ACCforum: Acc Fraud - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Acc Fraud Nationwide filing of fraud charges

#1 User is offline   watcha 

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

Posted 21 February 2004 - 11:53 PM

ACC Levy Payers' Association (ALAP)

ALAP is an organisation of aggreived levy payers, some of whom are acc claimants, some are claimants' family members, some are motor vehicle owners, some are wage and salary earners, some are employers.

The reality is that all the above are ACC levy payers in one form or another.

Section 275 of the IPR&C Act 2001 permits the Corporation to invest only those funds not immediately required for expenditure. Consider those words "not immediately required for expenditure"

ALAP is of the opinion that rehabilitation is an expenditure. Claimants are being denied rehabilitation and are being exited from the scheme by any means possible and if not exited, then weekly compensation suspended together with social and vocational rehabilitation, usually on the most spurious grounds, or worse still, engineered "non-compliance"

ALAP is of the opinion that ACC is misappropriating a large portion of the $2.3 Billion annual collection of funds from levy payers by channeling money that should go towards claimants' rehabilitation into overseas investments. In other words, the Corporation is guilty of committing fraud against, not only levy payers, but also against the public of New Zealand. It is potentially the greatest fraud in New Zealand's history, a scam of enormous proportions.

ALAP has requested Acclaim Canterbury Inc, and as many Acclaim support groups as are willing to participate, to provide it with information relating to denied rehabilitation, the reasons for denial - if any, assessment(s) for entitlements listed on IRPs but not implemented, the names of Corporation personal involved in denial/delay of entitlements, the names of vocational/medical assessors and service providers who are, or are likely to be, involved in decisions to deny/delay provision of entitlements.

ALAP intends to collate sufficient information to enable it to file a complaint with the Police alleging that the Corporation and its personal have, and are, commiting fraud by misappropriating funds that should be allocated to rehabilitation entitlements. The charges may include the allegation that Corporation employees gain pecuniary advantage in the form of incentive payments from misappropriating those same funds.

Additionally, the ALAP alleges that the Corporation is guilty of false advertising and is seriously considering filing a complaint with the Commerce Commission.

The Corporation's logo states Prevention Care Recovery. The words included in the logo is tantamount to a false statement
Prevention - preventing access to entitlements.
Care - preventing proper care by denying access to adequate rehabilitation.
Recovery - preventing/delaying recovery by denying/delaying access to adequate rehabilitation.

The spirit and the substance of the IPR&C Act 2001 are being flouted by the Corporation in a manner that is both cavalier and criminal.

ALAP and claimant support groups have had enough.
Watcha
0

#2 User is offline   twostickswalking 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-September 03

Posted 22 February 2004 - 01:37 PM

at last , lets start with the IA around 1997, the one where by the ACC assessment unit, told claimants to attend a meeting otherwise their entitlements may be suspended if they didn't and proceeded to downscale the IA. this was supposed
to be conducted as agreement by the claimants, and the acc

some forms were not signed and the acc assessor downscaled anyway.
some questions were never asked, and the assessor downscaled anyway

and if there was an agreement between two parties, how come acc never signed or dated the forms, thats no agreement
0

#3 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 24 February 2004 - 09:31 PM

Well Michael Cullen was minister of ACC when labour took power. Lianne Dalziel was associate minister. Cullen had treasury as well so it looks like it.
0

#4 Guest_flowers_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 26 February 2004 - 07:13 PM

ACC treats accident Victims like fraudsters.
Page1. Dominion post, Thursday February 28 2004

Attached File(s)


0

#5 Guest_flowers_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 26 February 2004 - 07:20 PM

page 2

Attached File(s)


0

#6 Guest_flowers_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 26 February 2004 - 07:22 PM

page3

Attached File(s)


0

#7 Guest_flowers_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 26 February 2004 - 07:24 PM

page 4

Attached File(s)


0

#8 User is offline   grumpy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 04-October 03

Posted 26 February 2004 - 09:10 PM

ACC insists on putting more difficulties in the way of genuine accident victims is exactly why they demand photo ID.
No collusion between myself and my health provider of over 22years, same bank account for over 15 years. I wouldn't like to guess how many case managers in 13 years when case manager asks for photo ID in case they are paying the wrong person.
0

#9 Guest_flowers_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 27 February 2004 - 07:56 AM

Correct me if I am wrong but I dont think mainstream Insurance companies demand photo ID.
If this is so, what give these jumped up puplic servants the right to demand, with menances, something that is at the best highly suspicious if not Illegal???????????????????????????????????????????????????
0

#10 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 02 March 2006 - 12:01 AM

just had to post this sent to me by a fellow sufferer.

Attached File(s)


0

#11 User is offline   cheeky 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 11 March 2006 - 10:02 PM

Good point about photo id and other insurers, flowers.
Watcha Are you aware that around 1995 irp"s used to have a section at the back that said something like total cost of rehabilitation, we refused to sign the irp because acc had not filled this out. This was repeatedly pointed out to acc. That section has now conveniently disappeared off the irp form. My question is this when did acc stop projecting expenditure on claimants and where was this in the act?
cheers cheeky
0

#12 User is offline   Easyrider 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 12 March 2006 - 08:25 AM

You do not have to supply photo ID. A birth certifcaite will do. ACC has in the regs what you have to supply, and it does not say photo ID.
0

#13 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1704
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 12 March 2006 - 05:33 PM

Cheeky, they may have stopped putting the rehabilitation costs on the IRP, but legislation (Section 87) require the ACC to carry out the cost effectiveness if all Vocational rehabilitation.

every time that the ACC refuse rehabilitation it must be due to the cost effective of supplying that rehabilitation.

All of those Pain clinics Work hardening programme must show the cost effective in the file before those programmes were undertaken.

How many have been through a work hardening ot work experance programme and looked in there file to find no cost or predicted savings in the file.
0

#14 User is offline   Shannon 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 23-September 03

Posted 13 March 2006 - 08:43 AM

Photo ID
Refuse it.
Suggested to me by another acc long term claimant get them to produce earlier medical certificate with your signature on then sign again in front of them.
Thats all the proof they need.

Regards Shannon
0

#15 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 13 March 2006 - 09:00 AM

Cheeky,
There is another twist to the cost of Rehab, etc on your IRP.
Not only does it include Rehab costs, but all the ERC they have paid you, GP and Treatment visits, etc. Everything.

This IRP goes to a number of ACC toadies, ie IMA< IOA< Specialist doing an exam for them, etc. It should not be sent , but it is their policy.

WHY SHOULD THESE PEOLPE KNOW EXACTLY HOW MUCH ACC HAVE SPENT ON YOU?

It could convince them that ACC have spent enough and get on with it.
The costs that you have incurred with ACC are a private, personal matter between only you and ACC. If it appears on your IRP, ask CM to remove it before you sign the doco.

You can ask to get a copy of the VOUCHER file and there all the invoices and costs are there. This is a personal matter and not for anyone's eyes to view what your personal "insurance " has cost.

Regarding Photo ID<
I once told a CM that she was breaking the law by taking my photo ID away and photocopying it. I said a Drivers License is the property of Land Transport and is not to be photocopied. Asked her why she need it and it "had to go on the file" Wonder why?

Well, she went white and handed it back to me. She had broken enough privacy laws ??
0

#16 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 28 February 2007 - 08:37 PM

""Good point about photo id and other insurers, flowers.
Watcha Are you aware that around 1995 irp"s used to have a section at the back that said something like total cost of rehabilitation, we refused to sign the irp because acc had not filled this out. This was repeatedly pointed out to acc. That section has now conveniently disappeared off the irp form. My question is this when did acc stop projecting expenditure on claimants and where was this in the act?
cheers cheeky""

YOU WILL NOW FIND IT IN YOUR FILES IF YOU REQUEST THEM IN_TOTO.

There were heaps of other reasons why many did not sign and the main one being IT WAS PRESENTED AS A FAIT ACCOMPLI ( no consultation)and we were told to sign it OR ELSE!

They are still doing it as my most recent drizzle hearing attests in as much as it was a decided rewrite presented again with menaces which was DEEMED and etc. etc.
0

#17 User is offline   Benson 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 09-May 06

Posted 01 March 2007 - 11:04 AM

next time anyone is ask for photo ID they should ask the case manager for photo id also just in case they aren't who they say they are. I would bet most don't use there real names. :D :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
0

#18 User is offline   BLURB 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 02 March 2007 - 02:10 PM

Requested the following last year

The cost of having AON case manage my lower back injury file from 2000 and July 2002.

Sorry, not allowed to give you that information.

OK then.

= AON was a contractual third party case management service provider to CATALYST/ACC

= CATALYST is now the LONG TERM CLAIMS UNIT
= also refered to as the "Claimant exiting unit"

blurb :D
0

#19 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 02 March 2007 - 03:58 PM

View PostBLURB, on Mar 2 2007, 03:10 PM, said:

Requested the following last year

The cost of having AON case manage my lower back injury file from 2000 and July 2002.

Sorry, not allowed to give you that information.

OK then.

= AON was a contractual third party case management service provider to CATALYST/ACC

= CATALYST is now the LONG TERM CLAIMS UNIT
= also refered to as the "Claimant exiting unit"

blurb :D

Did you use the Official information Act and Privacy Act, if so go to the Ombudsmen. They usually force Govt Corporations to give out this stuff, especially if it related to you.
0

#20 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 22 March 2010 - 09:15 AM

bump
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