ACCforum: Unlawful Reviews? - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Unlawful Reviews? Unlawful Reviews?

#1 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 02 March 2005 - 08:28 PM

Apart from failing to comply with s140 (e) of the Act it would also seem that DRSL reviewers are also acting unlawfully and undemocratically on the grounds that they are not conducting their hearings in public.

A US Supreme Court has declared that military tribunals proceeding against Guantonomo Bay prisoners are both unfair and unlawful and were relying on thin legal authority. Proceedings have come to a screeching halt.

The same appears to apply to reviewer's conducting ACC review hearings.

Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says:

"All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination......of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and pubic hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law............"

NZ has ratified that Covenant and our committment to it is affirmed in the long title of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990

Arguably, reviewer's are fair, competent, independent and impartial but they are most definitely not acting in accordance with the rest of the ICCPR and conducting hearings in public.

The way they are conducting hearings can also be described as a "star chamber" where in ancient times the king dispensed his form of justice (gross injustice) behind closed doors with no public oversight.

Furthermore reviewers are known to unfairly not allow an exchange of submissions between the parties, and submissions in reply before the actual hearing and there is no procedure for an exchange of agreed documents. Such an ambush can result in an unfair hearing.

The Reviewr's can get away with what they do because they do not conduct their hearings in public who, in the normal course of events, provides oversight and supervision throughout the judicial system.

The relevant legal principle is that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

All reviewer's should be put on notice that they are prima facie acting unlawfully.
0

#2 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 02 March 2005 - 08:33 PM

I know, I know, it should be "public hearing" not "pubic hearing - although I just wonder whether that is a more accurate description of the way reviewer's are conducting review hearings.
0

#3 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 02 March 2005 - 08:53 PM

LOL maybe pubic hearing is more acurate! ;)
0

#4 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1497
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 02 March 2005 - 09:13 PM

yes and to make it public they would need to advertise where and when the hearing is being held. (just like the courts)
0

#5 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 02 March 2005 - 11:26 PM

Pubic indeed!!! Decisions issued from just around the corner would be a more accurate location.

DRSL would have to move hearings to another venue, one room can seat 5 max including the reviewer, the other 6 or 7 at a pinch. Say reviewer, 2 from acc, 2 on claimant's side and the rooms are full. Add in inappropriate seating, withholding vital information, inadequate toilet facilities, a soupçon of bias, leave out essential ingredients sucn as due diligence and natural then blend until unrecognisable and you have a recipe for disaster.
0

#6 User is offline   MadMac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 178
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 03 March 2005 - 05:45 PM

:D :D :D I wonder if they are having a Blonde Pubic....oooooh Blonde Public hair day[s].
:wub: Keep smiling as the Truth is the Truth...its that simple...
0

#7 User is offline   Battleaxe 

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

Posted 20 December 2006 - 10:56 AM

Unfortunately there is a catch with the interpretation ... "suit" means lawsuit and therefore the public hearing requirement only applies to cases where lawsuits have been filed by either or both of the parties. It is truly regretted that reviews of ACC decisions do not involve lawsuits. If this were the case, ACC would not be so willing to break the law under which they make their decisions.
0

#8 User is offline   waitakerej 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 11-July 14

Posted 04 April 2015 - 12:24 PM

Fairway Resolution is on the companies registry, check out the shareholders of this INDEPENDENT COMPANY

http://www.business....mode%3Dstandard


FAIRWAY RESOLUTION LIMITED (915656) Registered
To maintain this company log on here
View previous names
Last updated on 09 Feb 2015
View as Single Page Certificate of Incorporation Company Extract

Company Summary
Addresses
Directors (6)
Shareholdings (2)
Documents (96)
PPSR Search

Total Number of Shares:2 Extensive Shareholding:No
Shareholders in Allocation:
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
Historic data for shareholders
Hide History

(This may not be a complete list of historic shareholders for this company. Every company is required to maintain its own share register that records the company's shares and shareholder details. To obtain a complete list of historic shareholders please contact the company directly.)
Full legal nameACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION
Vacation Date22 Jun 2011
0

#9 User is offline   waitakerej 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 11-July 14

Posted 04 April 2015 - 12:28 PM

FAIRWAY RESOLUTION LIMITED (915656) Registered
To maintain this company log on here
View previous names
Last updated on 09 Feb 2015
View as Single Page Certificate of Incorporation Company Extract

Company Summary
Addresses
Directors (6)
Shareholdings (2)
Documents (96)
PPSR Search

Full legal name: Peter BLADES
Residential Address: 24 Hambleton Street, Albert Park, Melbourne, Victoria 3206 , Australia
Appointment Date: 01 Jul 2011
Consent: View Consent Form

Full legal name: Anita CHAN
Residential Address: Level 3, 151-155 Princes Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin, 9016 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 Jul 2011
Consent: View Consent Form

Full legal name: Tarun Parbhu KANJI
Residential Address: 4 Sunnybrae Crescent, Westmere, Auckland, 1022 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 18 Aug 2014
Consent: View Consent Form

Full legal name: Tupara MORRISON
Residential Address: 226/57 Mahuhu Crescent, Auckland, 1010 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 Jul 2011
Consent: View Consent Form

Full legal name: Daniel Elias NAKHLE
Residential Address: 71 Mill Road, Rd 1, Manurewa, 2576 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 17 Dec 2013
Consent: View Consent Form

Full legal name: Geoffrey Mark SANDELIN
Residential Address: 42 Arney Crescent, Remuera, Auckland, 1050 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 17 Dec 2013
Consent: View Consent Form

Historic data for directors
Hide History

Former Directors
Full legal name: Brent KENNERLEY
Residential Address: 131 Maui Pomare Road, Nikau Valley, Paraparaumu, 5032 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 19 Mar 2004
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: John Lewis SPENCER
Residential Address: 27 Clermont Terrace, Kelburn, Wellington, 6012 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 Jul 2011
Ceased date: 30 Jun 2014
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Marie Magdaleen BISMARK
Residential Address: 14 Molesworth St, North Melbourne, Victoria 3051, Australia ,
Appointment Date: 27 Apr 2009
Ceased date: 30 Jun 2013
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Greg POLLOCK
Residential Address: 1 Delhi Crescent, Khandallah, Wellington, 6035 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 Feb 2010
Ceased date: 01 Jul 2011
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Brent KENNERLEY
Residential Address: 131 Maui Pomare Road, Nikau Valley, Paraparaumu, 5032 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 19 Mar 2004
Ceased date: 01 Jul 2011
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: John Lewis SPENCER
Residential Address: 27 Clermont Terrace, Kelburn, Wellington, 6012 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 May 2011
Ceased date: 30 Jun 2011
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Tupara MORRISON
Residential Address: 360 Pukehangi Road, Pomare, Rotorua, 3015 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 Feb 2010
Ceased date: 30 Jun 2011
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: John SPENCER
Residential Address: 27 Clermont Terrace, Kelburn, Wellington, 6012 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 May 2011
Ceased date: 30 Jun 2011
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: John Lewis SPENCSER
Residential Address: 27 Clermont Terrace, Kelburn, Wellington, 6012 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 May 2011
Ceased date: 25 May 2011
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: John Gavin ADLAM
Residential Address: 2 Putnam Street, Northland, Wellington, 6012 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 31 Oct 2000
Ceased date: 31 Jan 2010
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Wendy DAVIS
Residential Address: 25 Farnham St, Vogeltown, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 24 Aug 2001
Ceased date: 31 Jan 2010
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Wayne BUTSON
Residential Address: 34 Tyndall St, Lower Hutt ,
Appointment Date: 12 Mar 2007
Ceased date: 31 Mar 2009
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Janice WRIGHT
Residential Address: 11 View Rd, Houghton Bay, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 21 Sep 2006
Ceased date: 01 Mar 2007
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Ray POTROZ
Residential Address: 59 Manaia Road, Tairua ,
Appointment Date: 20 Apr 2001
Ceased date: 01 Sep 2006
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Thomas Hughes Lloyd DAVIES
Residential Address: 20 Foster Crescent, Belmont, Lower Hutt ,
Appointment Date: 24 Apr 2003
Ceased date: 22 Jan 2004
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Kevin Alfred WALKER
Residential Address: 84 Pitt St, Wadestown, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 30 Jun 2000
Ceased date: 24 Apr 2003
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Steve MARSHALL
Residential Address: 6/148 Evans Bay Parade, Roseneath, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 22 Jun 1999
Ceased date: 22 Aug 2001
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Gerard Michael MCGREEVY
Residential Address: 80 Anne St, Wadestown, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 30 Jun 2000
Ceased date: 18 Apr 2001
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Douglas Ian BROWN
Residential Address: 13 Amapur Drive, Khandallah, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 22 Jun 1999
Ceased date: 31 Oct 2000
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Michael John MILLAR
Residential Address: 12 Brooklyn Terrace, Brooklyn, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 22 Jun 1999
Ceased date: 29 Jun 2000
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Gerard Michael MCGREEVY
Residential Address: 80 Anne Street, Wadestown, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 28 Jul 1998
Ceased date: 22 Jun 1999
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Garry Maxwell WILSON
Residential Address: 23 Corrondella Grove, Lower Hutt ,
Appointment Date: 28 Jul 1998
Ceased date: 22 Jun 1999
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Generated on Saturday, 04 April 2015 13:25:48 NZDT
0

#10 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6752
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 05 April 2015 - 11:14 AM

View Postwaitakerej, on 04 April 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:

FAIRWAY RESOLUTION LIMITED (915656) Registered
To maintain this company log on here
View previous names
Last updated on 09 Feb 2015
View as Single Page Certificate of Incorporation Company Extract

Company Summary
Addresses
Directors (6)
Shareholdings (2)
Documents (96)
PPSR Search

Full legal name: Peter BLADES
Residential Address: 24 Hambleton Street, Albert Park, Melbourne, Victoria 3206 , Australia
Appointment Date: 01 Jul 2011
Consent: View Consent Form

Full legal name: Anita CHAN
Residential Address: Level 3, 151-155 Princes Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin, 9016 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 Jul 2011
Consent: View Consent Form

Full legal name: Tarun Parbhu KANJI
Residential Address: 4 Sunnybrae Crescent, Westmere, Auckland, 1022 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 18 Aug 2014
Consent: View Consent Form

Full legal name: Tupara MORRISON
Residential Address: 226/57 Mahuhu Crescent, Auckland, 1010 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 Jul 2011
Consent: View Consent Form

Full legal name: Daniel Elias NAKHLE
Residential Address: 71 Mill Road, Rd 1, Manurewa, 2576 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 17 Dec 2013
Consent: View Consent Form

Full legal name: Geoffrey Mark SANDELIN
Residential Address: 42 Arney Crescent, Remuera, Auckland, 1050 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 17 Dec 2013
Consent: View Consent Form

Historic data for directors
Hide History

Former Directors
Full legal name: Brent KENNERLEY
Residential Address: 131 Maui Pomare Road, Nikau Valley, Paraparaumu, 5032 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 19 Mar 2004
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: John Lewis SPENCER
Residential Address: 27 Clermont Terrace, Kelburn, Wellington, 6012 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 Jul 2011
Ceased date: 30 Jun 2014
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Marie Magdaleen BISMARK
Residential Address: 14 Molesworth St, North Melbourne, Victoria 3051, Australia ,
Appointment Date: 27 Apr 2009
Ceased date: 30 Jun 2013
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Greg POLLOCK
Residential Address: 1 Delhi Crescent, Khandallah, Wellington, 6035 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 Feb 2010
Ceased date: 01 Jul 2011
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Brent KENNERLEY
Residential Address: 131 Maui Pomare Road, Nikau Valley, Paraparaumu, 5032 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 19 Mar 2004
Ceased date: 01 Jul 2011
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: John Lewis SPENCER
Residential Address: 27 Clermont Terrace, Kelburn, Wellington, 6012 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 May 2011
Ceased date: 30 Jun 2011
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Tupara MORRISON
Residential Address: 360 Pukehangi Road, Pomare, Rotorua, 3015 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 Feb 2010
Ceased date: 30 Jun 2011
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: John SPENCER
Residential Address: 27 Clermont Terrace, Kelburn, Wellington, 6012 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 May 2011
Ceased date: 30 Jun 2011
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: John Lewis SPENCSER
Residential Address: 27 Clermont Terrace, Kelburn, Wellington, 6012 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 01 May 2011
Ceased date: 25 May 2011
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: John Gavin ADLAM
Residential Address: 2 Putnam Street, Northland, Wellington, 6012 , New Zealand
Appointment Date: 31 Oct 2000
Ceased date: 31 Jan 2010
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Wendy DAVIS
Residential Address: 25 Farnham St, Vogeltown, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 24 Aug 2001
Ceased date: 31 Jan 2010
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Wayne BUTSON
Residential Address: 34 Tyndall St, Lower Hutt ,
Appointment Date: 12 Mar 2007
Ceased date: 31 Mar 2009
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Janice WRIGHT
Residential Address: 11 View Rd, Houghton Bay, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 21 Sep 2006
Ceased date: 01 Mar 2007
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Ray POTROZ
Residential Address: 59 Manaia Road, Tairua ,
Appointment Date: 20 Apr 2001
Ceased date: 01 Sep 2006
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Thomas Hughes Lloyd DAVIES
Residential Address: 20 Foster Crescent, Belmont, Lower Hutt ,
Appointment Date: 24 Apr 2003
Ceased date: 22 Jan 2004
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Kevin Alfred WALKER
Residential Address: 84 Pitt St, Wadestown, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 30 Jun 2000
Ceased date: 24 Apr 2003
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Steve MARSHALL
Residential Address: 6/148 Evans Bay Parade, Roseneath, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 22 Jun 1999
Ceased date: 22 Aug 2001
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Gerard Michael MCGREEVY
Residential Address: 80 Anne St, Wadestown, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 30 Jun 2000
Ceased date: 18 Apr 2001
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Douglas Ian BROWN
Residential Address: 13 Amapur Drive, Khandallah, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 22 Jun 1999
Ceased date: 31 Oct 2000
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Michael John MILLAR
Residential Address: 12 Brooklyn Terrace, Brooklyn, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 22 Jun 1999
Ceased date: 29 Jun 2000
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Gerard Michael MCGREEVY
Residential Address: 80 Anne Street, Wadestown, Wellington ,
Appointment Date: 28 Jul 1998
Ceased date: 22 Jun 1999
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Full legal name: Garry Maxwell WILSON
Residential Address: 23 Corrondella Grove, Lower Hutt ,
Appointment Date: 28 Jul 1998
Ceased date: 22 Jun 1999
Consent: Link to Consent Form
Generated on Saturday, 04 April 2015 13:25:48 NZDT


Anyone know who the two shareholders are??

Mini
0

#11 User is offline   waitakerej 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 11-July 14

Posted 06 April 2015 - 02:32 AM

Company Summary
Addresses
Directors (6)
Shareholdings (2)
Documents (96)
PPSR Search

Total Number of Shares:2 Extensive Shareholding:No
Shareholders in Allocation:
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
Historic data for shareholders
0

#12 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6752
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 06 April 2015 - 09:36 AM

View Postwaitakerej, on 06 April 2015 - 02:32 AM, said:

Company Summary
Addresses
Directors (6)
Shareholdings (2)
Documents (96)
PPSR Search

Total Number of Shares:2 Extensive Shareholding:No
Shareholders in Allocation:
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
Historic data for shareholders


So Fairview is not independent from ACC!!

It says it right there, nothing has changed from DRSL days. A 50% shareholding is not an "arm length transaction" which it would have to be if it was not as liable to ACC as it is to Minister of Finance. There is a conflict of interest between the two in more ways than one.

If I am wrong, let one of the masterminds on here, tell me how I am wrong in company law??

Mini
0

#13 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 10 April 2015 - 10:08 AM

Fairways, and the District Court re acc are TRIBUNALS...and as such will always be under control of those who pay the salaries/wages...
0

#14 User is offline   charlie wilson 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 04-July 14

Posted 08 October 2015 - 08:25 PM

View PostMINI, on 06 April 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

So Fairview is not independent from ACC!!

It says it right there, nothing has changed from DRSL days. A 50% shareholding is not an "arm length transaction" which it would have to be if it was not as liable to ACC as it is to Minister of Finance. There is a conflict of interest between the two in more ways than one.

If I am wrong, let one of the masterminds on here, tell me how I am wrong in company law??

Mini


I complained to the ombudsman about a conflict of interest here, and recieved a lot of gobbly gook reply which says that they are independent, my lawyer disagreed and said there is a conflict of interest , even more damming is that some of the directors are reviewers and most reviewers work for fairway resolutions.
It would take some gutsy politician to challenge them as the ombudsman is useless.
I do not believe you can get a fair review from this lot with some of them being ex ACC staff, their secrecy over providing the training manual and the ownership of Fairway which is an obvious conflict of interest.
I have a case before review it has taken 7 years of hassle to get that far, an independent lawyer friend of mine said don,t waste your money on useing a lawyer at this review save your money to take it to court if it is rejected.
ACC have told blatant lies during all this time and I have them on file, they do not care about lyeing nor do they admit to trying to send you to ACC cronie doctors, I had to argue with them about this and they tried to set me up with the cronies that are posted on this site (thanks for the info) I was fortunate enough to talk with a retired doctor who was previously contracted to ACC and who hates them,she advised me that there was a large list of alternative doctors to whom they were trying to bulldose me to see and recomended a couple who also do not like ACC.
I used one of these .

Thanks to all who provide info here.
Charlie.

Fairview resolutions needs to be challenged and publicly, but who will do this, I don't have the money to take this on and I doubt if there is one Politician in the mob we have today who would take them on.
Im afraid NZ is a dictatorship and ACC are quite content to feed their cronies from the booty they hold, if John Key has his way that money and ACC will become a privatised money trough with 2 billion of taxpayers funds in the kitty.
It is disgusting that these immoral bandits exist, however when a cash cow appears they come out like worms from the woodwork to get a slice of the booty.
0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6979
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 October 2015 - 09:57 AM

View PostMINI, on 06 April 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

So Fairview is not independent from ACC!!

It says it right there, nothing has changed from DRSL days. A 50% shareholding is not an "arm length transaction" which it would have to be if it was not as liable to ACC as it is to Minister of Finance. There is a conflict of interest between the two in more ways than one.

If I am wrong, let one of the masterminds on here, tell me how I am wrong in company law??

Mini


I take the view that Fairway Resolutions Ltd are not really relevant to the decision-making process.

I take the view that the legislation makes it clear the Reviewer is the one that is the only one capable of making a decision and as such it has the integrity of the Reviewer that needs to be looked at. In order to look at the integrity of the reviewer we need to look at the driving forces involved. Who does the legislation issue the duty to when selecting a reviewer and who pays the reviewer? Is there an arms length or a detachment in the chain of influence?

I do not see anything changed legislation whereby the ACC still has a direct linkage to the reviewer so I therefore conclude that all this talk about Fairway is just a red herring.
0

#16 User is offline   Aurora 

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

Posted 09 October 2015 - 04:27 PM

View Postcharlie wilson, on 08 October 2015 - 08:25 PM, said:

I complained to the ombudsman about a conflict of interest here, and recieved a lot of gobbly gook reply which says that they are independent, my lawyer disagreed and said there is a conflict of interest , even more damming is that some of the directors are reviewers and most reviewers work for fairway resolutions.
It would take some gutsy politician to challenge them as the ombudsman is useless.
I do not believe you can get a fair review from this lot with some of them being ex ACC staff, their secrecy over providing the training manual and the ownership of Fairway which is an obvious conflict of interest.
I have a case before review it has taken 7 years of hassle to get that far, an independent lawyer friend of mine said don,t waste your money on useing a lawyer at this review save your money to take it to court if it is rejected.
ACC have told blatant lies during all this time and I have them on file, they do not care about lyeing nor do they admit to trying to send you to ACC cronie doctors, I had to argue with them about this and they tried to set me up with the cronies that are posted on this site (thanks for the info) I was fortunate enough to talk with a retired doctor who was previously contracted to ACC and who hates them,she advised me that there was a large list of alternative doctors to whom they were trying to bulldose me to see and recomended a couple who also do not like ACC.
I used one of these .

Thanks to all who provide info here.
Charlie.

Fairview resolutions needs to be challenged and publicly, but who will do this, I don't have the money to take this on and I doubt if there is one Politician in the mob we have today who would take them on.
Im afraid NZ is a dictatorship and ACC are quite content to feed their cronies from the booty they hold, if John Key has his way that money and ACC will become a privatised money trough with 2 billion of taxpayers funds in the kitty.
It is disgusting that these immoral bandits exist, however when a cash cow appears they come out like worms from the woodwork to get a slice of the booty.





TRY SIMON BUCKINGHAM - HE HAS LOADS OF EVIDENCE!!

The incompetence in this matter, as I see it, has sent my poor client to hell and back, and I am so angry! This is righteous anger at the way a Government department can treat the vulnerable. If we do succeed as I challenge myself to do, I will also be asking ACC and DRSL for a full and complete investigation as to how they could let such a vexatious case slip through.

Buckingham Law is suggesting the lack of ethical process in the ACC Review process, and is seeking change. Everyone in New Zealand knows someone or have themselves had issues with the inherent bias and lack of accountability in the system. As such, let’s do something about it.

1. Reviews – These are conducted by a State Owned Enterprise that used to be 100% owned by ACC. Most of the Reviewers are former ACC case managers, so are aware of ACC policy over the law. This is bad, as Reviewers should not consider ACC policy but the Accident Compensation Act 2000 and associated case law. As such, the system breaches the ideals of Nemo iudex in causa sua which means that you cannot be a Judge in your own Court. This means that for ACC to run the Review process and give evidence is a basic breach of natural justice, but horrifically, Parliament has allowed this in the Act. Therefore, the blame for this lies not with the company conducting the Reviews but with Parliament for allowing such an inherent bias.

2. Doctors – I will not name the ACC doctors who are, in my view, breaking the Hippocratic Oath by not putting patients forward, but just search the New Zealand Herald on-line and you will learn quickly who they are. The Doctors are selected by ACC based upon giving results that are favourable to ACC. They are not usually neutral but are trying to get the patients off ACC at all costs. As such, they often do damage to patients, and are often highly unethical in the manner with which they deal with patients. Some are good, but some are so bad as to be unbelievable.
0

#17 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6752
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 17 August 2016 - 02:07 PM

From March 2005 this subject of Review has been debated and personally I cannot see that you have anything further to show for all the waffle that has gone on.

While you have been waffling some of us have been through review and the Courts and have take documentation to the courts to show the attempts that ACC advocates make to influence the Reviewer. So you just maybe picking on the wrong ones.

Of course they are as crooked as a dogs hind leg but if you were actually going to make a difference to the way they act you must put in front of the Judges and lets see what they have to say.

I have for many years only used Review because I have too, to get to the Judge. instead of yapping about it I put it in submissions and let them have a look at the way it works.

The main way you find that evidence is put taking cases through the system. It is going to be interesting. Lets wait and see.

Hands up those with Reviews in and Appeals in about this topic at the moment.

I have. Anyone else?? Do you have the actual evidence to show ACC and Reviewer are in conclusion. I at least put in front of the Judge the fact that ACC advocate lied to the Reviewer, therefor a miscarriage of justice had been done to me.

Lets wait and see what he has to say. Shouldn't be long now.

It is a pity you didn't do more ready of case law, you would find that the same thing has been going on for years. No one has managed to stop it yet as it was tried very recently.

While you are squabbling about if they are honest reliable and dependable or not, you could have been through them and gone onto the Cours where you may have got a fairer deal, but that too is not a fullblown conclusion, as you have noted the legals at ACC assist the Reviewers, I made that obvious in 2010. Had it changed since then, I fair not.

So it is old ground you are going over. Good luck with any success. I think the Ombudsmans case outcome is the only thing you have to flash to show any new reviewers or Judges where they must come from.

Can you tell us how much money has been lost by the claimants over this matter. Of course you need to be able to do that to show how serious it is, to have the truth put in front of the Judges and how corrupt the ACC and Fairways are for not doing it. The fact that some are too scared to use the real names of the entities, shows they have nothing and are not prepared to put themselves on the line by naming the entities involved as they may find themselves getting a notice of defamed slapped against them. Such a load of driblle with a smiggen of actual usuable material in it. Still this forum is all about the right to freedom of speech eh?

Mini
0

#18 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 17 August 2016 - 04:30 PM

welcome back MINI....
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