: " i'm going to come down and shoot you!!!!

so a little trigger happy when it comes to pulling guards in unnecessarily!!!

I dont have guard ever....im NOT a threat!
0

#9 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 08 July 2015 - 11:16 AM

another chap got done, when acc deliberately withheld all of his legal medical reports which he had requested...on many occasions

unfortunately he made a flippant remark...."no wonder acc staff get threatened by bombs and the like..."


he ended up with a conviction...

and those who deliberately created the situation no longer work for acc, BUT THAT was never advertised!!!



the above 2 examples are from taking words out of context, and creating situations that mark the claimant for life...
0

#10 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7803
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 08 July 2015 - 11:51 AM

That is exactly why one should use decent language to ACC staff all the time.

Get off the phone and punch a hole in a pillow, but don't give them an excuse to accuse you of doing anything harmful to them.

Mini
0

#11 User is offline   BLURB 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 08 July 2015 - 12:03 PM

I vaguely remember Warren Forster and others discussing security guards at DRSL as it was called then. I'll try and find the links and post them here.
3

#12 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 08 July 2015 - 01:30 PM

View PostMINI, on 08 July 2015 - 11:51 AM, said:

That is exactly why one should use decent language to ACC staff all the time.

Get off the phone and punch a hole in a pillow, but don't give them an excuse to accuse you of doing anything harmful to them.

Mini



It all starts at the beginning with the ACC staff And assessors -Some of whom are assholes ,Acting with Proper conduct according to the rules of etiquette and not placing the clients in a position off being pissed off .

David
pp

Blurb
Old hat news re drsl >The Plot / Winz issues and others dummy's in here fixed that issue as to what it is now.
My opinion is either all or none No differentials then we all on the same playing field and can make a difference to what is allowed such as re the issue as like Keeno raised re the Guard being known by the claimant.
Last review i attended the Guard was asleep in the foyer when we got there and still slumped over in his chair reading a paper back novel ,when we left and most are not what one would expect of a security person re ability to defend anything anyways,so what ACC Fairways expect as a rebuttal of any shenanigans who would know.
0

#13 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1232
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 10 July 2015 - 09:53 PM

View PostLupine, on 08 July 2015 - 08:30 AM, said:

I have to disagree that Fairway is not independent of ACC and the Reviewer does not control Review hearings.

What we have here is the Corporation using and misusing the Health and Safety laws that Fairway has to have in place to ensure the reasonable protection of their staff. Fairways obligations have to be considered in the context of what happened in the Ashburton shooting. The Ministry of Social Development is being prosecuted under Health and Safety. This is what would happen to Fairway if a Reviewer was injured or killed by a claimant. Fairway have stringent legal requirements that they must follow and the Corporation has the opportunity to manipulate that process which is standard Corporation behavior. That does not mean that Fairway is not independent it means the Corporation is up to its usual tricks. Fairway cannot simply override a care indicator and avoid legal liability if they guess incorrectly.

There is a solution that is not perfect but will prevent privacy issues and the general atmosphere of having a guard at the hearing. As an advocate I would instruct my client to attend by phone. Additionally Fairway are looking at hooking up video conference equipment which will be very helpful. Diverting people from the real issue which is the Corporation and focusing on Fairway is very helpful to the Corporation. The problem exists but the focus must remain on the cause which is and always will be the Corporation.

I can say with hand on heart that I have found Fairway to be very helpful and constructive and very willing to address clearly identified problems that are presented to Fairway management in a constructive and professional manner. Recently Fairway have started implementing processes that I believe will hugely assist Sensitive Claimants. I have total confidence in Fairway and its management and any Sensitive Claimant should now feel confident that they will go through a fair and reasonable process. The key to success is quality representation and evidence.

I also acknowledge that there is a small percentage of Reviewers who are questionable. I also have strong confidence that Fairway will deal with that issue appropriately as time and circumstance allows.

It is concerning that there is a lot of misinformation about Fairway being published on this site that will cause claimants to either avoid the appeal process or go into the appeal process with an attitude that will be detrimental to their success. For example the constant attacks on Reviewer Woodhouse's integrity and commitment to fair process have the potential to deprive claimants of an excellent Reviewer. I have worked with Mr Woodhouse extensively over the last few weeks and I know for a fact that he is a quality Reviewer who I would be more than happy to have Review my claim or any of my clients.

Advocates are the key. We need to work with Fairway and clients to make sure that processes are as fair as they can be. Only advocates who deal with a large number of Reviewers are in a position to know who is what in the scheme of things. The best thing an advocate can do is keep their client focused on the evidence and to provide the means for claimants to assert their legal rights. I say once again that I have full confidence in Fairway as a whole and those who know me know that I am a very suspicious person who would not make that statement lightly. I do recognize that some claimants have been burnt by one of the less shall we say capable Reviewers and I have been burnt myself. What I do know is that Fairway is committed to fair and reasonable process and that if claimants are demoralized to the point they avoid the appeal process the Corporation wins.

Problems with Fairway should be discussed between advocates in private to determine what needs to be taken to Fairway to discuss potential resolution to those problems. Frightening claimants (and Sensitive Claimants get frightened easily sometimes) only helps the Corporation and we need to be smarter than that..



Lupine you will see, in my post above, that I wrote:

"In my view - and long-time readers of accforum will know that I am pretty well disposed to Fairway Resolution and its predecessor DRSL – this establishes WITHOUT DOUBT that Fairway is not independent of ACC and that Reviewers do not ‘control’ Review Hearings – they are instead first subservient to ACC."

That is, I would have previously, until this matter developed, largely agreed with your post.

Sadly though it is very clear that it is not Fairway or the Reviewer calling the shots here.

Indeed Fairway and individual Reviewers have made it clear and in so many words that they HAVE NO CHOICE AND MUST DO WHAT ACC ADVISES.

That is the point here.

If Fairway was independent or if Reviewers were in control then it would be up to Fairway or the Reviewer DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS OF THE MATTER.

I have certainly looked to raise this matter with each Reviewer and with Fairway management but am advised there is nothing any Reviewer or anyone at Fairway can do.

In my view it should be possible to have a pre-hearing at which ACC could show 'due cause' and the offended applicant could look to show otherwise.

I am advised that is 'not possible'.

In short the process is NOT independent of ACC and the Reviewer is not, ultimately, in control. It is, when push comes to shove, ACC at the top of the tree and Fairway and its Reviewers kowtowing to them.

Unless you can show how this is not the case here I am afraid your post as cited is simply wrong.

Worse, we have no way of knowing how far that lack of independence goes.

When it comes to 'independence' and 'control' exceptions and excuses do not really count - it is or is not the case.

Or can you show otherwise?
0

#14 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7803
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 11 July 2015 - 10:34 AM

View PostLupine, on 08 July 2015 - 08:30 AM, said:

I have to disagree that Fairway is not independent of ACC and the Reviewer does not control Review hearings.

What we have here is the Corporation using and misusing the Health and Safety laws that Fairway has to have in place to ensure the reasonable protection of their staff. Fairways obligations have to be considered in the context of what happened in the Ashburton shooting. The Ministry of Social Development is being prosecuted under Health and Safety. This is what would happen to Fairway if a Reviewer was injured or killed by a claimant. Fairway have stringent legal requirements that they must follow and the Corporation has the opportunity to manipulate that process which is standard Corporation behavior. That does not mean that Fairway is not independent it means the Corporation is up to its usual tricks. Fairway cannot simply override a care indicator and avoid legal liability if they guess incorrectly.

There is a solution that is not perfect but will prevent privacy issues and the general atmosphere of having a guard at the hearing. As an advocate I would instruct my client to attend by phone. Additionally Fairway are looking at hooking up video conference equipment which will be very helpful. Diverting people from the real issue which is the Corporation and focusing on Fairway is very helpful to the Corporation. The problem exists but the focus must remain on the cause which is and always will be the Corporation.

I can say with hand on heart that I have found Fairway to be very helpful and constructive and very willing to address clearly identified problems that are presented to Fairway management in a constructive and professional manner. Recently Fairway have started implementing processes that I believe will hugely assist Sensitive Claimants. I have total confidence in Fairway and its management and any Sensitive Claimant should now feel confident that they will go through a fair and reasonable process. The key to success is quality representation and evidence.

I also acknowledge that there is a small percentage of Reviewers who are questionable. I also have strong confidence that Fairway will deal with that issue appropriately as time and circumstance allows.

It is concerning that there is a lot of misinformation about Fairway being published on this site that will cause claimants to either avoid the appeal process or go into the appeal process with an attitude that will be detrimental to their success. For example the constant attacks on Reviewer Woodhouse's integrity and commitment to fair process have the potential to deprive claimants of an excellent Reviewer. I have worked with Mr Woodhouse extensively over the last few weeks and I know for a fact that he is a quality Reviewer who I would be more than happy to have Review my claim or any of my clients.

Advocates are the key. We need to work with Fairway and clients to make sure that processes are as fair as they can be. Only advocates who deal with a large number of Reviewers are in a position to know who is what in the scheme of things. The best thing an advocate can do is keep their client focused on the evidence and to provide the means for claimants to assert their legal rights. I say once again that I have full confidence in Fairway as a whole and those who know me know that I am a very suspicious person who would not make that statement lightly. I do recognize that some claimants have been burnt by one of the less shall we say capable Reviewers and I have been burnt myself. What I do know is that Fairway is committed to fair and reasonable process and that if claimants are demoralized to the point they avoid the appeal process the Corporation wins.

Problems with Fairway should be discussed between advocates in private to determine what needs to be taken to Fairway to discuss potential resolution to those problems. Frightening claimants (and Sensitive Claimants get frightened easily sometimes) only helps the Corporation and we need to be smarter than that..


Very well put.

We actually get back what we put into it eh??

Example just last week, hospital physio rang me to tell me that ACC had told them they were not paying for x amount of my appointments I had already had. Physio said something about wrong coding. Well really this is not my problem it is theirs and ACC's I know I have a letter for 12 more appointment from ACC and have only had three of them. So I tell physio leave it with me, got hold of my casemanager, who said she could see what the problem was get physio to ring her, so I passed on the message, and as far as I am concerned it is all sorted.

The problem was that there are just too many people involved in the system doing different jobs that are all linked to the one. And I have noticed a lot of trivial mistakes coming out of ACC lately. Being polite and to the point is essential. Hospital says they are going to hire me to sort there probs with ACC. Oh yeah, like at my age. With the amount of paperwork I have unfinished. They all do not appear to be very good at finding and fixing up their own problems.

It had me coded as going to a hand doctor when in fact I am under a ortho surgeon. So heres hoping I get the rest of my therapy sessions.

That took about 15 minutes to sort.

It is just a blow that all these 15 minutes for sorting ACC own mistakes add up into hours.

Glad you are making headway with Fairway and getting a more sensible approach for the sensitive claims. Well done.

Mini
0

#15 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7803
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 11 July 2015 - 10:49 AM

View Postkeentohelp, on 10 July 2015 - 09:53 PM, said:

Lupine you will see, in my post above, that I wrote:

"In my view - and long-time readers of accforum will know that I am pretty well disposed to Fairway Resolution and its predecessor DRSL – this establishes WITHOUT DOUBT that Fairway is not independent of ACC and that Reviewers do not ‘control’ Review Hearings – they are instead first subservient to ACC."

That is, I would have previously, until this matter developed, largely agreed with your post.

Sadly though it is very clear that it is not Fairway or the Reviewer calling the shots here.

Indeed Fairway and individual Reviewers have made it clear and in so many words that they HAVE NO CHOICE AND MUST DO WHAT ACC ADVISES.

That is the point here.

If Fairway was independent or if Reviewers were in control then it would be up to Fairway or the Reviewer DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS OF THE MATTER.

I have certainly looked to raise this matter with each Reviewer and with Fairway management but am advised there is nothing any Reviewer or anyone at Fairway can do.

In my view it should be possible to have a pre-hearing at which ACC could show 'due cause' and the offended applicant could look to show otherwise.

I am advised that is 'not possible'.

In short the process is NOT independent of ACC and the Reviewer is not, ultimately, in control. It is, when push comes to shove, ACC at the top of the tree and Fairway and its Reviewers kowtowing to them.

Unless you can show how this is not the case here I am afraid your post as cited is simply wrong.

Worse, we have no way of knowing how far that lack of independence goes.

When it comes to 'independence' and 'control' exceptions and excuses do not really count - it is or is not the case.

Or can you show otherwise?


KTH

I can vouch for Lupine in that the particular Reviewer he speaks of is seemingly a fair and very intellectually bright Reviewer. I would not be surprised if he had a degree, as he is articulate, straight to the point without being nasty, and basically pretty easy to get along with. I saw him give Judge Ongley a run for his money, at my loss. But he was fair and when the coin was flipped over he was probably right. It appeared it was more the writing of the law was not 'just', rather than he being wrong.

Well fact is we all win some and lose some, it is knowing where to go next that is the important point and doing it within the time limit allowed.

Mini
0

#16 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1593
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 11 July 2015 - 12:15 PM

View Postkeentohelp, on 10 July 2015 - 09:53 PM, said:

Lupine you will see, in my post above, that I wrote:

"In my view - and long-time readers of accforum will know that I am pretty well disposed to Fairway Resolution and its predecessor DRSL – this establishes WITHOUT DOUBT that Fairway is not independent of ACC and that Reviewers do not ‘control’ Review Hearings – they are instead first subservient to ACC."

That is, I would have previously, until this matter developed, largely agreed with your post.

Sadly though it is very clear that it is not Fairway or the Reviewer calling the shots here.

Indeed Fairway and individual Reviewers have made it clear and in so many words that they HAVE NO CHOICE AND MUST DO WHAT ACC ADVISES.

That is the point here.

If Fairway was independent or if Reviewers were in control then it would be up to Fairway or the Reviewer DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS OF THE MATTER.

I have certainly looked to raise this matter with each Reviewer and with Fairway management but am advised there is nothing any Reviewer or anyone at Fairway can do.

In my view it should be possible to have a pre-hearing at which ACC could show 'due cause' and the offended applicant could look to show otherwise.

I am advised that is 'not possible'.

In short the process is NOT independent of ACC and the Reviewer is not, ultimately, in control. It is, when push comes to shove, ACC at the top of the tree and Fairway and its Reviewers kowtowing to them.

Unless you can show how this is not the case here I am afraid your post as cited is simply wrong.

Worse, we have no way of knowing how far that lack of independence goes.

When it comes to 'independence' and 'control' exceptions and excuses do not really count - it is or is not the case.

Or can you show otherwise?


What I am trying to demonstrate here is an important distinction between the Corporation potentially misusing a health and safety component of the appeal process and ACC being in control of the "Review". Looking at it from the point of view of Fairway they are not in a position to second guess information (valid or otherwise) that has been provided to them by the Corporation. The only component the Corporation can "control" is whether security guards are present or not. Of course the use of guards is upsetting to the claimant and the Corporation knows this.

When I reviewed my own claim some years ago and represented myself I was surprised to see a guard at my Review. Now I know for a fact I had made no threats etc and I realized I had been set up. Yet if I had gotten upset then it would have looked the Corporation was right. I sat down and got on with it. By the end of the Review the guard was almost asleep and the Reviewer and I got on just fine. I have not had a guard since.

The idea of pre hearings is not going to wash as this would add time and money to the process and again Fairway cannot over rule a care indicator. You have to look at it from Fairways point of view. You pride yourself on being a fair and rational person KTH. Place yourself as the manager of Fairway. You have information from the Corporation listing the claimant as a risk. How do you determine otherwise? What test do you put in place to make the determination? What happens if you decide the guard is not required based on your own reasoning and the claimant assaults or kills the Reviewer? What happens to your company when it faces certain prosecution? Where does your duty lay? To the staff you are required to protect by law or to claimants who may or may not be an issue?

That is not to say that there is no issue. I am simply saying that the problem is the Corporation and on that basis it is the Corporation who must be targeted. One possible avenue is to raise a complaint with the OCI and demonstrate the lack of evidence that supports a care indicator. In the meantime I would keep my client clear of the Corporation and if necessary advise my client to attend by phone. As I advised before Fairway is looking at video conferencing which will make a lot of this matter moot anyway. In short the Review process as in appeal is independent but the health and safety component which is covered under different legislation is not.

I know for a fact that Fairway is independent and committed to fair process by the way Fairway has responded to issues I have raised. I am not saying that things will always be perfect and that things will never go wrong or that Reviewers wont make mistakes. But anyone who knows me at all would know that I would not be so emphatic unless I genuinely believed in what I am saying here. The issues you have raised are valid. What I am saying is that the target is the Corporation and that is where the battle should be focused.
0

#17 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

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

Posted 12 May 2017 - 08:25 AM

KEENTOHELP is perfectly correct.

The use of SECURITY GUARDS is merely an intimidation tactic that ACC or their dodgy accredited agents will use against those who stand up to their bullying tactics.
0

#18 User is offline   Battleaxe 

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

Posted 13 May 2017 - 01:14 PM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 12 May 2017 - 08:25 AM, said:

KEENTOHELP is perfectly correct.

The use of SECURITY GUARDS is merely an intimidation tactic that ACC or their dodgy accredited agents will use against those who stand up to their bullying tactics.







That is exactly what I understood He who Pays the Piper. In my case, their decision to have security present was a decision completely lacking in cause, reason and justification, and I repeatedly complained that this was nothing more than an intimidation and bullying tactic. ACC passed the ball to Fairway when in fact it is entirely ACC's decision - in terms of its policy and procedures manual - whether or not to have security present, and, Fairway has no legal authority to make any decision to have security present. Thus, Fairway Resolution Limited hides behind and relies on the Health and Safety At Work Act claiming they have a statutory duty to protect their reviewers, but, in my case there was NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE - which the ACC confirmed in writing - that I was, even potentially, a threat or danger to the health and/or safety of their reviewer. I had also attended a mediation and review previously, and I attended a mediation subsequently, that concluded without incident, but after changing their minds about wanting security present, they then changed their minds again (notably after my file was transferred to Wellington Central Unit), and suddenly wanted security present again; all decisions without notice to me even, much less any reason given for them. I have noticed that almost all claimants who stand up to the ACC, and all of those whose files are sent to Wellington Centre Unit and Remote Claims Unit, find themselves the target of this sort of abuse of power and authority. Of course Fairway Resolution, its reviewers, and the ACC are incapable of recognising that needing security present decisions that lack merit and substance is a breach of the Code of Claimants Rights - in particular the right to be treated with dignity and respect - and, that such glaringly obvious intimidatory and bullying tactics only serve to destroy the trust and confidence claimants need, and deserve, to have in the process, Fairway Resolution, its reviewers, and the ACC. Furthermore, it is incredible to me that neither Fairway Resolution nor the ACC can see how damaging such obvious 'game-playing' is to the hearts and minds of claimants who only want to be treated fairly and legally. If anything, deciding to have security present when there is no cause, reason or justification for this, and the claimant also knows that to the case, is irrefutably provocation.
0

#19 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

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

Posted 13 May 2017 - 01:24 PM

There is no doubt that ACC are acting unlawfully in a situation like this.

While some might consider them cowards for doing this, I guess that they have cheated that many people out of their fair entitlements over the years using this dodgy resolution service that the odd person has taken the law into their own hands after being driven to it.

Even the dodgy SERVICE AGREEMENT details an escape route for the dodgy representatives of ACC who will often tell lies until the cow comes home as they did in every hearing of mine.

In my case it was totally laughable.

I've got absolutely no history of violence, have never threatened anyone physically and here I arrived at one of these CLAYTONS meetings to find this security guard in the waiting room.

It's all about bullying & intimidation by ACC.

Trying to put the shits up you.

When I asked the REVIEWER what these clowns were up to [an ACC accredited agent] she explained that it was a request of the dodgy ACC agent, not them.

To be fair though, the chap representing the AEP accredited agency looked like he didn't have a spine. So much so that after I destroyed their grossly dishonest submission the little chap had nothing to say in response.

That's how pathetic they are.

They can't even stand behind their lies.
0

#20 User is offline   He who pays the piper 

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

Posted 13 May 2017 - 01:59 PM

View PostHe who pays the piper, on 13 May 2017 - 01:24 PM, said:

There is no doubt that ACC are acting unlawfully in a situation like this.

While some might consider them cowards for doing this, I guess that they have cheated that many people out of their fair entitlements over the years using this dodgy resolution service that the odd person has taken the law into their own hands after being driven to it.

Even the dodgy SERVICE AGREEMENT details an escape route for the dodgy representatives of ACC who will often tell lies until the cow comes home as they did in every hearing of mine.

In my case it was totally laughable.

I've got absolutely no history of violence, have never threatened anyone physically and here I arrived at one of these CLAYTONS meetings to find this security guard in the waiting room.

It's all about bullying & intimidation by ACC.

Trying to put the shits up you.

When I asked the REVIEWER what these clowns were up to [an ACC accredited agent] she explained that it was a request of the dodgy ACC agent, not them.

To be fair though, the chap representing the AEP accredited agency looked like he didn't have a spine. So much so that after I destroyed their grossly dishonest submission the little chap had nothing to say in response.

That's how pathetic they are.

They can't even stand behind their lies.


Even the REVIEWER knew what they were up to.

Just to show the SECURITY GUARD that I had no axe to grind with him [it wasn't his fault that he was involved in bullying tactics], after the "blood bath" [showing the ACC agents that they were cheating, lying monsters], I thanked the GUARD for his attendance.

Needless to say I won that case.

Without some dodgy ACC ADVOCATE.
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