ACCforum: Acc Staff Fraud - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Acc Staff Fraud

#1 User is offline   stock 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 19-July 05

Posted 02 August 2005 - 08:58 PM

Case of serious ACC staff fraud have been reported to police in the recent past.

Ruth Dyson said in the newspaper that the Department (which Department???) had a zero tolerance of staff fraud.

If a person can prove fraud, would they take that information to the police or the Serious Fraud Office?? What, if anything, would the police do???

I have personal proof that an ACC staff member has acted fraudulently.
0

#2 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 02 August 2005 - 10:05 PM

Greetings,
"What, if anything, would the police do???"

NOTHING !

But its worth a try... never know, you might get lucky :blink:
0

#3 User is offline   Limoges 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-November 04

Posted 03 August 2005 - 10:00 AM

I too have proof that an ACC staff member has acted fraudulently! Let's see what the Police do about that!
0

#4 User is offline   rippedoff 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 05-January 05

Posted 04 August 2005 - 07:58 AM

:D If you have indescribable PROOF of FRAUD, take it to Detective
Senior Sargent Eric Stretten in the Wgtn CIB. His son was run down in the early
80's and I do believe he has been by ACC cheat ever since! :rolleyes:
0

#5 User is offline   gaffa09 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 04 August 2005 - 01:32 PM

What are the police going to do about it .??????
what about the 2 planes purchased a few years back, what happened to the COE that brought them and to more the point what happened to the planes .
What happened to the managers taken on fraul charges,
I beleave about 4 or more of them.
What happens to the lawyers employed by ACC to lie and twist the truth .
What happens to the review officers paid by ACC and yes the medical provides who lie and dance to ACC tune
I also think the serious fraud office should be looked at too

Attached File(s)

  • Attached File  ATT1.gif (7.24K)
    Number of downloads: 0

This post has been edited by gaffa09: 04 August 2005 - 01:37 PM

0

#6 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 01 March 2006 - 07:15 PM

Like the current Enron corporate fraud case in the U.S., ACC is a fraud because its fiscal performance and balance sheet is not based on reality.

Why???? Becase it collects public money and dozens, if not hundreds of claimants, are not receiving their rehabilitation assessments and entitlements according to the Act.

Therefore, ACC is intentionally fraudulent because it public documents are false not being based on reality and that can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

An exact parallel to the current Enron case fraud charges.
0

#7 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 01 March 2006 - 07:30 PM

ACC is the goose that lays the golden eggs.
There is no chance that their bosses will do anything to upset that egg basket.

A thermo nuclear device might, but then the jackals and clowns that populate our current government would just put humpty back together. They set it up that way and it is an odds on bet that they don't want us rocking that fiscally lucrative egg basket.

In this case it is the government that is the criminal as they are the ones that are ultimately responsible knowingly supporting ACC and benifiting from ACC's thievery and fraud so I cannot see them letting themselves be hung by their own petard.
0

#8 User is offline   yesno 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 24-February 06

Posted 01 March 2006 - 10:38 PM

I have not yet contacted the serious fraud office,

but there is also a very significant provision in the Corporations Act.



CORPORATIONS (INVESTIGATION AND MANAGEMENT) ACT 1989
4. Application of Act—
4. Application of Act—
Act applies to any corporation—

***(a) That is, or may be, operating fraudulently or recklessly; or **********

(b) To which it is desirable that this Act should apply—
(i) For the purpose of preserving the interests of the corporation's members or creditors; or
(ii) For the purpose of protecting any beneficiary under any trust administered by the
corporation; or
(iii) For any other reason in the public interest,—

if those members or creditors or beneficiaries or the public interest cannot be adequately protected
under the Companies Act 1955 [or the Companies Act 1993] or in any other lawful way.

Not Sure if anyone has ever tried this approach.
0

#9 User is offline   Hatikva 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 12-June 05
  • LocationWop Wops

Posted 02 March 2006 - 06:11 AM

Quote

I have not yet contacted the serious fraud office,


Would having examples of deliberate errors (how else could multiple mistakes NOT be deliberate) in claimants files assist in such an exercise (as going through serious fraud office?)

What other evidence would you require? Is this time for a "class action" - I'd be prepared to put my name on such an action.

Certainly glad you've joined the forum, Yesno!
0

#10 User is offline   yesno 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 24-February 06

Posted 02 March 2006 - 09:05 AM

I am not sure of the legal definition of fraud in New Zealand, but I know in other parts of the world, it or similar charges require Intent, Malice, or malicious intent.

In the UK, Canada and Australia, in the law of torts where an action in damages is pursued, which importantly is somewhat different from Personal injury by accident. Non-targeted malice is sufficient.

That means if someone discriminates against a group in which you belong, rather than you as an individual, then that is still sufficient malice. Some examples of this could be overweight people, people with low back pain, people who have been on ACC workers compensation for more than 13 weeks etc. This non targeted malice is sufficient to satisfy requirements of malicious intent.

An example of this is a comment made by an ACC doctor “the public health system is there for people like [the claimant].” Referring to people with chronic low back pain following an accident.

I have not yet got onto the serious fraud office. I am attempting to test the independence and impartiality of the complaints process at ACC. I have placed extremely strict limits on to whom and how they can pass information, but have allowed them to pass to the serious fraud office. But I am not holding my breath.

At review I specifically asked that the reviewer provide me with mechanisms to remedy any breaches of statutes and regulations that he would not address at review and he did not even respond to this request. So we will see how the complaints process goes. This is proving to be a very good test of ACC's systems and structures.

Needless to say, at some point soon, we will need to gather as much information like you have suggested as possible, but it is important that if we want to use this properly, we need to collect it all in a useable manner. There is no point in collecting it twice, so lets wait until we know what form we want to collect it in.

Regards

YesNo
0

#11 User is offline   gaffa09 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 02 March 2006 - 09:06 AM

I have spoken about class action for many years ,
and in fact started class action on the myodil saga .
Our problem was that the barrister wanted mega bucks to start up front
Again we have also talked about class action against ACC and this is still alive very much so,
To take class action we need concrete evidence , with sufferers all focused on facts .
Some of the issues are medical which are being changed by ACC, from medical into legal
Codes that are recorded wrong, Injury codes, payments codes, read codes, dates ,
Some cases , changed from work related accident to a home accident , and some the area where it happened ,
Documents being lost , destroyed or changed ,
Accident victims being labelled , with names that are derogatory .
Class action needs a common point of issues to be clearly identified .
This will not come cheap as barristers want money up front ..

In saying this , what have ACC got up there sleeves as our Branch manager is often tripping down to Wellington at our expense What fore I ask , His answer phone message says he will be away for so many days , He is seen at the airport by many , This also includes our BMA
Can’t the communication be done by phone or Computer from head office .
Is it possible that ACC are planning their next move with all legal beavers both accountant and lawyers don’t forget the ACC medical advisers trying to find a way round this debacle .
ACC can’t look at the facts let alone the act
0

#12 User is offline   yesno 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 24-February 06

Posted 02 March 2006 - 09:36 AM

very valid point Gaffa...

"Class action needs a common point of issues to be clearly identified" .

We need to be very clear about these. This is why, when we collect information, we must collect it in a form which we can use.

We will fight them on the televisions, we will fight them in parliment and we will fight them in the courts, but we will never give up... (smiles)

Look forward to seeing you again some time mate...

YesNo
0

#13 Guest_lorilye_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 02 March 2006 - 10:15 AM

I think you will find Branch managers get a trip to wellington anything from two to four times a month. If you really want to know write under OIA and ask.

Lori.
0

#14 User is offline   gaffa09 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 02 March 2006 - 10:46 AM

I do have a question ,

instead of sueing ACC with a class action ,why not sue our goverment , summons our minister Dyson . now that could be interesting as my feeling is that she is not that bright Hmmmmm

can it be done Well she is head of ACC isn't she ? Start with the top dog.
0

#15 User is offline   yesno 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 24-February 06

Posted 11 March 2006 - 11:50 AM

hi gaffa,

it can be done, Here are a couple of points from one of my reports.

1.3 NOT SURE IF THIS HAS EVER BEEN DONE. Common Law remedies, seeking remedy in tort for damages through.

1.3.1 Action in tort against the crown. Section 6 of the Crown Proceeding Act set out that providing the act or omission would give rise to an action in tort, then the crown should be subject to liabilities in tort in respect of torts committed by it’s servants or agents.

6. Liability of the Crown in tort---(1) Subject to the provisions of
this Act and any other Act, the Crown shall be subject to all those
liabilities in tort to which, if it were a private person of full age
and capacity, it would be subject---
(a) In respect of torts committed by its servants or agents; …


Section 5 of the IPRC expressly states that this act bind the crown. ACC would likely claim that they have a exclusion from being sued under s 317

317 Proceedings for personal injury
(1) No person may bring proceedings independently of this Act, whether under
any rule of law or any enactment, in any court in New Zealand, for damages
arising directly or indirectly out of---
(a) personal injury covered by this Act; or
(B) personal injury covered by the former Acts…

(3) However, no court, tribunal, or other body may award compensation in any
proceedings referred to in subsection (2) for personal injury of the kinds
described in subsection (1).
(4) Subsection (1) does not prevent any person bringing proceedings under---
(a) section 50 or section 51 of the Health and Disability Commissioner
Act 1994; or
(B) section 83 or section 90 or section 122 or section 123 or section
124 of the Human Rights Act 1993.
(7) Nothing in this section is affected by---
© the fact that a person who has suffered personal injury of the kinds
described in subsection (1) is not entitled to any entitlement under this Act.

What this means is that if you have cover under the IPRC, you can’t sue, but if you don’t have cover, then sue away. Here is what I believe that you can sue for.

1.3.2 It may be possible to show that the following torts have been committed
1.3.3 Negligence,
1.3.4 Abuse of Government Powers, or Misfeasance in public office (not sure what it is in New Zealand.
1.3.5 Breach of Statutory Duty,
1.3.6 Malicious Civil Proceedings.
0

#16 User is offline   MadMac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 11 March 2006 - 07:34 PM

:wub: Gross mismanagement by ACC representives ...?

;) Have a great day everyone ... things are getting better and better ...
0

#17 User is offline   sevon 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 20-April 05

Posted 30 April 2006 - 10:47 PM

Has anyone heard of Kate Crotty?? she is in the Albany office. and yes is she still living?
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