ACCforum: Jailed For Acc Fraud - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Jailed For Acc Fraud Jailed for ACC Fraud

#1 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 21 January 2006 - 12:43 PM

The conduct outlined in this Court Report below gives all ACC claimants a bad name. I just wonder when we will see similar headlines for ACC employees defrauding claimants.

The challenge for authorities in NZ is surely to ensure there is equality before the law.

As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said in a case: "Those in authority who turn a blind-eye to fraud and corruption in the government sector are themselves corrupt."

____________________________________________________________________

Woman jailed for $86,000 ACC fraud
21 January 2006

A Te Awamutu woman who fraudulently claimed more than $86,000 in ACC payments has been sentenced to 16 months in prison.


After Glennis Yates' husband died in 1980, she began receiving $240 a week in compensation as she was dependent on him for income.

When she entered a new relationship she failed to inform ACC. Even after having a child to her new partner she denied it on ACC forms.

Yates, 49, appeared before Judge Peter Rollo in Hamilton District Court on Thursday and admitted a representative charge of fraud.

Crown prosecutor Charles Bean said Yates' offending was premeditated and deliberate over a period of seven years.

"This is an extraordinary amount of money, it is near the most serious of its kind," Mr Bean said.

Defence lawyer Rob Ord said Yates and her de facto partner slept in separate rooms and she convinced herself they were not in a relationship.

He said some people communicated better face-to-face and ACC should have made an effort to check up on her.

The judge ordered Yates to pay back the money at $20 a week, beginning six weeks after her release.

"The obligation was on you to complete declaration honestly, and clearly it was not for ACC to check up on your veracity," the judge said.

He granted her permission to apply for home detention.
0

#2 User is offline   Hatikva 

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

  Posted 21 January 2006 - 02:01 PM

Magnacarta - you said ...

Quote

The conduct outlined in this Court Report below gives all ACC claimants a bad name. I just wonder when we will see similar headlines for ACC employees defrauding claimants.

The challenge for authorities in NZ is surely to ensure there is equality before the law.

As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said in a case: "Those in authority who turn a blind-eye to fraud and corruption in the government sector are themselves corrupt."


Let's just see how HONEST (*error intentional*) and STRAIGHT UP (ditto - error intentional) ACC are ... and it's not even one month into 2006

Well, in January 2006 thus far ACC have:

1: Changed my name from that on the ACC45 to another name
2: Found an address that was NOT my address (wrong town and wrong region) and sent mail to that address, and in that letter stated that if I didn't reply to theiir letter and if I didn't complete the enclosed forms (sent to wrong name and wrong address) I would not be entitled to support or treatment costs, to quote:

"If you decide not to provide this information, ACC will decline your claim. This will mean that you will not qualify for help with treatment costs or other support for this injury"

3: IGNORED the reference to the correct Kxxxxxx claim number which was carefully placed (written on) the ACC45 and instead opened a new claim number under an entirely different prefix P542........

4: They obiously got some information about me somewhere from their files (the incorrect address - it's close but not quite right as it quotes Rotorua and Murupara but not the town where we live) - so some bright spark found that in the records. I spent considerable time, effort, phone calls, mail and faxes sorting this out before.

BUT THEN they demand I prove my residency status by completing an ACC164 residency questionnaire? What in hell are they doing? ALL THAT INFORMATION IS ON FILE. And if the stupid sods looked up the K05xxxx claim numbers carefully provided for them on the ACC45 ... And they obviously looked up something and IGNORED the name and other inforation on the ACC45 (they did however manage to transfer the date across correctly - suspect that may have been the ONLY correct information transferred)

If I wasn't so lucky as to have a postal service that recognised the suberb as being a town 70 or so KM from Rotorua, and ignored the fact that the address given was also an address in that town, and managed to deliver it to me in the correct town (and NOT Rotorua)... I would have been unable to complete the forms as I hadn't received them - but that wouldn't matter to the bast*rds at ACC would it?

Now I ask you - was this an error of OMISSION or COMISSION (FRAUD) on behalf of ACC? I submit to you that the latter interpretation is correct.
0

#3 Guest_lorilye_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 21 January 2006 - 02:31 PM

Hi Hatvika,

The first problem is with the ACC45 form. This is a form for a new injury. This creates a shit load of NEW confusing files and numbers.

I have dicovered that these stupid forms are a real pest. If the "new" injury was a reaggravation of an "old" injury, has anything to do with an accepted injury site at all, then do not ever let the Dr use an ACC45.

Everything gets lost in the system in my experience, then it can takes months of fighting to bring it back in line, supposing you ever manage to do so.

They are so pedantic about forms and files and numbers.....I took an ACC45 form in and had to take it back three times.....the photocopied dated stamped by them copy....before it got into my file. They just denied it had ever been lodged....one copy has been datestamped received by them on two occassions....the first copy and the replacement again copy.

Arrgghh tis s wonder they don't get lost in all the stupid paper they generate.

Anyone else had dealings with this ACC45 throwing a spanner in the works?

Lori
0

#4 Guest_lorilye_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 21 January 2006 - 02:34 PM

Admin......Is there any chance of moving these two posts to a different thread? They will get lost in here.

Lori
0

#5 User is offline   batman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 17-September 05

Posted 21 January 2006 - 03:49 PM

Magnacarta you write ,I just wonder when we will see similar headlines for Acc employees defrauding claiments.

Well with the civil cases lodged in CHCH One case names three case managers.

Well I once used to dream of winning LOTTO now I dream of these three been in the stand If this does'nt wake people up to Acc as it is today they don't want to give long term claiment's any thing as the paper work would strengthen the claiment's claim instead it's surgeon shopping if they don't get what they want they file the report wait a couple of years change case managers then act like the injury just happened and it's healed the only thing you get is IMA,IOA .IN this case the doctor had the guts to put in writting in ten years on Acc your've had notthing Acc have been negligant.This should rise the odd judges eyebrows .Every long term claiment is in the same boat if you read your file all you get is surgeon shopping an Acc trying to make out your a nutter or dangerous.Their is no case management just mismanagement in fact you will be worse than when you started dealing with them.If your still on Acc after a couple of years you have to be mad as you keep asking WHAT"S GOING ON AND TRY TO WORK OUT HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN THIS DAY AN AGE?--THEY DON"T WANT YOU IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY.THEY GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO TAKE IT OFF YOU.MOST OF IT ILLEGAL IF NOT ALL.
0

#6 User is offline   watcha 

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

Posted 21 January 2006 - 10:15 PM

HAS THERE BEEN A GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE???

It appears that Mrs. Yates' husband had a accident that led to his death in 1980, therefore, he (his widow) would have been in receipt of entitlements pursuant to the Accident Compensation Act 1972 - an act that was not as niggardly as its successors.

It also appears that ACC, the prosecutor and the judge interpreted a relationship in terms of the Social Welfare legislation in that a defacto relationship is effectively a marriage and if this is indeed the case, they all got it horribly wrong.

1972 Act sec. 123(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a person dies as a result of personal injury by accident in respect of which the person had cover under this Act, the Commission shall payŚ

(a) To the deceased person's widow or widower, whether or not she or he was married to the deceased person at the time of the accident, if she or he was dependent on the deceased person immediately before the time of the accident, and if payments to the deceased person of earnings related compensation had not at the deceased person's death already ceased by reason of subsection (1) of section 128 of this Act, until the date on which earnings related compensation ceases under subsection (2) of that section to be payable to the widow or widower on account of age or until her or his sooner death or remarriage, earnings related compensation


Note were it states death or remarriage. Mrs. Yates did not remarry and there is no reference to a relationship in the nature of a marriage other than an implication in (a) whether or not she or he was married to the deceased person

Under this Act (and the 1982 Act) Mrs. Yates should be entitled to weekly compensation until her death, remarriage or until attaining the age of 65. Entitlements for dependent children are a separate issue.

It needs further research of the transitional provisions of the subsequent Acts, but on the face of it, this woman has been well and truly shafted and if anyone knows of the defence lawyer, please get in touch with him and wise him up, he may be inexperienced in ACC law and the deviousness of the Corporation.

There is, of course, the possiblity that she did subsequently marry her "partner" and the reporter simply overlooked that very important fact, but that's another story.

It also appears from the limited facts in the article that she may have married her partner 7 years after her former husband's death, hence the accusation of the fraud over a 7 year period and if that is true, then maybe I am right.

Why can't the damn newspapers publish the full story? As it stands, it denigrates her and all claimants, perhaps that was the editor's (Fairfax) intention.

DOES THIS RAISE THE NUMBER OF WRONGLY CONVICTED TO 21???
0

#7 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 21 January 2006 - 11:14 PM

:o This sad case here demonstrates just how ignorant of their own Act are the Fraud unit and how the mindset of this corrupt organisation is Exit and prosecution!

The ACC should be well aware of their own legislation, but this is overlooked in the keeness to get KPI's and promo's.

Just goes to prove what has been said here, corrupt and ignorant lawyers and Judges. The judge should have also been aware that an ACC claimant is not under Social Welfare legislation.

Dark days are ahead for all of us I say!!

How can we help this poor woman?
0

#8 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 22 January 2006 - 06:25 AM

Percy and all, what someone needs to do in the Te Awamutu area where she is from, is to get in touch with the lawyer Rob Ord and see if we can establish all the facts.

Can someone research that - and post his details??????

The article does not say that she remarried - only that she entered into a new "relationship". The Acts at the time do not say "relationship"

If nothing else, we need to get to the truth - we all know how ACC operates.

The overridding consideration is whether truth and justice will emerge which is a matter of public interest and concern.

Remember the Waihi guy who got done for fraud, went to jail and his conviction subsequently quashed on appeal.
0

#9 Guest_Read Me_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 22 January 2006 - 08:42 AM

the yellow pages list this:

Rob Ord Barrister & Solicitor

109 Anglesea St Hamilton
0-7-838 2346
0

#10 User is offline   Hatikva 

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

Posted 22 January 2006 - 10:12 AM

Another thought - what were the "requirements" to report a new relationship to ACC under the terms of the previous act? Is the requirement CLEARLY STATED in the act? Where??

An interesting point - "death benefits" or an annuity payable at the death of the insured (which is what this actually is ..) under NORMAL (not abnormal ACC cr*p) - carry on into perpetuity (until the death of the recipient) -

In fact I suspect that if a NORMAL insurance corporation put a clause into their policies that if a person remarried or if they started to live with someone, the benefits of the (life insurance/whatever) policy would terminate forthwith - that they'd be had up QUICK SMART as it is ILLEGAL to discriminate on the basis of marital status? And that this sort of clause could be challenged (successfully) in court as being ultra vires (beyond law Latin for "beyond powers." It refers to conduct by a corporation or its officers that exceeds the powers granted by law. )

Hmmmmmmmm

:ph34r:
0

#11 User is offline   gaffa09 

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

Posted 22 January 2006 - 10:23 AM

Is there a list of abbreviation up on site if so can some one steer me to it ,

For new sufferers to this site and for some like my self forget the meaning ,
we need a list with the meaning
We need a full list at the beginning of this site

Starting from , AMA , Read code, BM, CM, BMA, IRP, and so on , What they stand for , Can some one help with this.

Good news for all readers as tomorrow I see me QC with the help of my lawyer ,
Most of my time is going to be taken up with taking direct action against ACC

I am also now on broadband with a new scanner, copier, printer , so old e-mail is no longer working ,
0

#12 User is offline   Hatikva 

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

  Posted 22 January 2006 - 10:41 AM

I'll have a bit of a go ..

AMA (American Medical Association
BM (other than the obvious - Branch Manager)
CM (Case Manager)
BMA ??
IRP Individual Rehabilitation Plan
Read Code - used by doctors to classify injury into a neat box as opposed to what the injury really is... see attachment for more info

PDF of read codes attached

Does anyone want a copy of the VOcational Medical Assessor guidelines??

Attached File(s)


0

#13 User is offline   Hatikva 

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

Posted 22 January 2006 - 10:51 AM

This may also be useful - ACC use of AMA (imparment guidelines ..)

Attached File(s)


0

#14 User is offline   Hatikva 

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

Posted 22 January 2006 - 10:59 AM

This may also be useful - ACC use of AMA (impairment guidelines ..)

It's too big to upload here ... search for User Handbook to AMA4 on the ACC website ... Publications

ACC716 ... go to Resources for Providers - ALL the resources are listed here ...
0

#15 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 22 January 2006 - 11:48 AM

BMA = Branch medical advisor

Usually a GP.......
0

#16 Guest_lorilye_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 22 January 2006 - 12:01 PM

Hi Watcha,

You clarify my immediate concerns on reading about the prosecution for fraud - Yates.

I immediately pulled up the acts and tried to find what you agree is not there.

Of course with all the misinformation "they" disseminate and all the misinformation the media disseminate....we may not have all the facts straight.....but....it certainly says until the dependant spouse, remarries or dies.

This "insurance" is fast becoming a benefit....a benefit is covered by the high taxation level NZers endure. Who the hell expects to pay extra over and above for another benefit....when only one can be collected on.....collect it carefully.

Lori
0

#17 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 22 January 2006 - 12:38 PM

Spouse is defined in s.6 with reference to s.18 - but that seems to me to expressly relate between the spouse of the deceased, not of any subsequent arrangement after death.

I cannot find any reference to, or definition of, "partner" in the Act.

When you consider that all law is supposed to be written for the people to know, understand and keep, it just shows the mess New Zealand has allowed to become when ordinary people, clearly, cannot even understand the laws supposedly written on their behalf and in their name.
0

#18 User is offline   Hatikva 

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

Posted 22 January 2006 - 02:48 PM

Dave...

A point I'd like to have clarification on (through the courts ..) ... Can the definition of "partner, de facto etc seen as same as married ... " be retroactively applied ... ?? If so, then this an extremely dangerous precident.

The issue here is that an act that was legal up to 2005 (receiving compensation in this case while in defacto/partner relationsip and under terms of an ACC act from several years ago and under which compensation was rightly paid) is RETROACTIVELY deemed to be now a criminal act as the new definitions are retroactivly applied to legislation permitting the person to live in a non married relationship without penalty is nullified and a new definition which creates a retrospective crime is put into it's place.

A case could also then be made for changing the speed limit on the highway to 90 KMH say on April 1, 2006 and then CHARGING EVERY ONE CAUGHT OVER THAT LIMIT ON SPEED CAMERAS IN PREVIOUS YEARS - IN OTHER WORDS IF YOU WERE DRIVING AT THE LEGAL 100 IN 2004 AND 2005, YOU COULD NOW BE CHARGED ... IF THEY HAD YOU NOTED AS TRAVELLING WITHIN THE LIMIT THEN, BUT NOW THAT THE LIMIT IS CHANGED ...

I personally think that a very dangerous precident is being established - you could also for example deem that the smoking legislation is retrospective and then charge ANY pub or establishment owner that permitted smoking prior to the enactment of the current legislation...
0

#19 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 22 January 2006 - 03:33 PM

Hatikva - s.7 Interpretation Act 1999


7. Enactments do not have retrospective effect—

An enactment does not have retrospective effect.


There are instances (very, very, rare) where Parliament has made legislation retrospective but only by explicit statutory language.
0

#20 User is offline   Hatikva 

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

  Posted 22 January 2006 - 04:16 PM

Hmm... if acts aren't retrospective, then if only "marriage" was defined in the earlier act under which this claim challenged.. why is she now being convicted as being in a relationship which wasn't defined under the act from which she was receiving benefit?

(mind you, the press indicated that the person didn't say she was in a relationship, however if she thought that the requirement was to report the fact only if she was married -... which she wasn't (and this assumption was valid under the old law .. ??)- and further, if the forms were designed under the NEW act and not under the old act should this be construed as an error of omission or commission? It is indeed hard enough to sort out the various forms that the government throw at us when we've had a post secondary education - what about the poor folks that are not privileged to have that level of education and/or training?)

IMHO ACC erred if in fact they changed the legislation, and then updated the forms to reflect the details pertaining to the current legislation, and did not provide forms corresponding to the OLD legislation for those who were receiving benefits under the OLD legislation... In effect setting up recipients to fail under law... Further does ACC not carry a responsiblity to ensure that people are provided support in understanding the impact of changes etc, and further well before a debt of some thousands of dollars is amassed?

Reminds me of the Salem Witch trials - and other such witch hunts...

SIEG HEIL ACC. You are emulating Hitler VERY well, trust that the Minister in Charge is a card carrying member of the SS and/or Gestapo.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 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