ACCforum: Review hearing - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Review hearing a Joke

#1 User is offline   Dastadly 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 16-January 16

Posted 09 March 2017 - 08:39 PM

I put in for a review hearing 12 months ago now .It has been part heard 3 times now. Then adjured again as reviewer was not up to it .It was adjured the 3 times reviewer did not have all paper work then ACC lawyer had to go back to acc about things. The review is a phone hearing a joke it self .Now Fairways have a pointed a new reviewer for a total re start . I can see that being a part hearing all so as the acc lawyer have to go back to ask ACC things again as she not know things. So this review will sit etc 6 times. I love to know how the old reviewer got her job to start with ?? she is Gail Todd
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 March 2017 - 01:30 AM

A "total re start" is a fail to set a date within 3 months.
the ACC are required to set a review hearing date with in three months of your application. As they have only just set a review hearing date for four which is going to be a review hearing date only after that three month period the decision is automated in your favour.

What you need to do now is right to the ACC asking them to confirm that the review hearing decision is in your favour. Write down for them what that decision shall be!


S 146
Deemed review decisions
(1)The reviewer is deemed to have made a decision on the review in favour of the applicant if—


(a) the date for the hearing has not been set within 3 months after the review application is received by the Corporation; and

(B) the applicant did not cause, or contribute to, the delay.
(2) The date of the deemed decision is 3 months after the review application is received.


0

#3 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 10 March 2017 - 08:33 AM

THOMAS...

BREACH OF COURT ORDERS

CONTEMPT OF COURT..
0

#4 User is offline   Dastadly 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 16-January 16

Posted 10 March 2017 - 05:12 PM

The first date was set with in the 3 months
0

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 March 2017 - 06:39 PM

View PostDastadly, on 10 March 2017 - 05:12 PM, said:

The first date was set with in the 3 months


llegislation requires that the ACC set the date. The setting of the date must not occur any later than three months from the date of application. When ACC set a date that has no possibility of being heard they have not set a date. Otherwise the ACC would just immediately set a provisional date and every single case if that were to be lawful. This section of the legislation was introduced for no other reason that the ACC was playing silly buggers with the setting of review hearing dates. The legislators saw fit to discipline the ACC with an ultimatum to set dates and have hearings in a timely fashion with the penalty being decisions occurring in an automatic fashion as of the reviewer has made the decision in the claimant's favour. The ACC do not have a legal basis of argument against this legislation.

Follow my suggestion by asking the ACC to confirm that the decision has now occurred in your favour because they failed to set an actual review hearing date whereby the hearing could have taken place. if the ACC claim in their response that the setting of a provisional date or a West for date satisfies the legislation then you would have something of substance to take to the district Court for an enforcement order of the automated legislative process. pandering to the ACC's wishes and behaviour in this matter harms the whole process for everybody whereby the ACC will simply repeat what they have done to you and I ever increasing numbers of people.
0

#6 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 10 March 2017 - 07:28 PM

ALAN THOMAS IS BANNED BY THE COURT FROM GIVING THE ALAN THOMAS METHOD OF DEALING WITH ACC "ADVICE" TO ANY CLAIMANT
0

#7 User is offline   Dastadly 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 16-January 16

Posted 10 March 2017 - 08:16 PM

The was set and a part hearing was done then adjournment .But that happen 3 time .Then 24 hours before next was to be sat adjournment again . Then a new re start with new reviewer . that how it is
0

#8 User is offline   Dastadly 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 16-January 16

Posted 10 March 2017 - 08:19 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 10 March 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

ALAN THOMAS IS BANNED BY THE COURT FROM GIVING THE ALAN THOMAS METHOD OF DEALING WITH ACC "ADVICE" TO ANY CLAIMANT

This forum was great one time now a but shit like this and that is all it is
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 March 2017 - 08:42 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 10 March 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

ALAN THOMAS IS BANNED BY THE COURT FROM GIVING THE ALAN THOMAS METHOD OF DEALING WITH ACC "ADVICE" TO ANY CLAIMANT


What makes you imagine that?
0

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 March 2017 - 08:46 PM

View PostDastadly, on 10 March 2017 - 08:16 PM, said:

The was set and a part hearing was done then adjournment .But that happen 3 time .Then 24 hours before next was to be sat adjournment again . Then a new re start with new reviewer . that how it is


A part hearing does not reach the criteria of a full hearing and as such the ACC had not set a date for a full hearing.
You must remember it is up to the ACC to make the arrangements for the hearing and nobody else. The ACC cannot contract out of its liability.

The only circumstantial with the ACC canEscape liability is when you caused the delay. So long as you have not caused the delay you have already won your appeal that was to be heard as if the reviewer had actually made the decision.

The outcome is you have won.
As the processes are divided up into various divisions by the ACC it is possible that they are not aware that you have won. You are going to need to ask the ACC to confirm in writing that due to an act of Parliament the decision has been defaulted in your favour as result of the ACC's failure to arrange for a review hearing that was actually carried out in accordance with the date they have set.
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 March 2017 - 08:47 PM

View PostDastadly, on 10 March 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

This forum was great one time now a but shit like this and that is all it is


Please try to set aside the efforts of those who seek to destroy the site and focus your attention on those of us who seek to be helpful.
0

#12 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 11 March 2017 - 09:02 AM

You are NOT helpful Alan Thomas

You have been instructed by a judge to stop waisting claimants entitlements by false representation

Contempt of court...
0

#13 User is offline   Dastadly 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 16-January 16

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:53 AM

My review was only part heard first time as I never got ACC lawyer submissions [they had wrong email address ] next time reviewer did not have her copy of file .and then Acc lawyer had to go back to ACC to ask about things. Then adjurned as reviewer was not up to doing the review ,in she was totally lost.
Now
Fairways has get new reviewer and a new re start . But the new reviewer gets the old reviewers notes and directions witch is wrong .Should be all new submissions put in .

How bad the old reviewer was hearing was adjurned as part heard ,the reviewer sent out directions 4 days later for acc to give in put .Then 2 months after that more direction that were not even talk or agreed on ,That I ask for new med report to be done.
But still in that time no new date had been set to finish the hearing . So now 4 months later re start with new reviewer.
So how did the reviewer get a job as a reviewer???
0

#14 User is offline   Dastadly 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 16-January 16

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:56 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 10 March 2017 - 08:47 PM, said:

Please try to set aside the efforts of those who seek to destroy the site and focus your attention on those of us who seek to be helpful.

I did read things in this a lot one time ,but some people have stuffed . and it lost what it is ready about
0

#15 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:04 AM

If you follow the Alan Thomas method of communication with ACC then you are stuffed already...

This site was damaged a long time ago...by the very people who wanted it to work...

Either find what info you can...that hasnt already been destroyed by the forum admin, go to another acc claimant related site or get an advocate....
0

#16 User is offline   Dastadly 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 16-January 16

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:08 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 11 March 2017 - 11:04 AM, said:

If you follow the Alan Thomas method of communication with ACC then you are stuffed already...

This site was damaged a long time ago...by the very people who wanted it to work...

Either find what info you can...that hasnt already been destroyed by the forum admin, go to another acc claimant related site or get an advocate....

He dose point some things out about the Act and that helps .
Best not to just run others down all the time .sounds like you part of ACC yourself ???
0

#17 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:11 AM

Hahahaha....

Nope........

See the worm turns very quickly....!

Actually I won my case and now that acc have realised that mistaken identity was their issue not mine...

Acc are doing their job properly to the letter of the law....
0

#18 User is offline   Dastadly 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 16-January 16

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:20 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 11 March 2017 - 11:11 AM, said:

Hahahaha....

Nope........

See the worm turns very quickly....!

Actually I won my case and now that acc have realised that mistaken identity was their issue not mine...

Acc are doing their job properly to the letter of the law....

Well my big one I had win in high court in big way . Then out of 5 reviews I won 3 . But bull S thing is ACC still not done as per the out come or review decisions .
0

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 March 2017 - 02:02 PM

View PostDastadly, on 11 March 2017 - 10:53 AM, said:

My review was only part heard first time as I never got ACC lawyer submissions [they had wrong email address ] next time reviewer did not have her copy of file .and then Acc lawyer had to go back to ACC to ask about things. Then adjurned as reviewer was not up to doing the review ,in she was totally lost.
Now
Fairways has get new reviewer and a new re start . But the new reviewer gets the old reviewers notes and directions witch is wrong .Should be all new submissions put in .

How bad the old reviewer was hearing was adjurned as part heard ,the reviewer sent out directions 4 days later for acc to give in put .Then 2 months after that more direction that were not even talk or agreed on ,That I ask for new med report to be done.
But still in that time no new date had been set to finish the hearing . So now 4 months later re start with new reviewer.
So how did the reviewer get a job as a reviewer???


One reviewer cannot take have another reviewer rely upon the previous reviewers impressions about what the case is all about. In your case it is obviously a hodgepodge and of course You have a legitimate expectation in accordance with law to have a review hearing in accordance with a predetermined standard.

However you speak of your request for a new mid-report to be done. If you have caused the delay by your request or they can blame the problems on your request you may have a different problem. To obtain any kind of opinion from the site it would be helpful if you could clarify the circumstances surrounding that situation.

Legislation requires the ACC themselves to organise reviewers however it seems that they have contract of this legislated duty out to Fairway.. What they will now do is blame each other. In the event that they review hearings has not received an actual review hearing date within three months Fairway is subject to a fine by way of the contract. This way ACC benefits twice with the only downside being that money circulates back and forth between ACC and Fairway is ACC pay all the costs including the fine.

Never mind about all the nonsense and argy-bargy, focus your mind of the legislation as nothing Else matters
0

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 March 2017 - 02:03 PM

View PostDastadly, on 11 March 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

I did read things in this a lot one time ,but some people have stuffed . and it lost what it is ready about


You have sort the wheat from the charf
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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