ACCforum: ... - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

...

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 25 August 2015 - 12:46 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 25 August 2015 - 12:56 PM

winz were fed misinformation by acc, in my particualr instance

the same misinformation that denied my legal entitlement via acc resulted in some winz workers acting illegally....

most unusual for a claimant to win...but if for health reasons, then good on her....

IMHO of course
0

#3 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 23 August 2016 - 03:30 PM

Appeal against payments for beneficiary's $3000 exercise machine upheld

JOHN WEEKES

Last updated 17:26, June 17 2016


http://www.stuff.co....-machine-upheld

http://www.stuff.co....66141728030.jpg

The latest episode in a see-sawing battle over a beneficiary's $3000 exercise machine has ended in a win for the Government.

The Ministry of Social Development took its appeal about paying for Debbie Port's Treadclimber machine to the High Court in Wellington.

Beneficiary Debbie Port wanted taxpayers to pay around $3000 for a Treadclimber device similar to this one.
MARCO VERCH / WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

Beneficiary Debbie Port wanted taxpayers to pay around $3000 for a Treadclimber device similar to this one.

Port arranged to pay for the Treadclimber in 72 instalments and asked for this expense to be included in her disability allowance.

The Social Security Appeal Authority agreed with Port last year, but the ministry refused to pay.

READ MORE:
* Welfare debt tackled more than tax fraud
* 98 MSD staff face the axe - union
* Auditor-General to investigate MSD's handling of social services

The ministry's appeal was heard before Justice Simon France last week. He has now released his decision.

Discussing some of the case's technical aspects in court, Justice France said there seemed to be "arbitrary" and "artificial" distinctions about what goods the ministry felt it should pay for, and what goods it should not.

Port's lawyer Seth Fraser said his client was "absolutely gutted" after hearing about the latest decision.

Fraser and Port would wait to see what steps the ministry took to recover the debt before deciding on a possible appeal.


"As the judge said, at the end of the day it's arbitrary whether something's an ongoing cost or not."

Port still had the Treadclimber, Fraser said, "because it suits her so well."

He said a few other people approached him with similar issues since he took on Port's case and he was prepared to stand up for vulnerable people.

He told the court last week that "beneficiary-bashers" could take an unhealthy interest in Port's case.

Ministry lawyer Isabella Clarke
said in court that the appeal raised an issue of public interest around what taxpayers should pay for when people bought goods to cope with disabilities.

She said the ministry did not bring the appeal "to malign" Port.

Port had anxiety, irritable bowel syndrome and Raynaud's disease, which affected blood circulation and resulted in symptoms such as extremely cold feet and toes.

Clarke said there was a dispute over whether the Treadclimber payments could be considered an ongoing expense.

Justice France said the disability allowance could cover goods, but these goods had to meet a recurring need the beneficiary had.

Gym membership was an ongoing or recurring event, but buying a "significant piece of gym equipment for home use" was a one-off, he said.

"The appeal must be allowed as the expense is not one that comes within the disability allowance. It is not of an ongoing kind."

- Stuff
0

#4 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 23 August 2016 - 03:38 PM

Wouldn't it be cost efficient to negotiate the purchase of a piece of gym equipment to use at home rather than to pay for ongoing Gym Membership, bearing in mind this woman's ongoing conditions?

We state this because going to a gym whilst it may be social interaction, it may cost more money in transport costs to get to and from a Gym type of facility, it may not be possible when a person has ongoing injuries for a person to leave there home and some Gym's are a massive Rip Off as we have seen many a time in the mainstream media.

Just saying to view every situation with an open mind.

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