ACCforum: Strategy and Tactics - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Strategy and Tactics Who has the skill to win?

#1 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1522
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 09 February 2018 - 02:39 PM

Greetings all,

This is in no way meant to be anything but constructive. There will be those who sufficient skill to win against the Corporation at a political and macro legal level and others will learn from it.

So what I propose is this. I will present my current situation and anyone who wishes to can tell me what steps I should take to bring the Corporation to account. If something is suggested that I have already done then I will post the result of that action being taken.

I have discovered that ACC has failed to implement the Section 221 and Schedule 4 levy process resulting in an error in ERC entitlements that will cost multi millions of dollars. This error is so severe it has remained uncorrected for twelve years.

Have regard for the push back I am getting and the fact the discovery was made weeks out from an election.

If it pleases anyone them please commence.
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:07 PM

Lupin you speak of those who have some kind of special powers of skill when dealing with the ACC utilising a political and big picture approach, even going so far as to say others will learn from such people. How is that possible when we have legislation that is a fixture in the same manner as an insurance policy contract is a fixture unable to change in any way or form except by new legislation which does not alter the existing ACC contracts under the preceding legislation? Surely the issue is one of compliance with legislation rather than hoping to engage in some form of manipulation. After all if you took a political approach by seeking some form of intervention by the member of Parliament carrying the ACC portfolio you could very well get fired such as already happened.

When reading the ACC legislation all by myself I find that part five of the act provides the means by which we may bring the Corporation to account. In other words we have a review hearing process followed by a process through various appellate courts and even the newly introduced code of complaint process which took the place of the ACC complaints department that had been acting unlawfully as if it was some kind of public relations office.

I have looked up section 221 in order to familiarise myself with what you might be perceiving as a bone of contention. Having said that you have not yet described the bone of contention.
0

#3 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1522
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 09 February 2018 - 07:56 PM

The bone of contention is not important.

The position is for the purposes of this exercise is that the Corporation has screwed up and badly. That is the premise. The reason why the Corporation screwed up is not relevant.

What I am asking is that having caught the Corporation out very badly what is the next step?
0

#4 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 10 February 2018 - 09:21 AM

Can you show that the persons are being dishonest. Deliberately not doing or correcting wrongs is being dishonest.

Use there policies against them. Something that Alan can not do.

ACC Policies on keeping staff safe and policies on unethical and serious wrong doing.
0

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 February 2018 - 09:53 AM

View PostLupine, on 09 February 2018 - 07:56 PM, said:

The bone of contention is not important.

The position is for the purposes of this exercise is that the Corporation has screwed up and badly. That is the premise. The reason why the Corporation screwed up is not relevant.

What I am asking is that having caught the Corporation out very badly what is the next step?


I'm not sure that you understand what judges have referred to when talking about a "bone of contention". In short the reference is in regards to the issue being brought before the court. Obviously if we are talking about strategy and tactics within the context of part five of the act we need to be talking about the bone of contention.

Not all issues being brought before the courts relate to circumstances whereby the ACC has simply stuffed up. In fact it seems that the majority of cases involve ACC making decisions outside of legislation notwithstanding that the ACC believe that they have made a decision that complies with the legislation. In other words the majority of applications of appeal that involve a point of law.

Now you seem to be concerned that the ACC is routinely making much the same decision on an ongoing basis and that they have not yet been brought to heel. In order for us to help you you need to describe tequilas of the problem as you perceive it, the bone of contention.
-1

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 February 2018 - 09:57 AM

View Postdoppelganger, on 10 February 2018 - 09:21 AM, said:

Can you show that the persons are being dishonest. Deliberately not doing or correcting wrongs is being dishonest.

Use there policies against them. Something that Alan can not do.

ACC Policies on keeping staff safe and policies on unethical and serious wrong doing.


With regards to dishonesty for the purposes of gaining a financial advantage in general we would be talking about ACC fraud perpetrated by the ACC in the context of this discussion.

Doppelgänger I think you are wrong in your fourth sentence. I am in fact the only individual that has initiated a private criminal prosecution against an agent of the ACC for producing false document for pecuniary advantage of which I had a successful outcome. I would appreciate that you do not make false reporting on this site about me as it does seem to influence my reputation in the minds eye of others which of course I find deeply distressing.

In the case where I did take an ACC agent of task in the criminal court it involved the ACC commissioning one of the medical assessors to produce a medical report. As the ACC have not provided any medical information, no details about my well-being or any activities or any such thing the ACC quite clearly set out to obtain from the doctor a false document. In court at the time he had the opportunity to enter his plea he acknowledges that he had produced a document titled medical report when in fact that was not a medical report and therefore acknowledged that he had produced a false document.Perhaps my win could be used as the foundation point for challenging the ACC in similar situations whereby ACC do commission the production of false documents for pecuniary advantage (insurance fraud).
0

#7 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 10 February 2018 - 11:18 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 10 February 2018 - 09:57 AM, said:

With regards to dishonesty for the purposes of gaining a financial advantage in general we would be talking about ACC fraud perpetrated by the ACC in the context of this discussion.

Doppelgänger I think you are wrong in your fourth sentence. I am in fact the only individual that has initiated a private criminal prosecution against an agent of the ACC for producing false document for pecuniary advantage of which I had a successful outcome. I would appreciate that you do not make false reporting on this site about me as it does seem to influence my reputation in the minds eye of others which of course I find deeply distressing.

In the case where I did take an ACC agent of task in the criminal court it involved the ACC commissioning one of the medical assessors to produce a medical report. As the ACC have not provided any medical information, no details about my well-being or any activities or any such thing the ACC quite clearly set out to obtain from the doctor a false document. In court at the time he had the opportunity to enter his plea he acknowledges that he had produced a document titled medical report when in fact that was not a medical report and therefore acknowledged that he had produced a false document.Perhaps my win could be used as the foundation point for challenging the ACC in similar situations whereby ACC do commission the production of false documents for pecuniary advantage (insurance fraud).



If you read the document it is not about just a criminal conviction but the ACC take all of the necessary in there policies.

Part if the policy

Misconduct and serious misconduct
Behaviour or actions that are investigated and found to be in breach of the Code of Conduct
may result in disciplinary action. In all instances the discipline and dismissal procedures on
The Sauce, will be followed and the employee will have an opportunity to provide an
explanation for their actions or behaviours and have the right of representat ion.
The action taken will depend on the severity of the breach:
• Breaches of the Code of Conduct that are deemed 'misconduct' may lead to
disciplinary action up to and including a final warning.
• Breaches of the Code of Conduct that are deemed 'serious misconduct' may lead to
disciplinary action up to and including summary dismissal . Summary dismissal is
termination of employment without notice or prior warnings.
• If any breaches normally considered to be misconduct are very serious or repeated,
these may be deemed serious misconduct and could result in disciplina ry action up to
and including summary dismissal.

The staff are not acting due to some one's mistake. If they continue to do this then the maximum, and they may go back to the person or persons and criminally prosecute them if they are able.

Notice it is the ACC that carries out the prosecution.
0

#8 User is online   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7231
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 10 February 2018 - 04:22 PM

View PostLupine, on 09 February 2018 - 02:39 PM, said:

Greetings all,

This is in no way meant to be anything but constructive. There will be those who sufficient skill to win against the Corporation at a political and macro legal level and others will learn from it.

So what I propose is this. I will present my current situation and anyone who wishes to can tell me what steps I should take to bring the Corporation to account. If something is suggested that I have already done then I will post the result of that action being taken.

I have discovered that ACC has failed to implement the Section 221 and Schedule 4 levy process resulting in an error in ERC entitlements that will cost multi millions of dollars. This error is so severe it has remained uncorrected for twelve years.

Have regard for the push back I am getting and the fact the discovery was made weeks out from an election.

If it pleases anyone them please commence.



Lupine

I personally would have to know some of the background of the failure of ACC before I would want to comment.

It is obviously about the Levies paid or owing to the ACC and it has been wrongly processed by the ACC failing to implement section 221 and schedule 4 correctly or at all.

You haven't detailed which election you are speaking about. Please give us a date. I say this because I am aware that the levies for Acc have changed whilst the National govt was in power quite ofter. You should firstly find the amount and when any changes were made. This will help identify the cost of the failure of not using the section and Part of the act to a specific individual or entity.

Entlighten us a bit more please.

Min
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 February 2018 - 04:42 PM

Doppelgänger the portion of the ACC "policy" is all about the ACC staff conduct with no information about the criteria by which they must make their decisions. As far as I can see there is no problem with the ACC having policies regarding their internal politicking and suchlike. It is just that I cannot see how there is any possibility of ACC ever having policy to determine whether or not they accept claims or how they calculate entitlements.

Personally I don't care how the ACC treat each other in the lunchroom or behind the bicycle sheds, all I am interested in is that I am given the right amount of money for compensation and/or surgery et cetera. Have you ever seen anything that looks like ACC policy regarding compliance with legislated criteria for determining a claim and entitlements?

You think the ACC strategy is one of misdirection whereby they get you focusing on one thing so you will forget to focus on the things that really matter such as the calculation of how much money they must pay us
0

#10 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 754
  • Joined: 14-November 12
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 11 February 2018 - 05:05 AM

View PostLupine, on 09 February 2018 - 07:56 PM, said:

The bone of contention is not important.

The position is for the purposes of this exercise is that the Corporation has screwed up and badly. That is the premise. The reason why the Corporation screwed up is not relevant.

What I am asking is that having caught the Corporation out very badly what is the next step?


Lupine,

Use the Ombudsman in the first instance. The functions of the office are set out in section 13 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975. Schedule 1 sets out which agencies are within their jurisdiction to investigate, ACC fall within their jurisdiction.

Grant
0

#11 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1522
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:51 AM

View PostGrant-Mac, on 11 February 2018 - 05:05 AM, said:

Lupine,

Use the Ombudsman in the first instance. The functions of the office are set out in section 13 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975. Schedule 1 sets out which agencies are within their jurisdiction to investigate, ACC fall within their jurisdiction.

Grant


An excellent suggestion. I missed that process as I had used the Ombudsman to argue an OIA outcome and the Corporation managed to wriggle out of it and I put the Ombudsman to one side.

I do have some other processes going on but I am now on to this process ASAP. Thank you Grant. A good example of howthe Forum it is meant to work.
0

#12 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1522
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:56 AM

View Postdoppelganger, on 10 February 2018 - 11:18 AM, said:

If you read the document it is not about just a criminal conviction but the ACC take all of the necessary in there policies.

Part if the policy

Misconduct and serious misconduct
Behaviour or actions that are investigated and found to be in breach of the Code of Conduct
may result in disciplinary action. In all instances the discipline and dismissal procedures on
The Sauce, will be followed and the employee will have an opportunity to provide an
explanation for their actions or behaviours and have the right of representat ion.
The action taken will depend on the severity of the breach:
• Breaches of the Code of Conduct that are deemed 'misconduct' may lead to
disciplinary action up to and including a final warning.
• Breaches of the Code of Conduct that are deemed 'serious misconduct' may lead to
disciplinary action up to and including summary dismissal . Summary dismissal is
termination of employment without notice or prior warnings.
• If any breaches normally considered to be misconduct are very serious or repeated,
these may be deemed serious misconduct and could result in disciplina ry action up to
and including summary dismissal.

The staff are not acting due to some one's mistake. If they continue to do this then the maximum, and they may go back to the person or persons and criminally prosecute them if they are able.

Notice it is the ACC that carries out the prosecution.


Another useful avenue.
0

#13 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 12 February 2018 - 12:25 PM

You could combine the both use the Ombudsman to show the ACC staff are completing serious misconduct.
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 February 2018 - 12:39 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 12 February 2018 - 12:25 PM, said:

You could combine the both use the Ombudsman to show the ACC staff are completing serious misconduct.


I think you'll find that the ombudsman would first one you to exhaust the existing avenue which is to make a complaint under the code of complaints is that code covers serious misconduct.
0

#15 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1118
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 14 February 2018 - 06:31 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 February 2018 - 03:53 PM, said:


so Grant how would you propose how Mr Bennett might correct the ACCs behaviour towards him in this circumstance. I can assure you that Mr Bennett's case is one of many And if you are proposing to be an ACC advocate of some description you are going to learn the relevant points of law to deal with these types of cases which the ACC claimed is in the majority of all exiting of claims From the ACC scheme. Or grant are you going to be one of those people who are going to contribute towards the ACC deception in these matters whereby members of the public are terrified by this tyranny and abuse of power.


He pleaded guilty.

Grant
0 +-
0

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 February 2018 - 07:51 PM

REPORTED

Greg you are off topic transferring from another thread and have manipulated the post to boo. T
0

#17 User is online   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7231
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 15 February 2018 - 02:41 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 10 February 2018 - 04:42 PM, said:

Doppelgänger the portion of the ACC "policy" is all about the ACC staff conduct with no information about the criteria by which they must make their decisions. As far as I can see there is no problem with the ACC having policies regarding their internal politicking and suchlike. It is just that I cannot see how there is any possibility of ACC ever having policy to determine whether or not they accept claims or how they calculate entitlements.

Personally I don't care how the ACC treat each other in the lunchroom or behind the bicycle sheds, all I am interested in is that I am given the right amount of money for compensation and/or surgery et cetera. Have you ever seen anything that looks like ACC policy regarding compliance with legislated criteria for determining a claim and entitlements?

You think the ACC strategy is one of misdirection whereby they get you focusing on one thing so you will forget to focus on the things that really matter such as the calculation of how much money they must pay us


Apoligies all. This is the alan Thomas post that I answered when referring to the gaslighting subject bought up. If you read this one and then my answer to Doopleganger you will find it makes more sense.

Mini
0

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 February 2018 - 03:31 PM

Reported

Off topic
previous of topic posting to another thread posted to this thread for harassment purposes
0

#19 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1118
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 15 February 2018 - 08:07 PM

Posted Today, 08:05 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 15 February 2018 - 07:45 PM, said:

How do you explain that my win versus loss rate is much the same as highly qualified legal professionals when dealing with ACC matters?

When people such as John Miller complained that when they take ACC on ACC responds with an overwhelming legal force and I complained that when I addressed the biggest ACC case in their history which took over six weeks of court time ACC found it necessary to have three of their lawyers and the court room going up against myself and bringing into the court about 12 witnesses, which is you must admit quite unusual,how can you even imagine that the loss/win rate is in any way or form relevant. I think John Millers biggest case took about a week. Why would ACC find it necessary to extend the case out to something in the order of six weeks against a Lay litigant such as myself? Obviously the answer is I had a very robust legal argument otherwise the ACC would have sent along one of the junior staff to deal with me.

Greg You need to focus your attention on the issues rather than attacking the man.


Simply because you cant win in court because you don't understand simple ACC Law,
or any judgement in your favour would be happily posted ..

Time for people to understand dealing with you never have a happy ending.
0

Share this topic:


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

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users