ACCforum: Acc Fraud Unit In Action - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Acc Fraud Unit In Action Williscroft and Cheetham on the loose again!

#1 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

  Posted 11 May 2007 - 03:58 PM

I have enclosed below my complaint to the Privacy Commissioner, which is self explanatory.

This matter has been with the Privacy Commissioner 4 weeks, and today I received a letter saying that the Privacy Commission is receiving so many complaints and have been unable to allocate an investigator to look into this matter. The letter goes on in the vein that that the Office of the Privacy Commission are not sure what I am complaining about and appear to be seeking further clarification?

The following letter to the Privacy Commissioner included a copy of a report from Paragon Risk to ACC detailing Paragon Risk's actions complained about in complaint 1 and 2, and copies of ACC correspondence backing up complaint 3.

Am I as thick as Easyrider's dog or do I have such a poor command of the English language that the what I am complaining about in my letter is abundantly clear ???? I could also write this letter in German or Russian and make myself understood, but the grammar would not be perfect.

I would be interested to hear if forum members can understand what my complaint is about?


To: Office of the Privacy Commissioner
P O Box 10 094
Wellington
Fax 04 474 7595

Thursday, 12 April 2007

Dear sirs,

Official Complaints.

Complaint 1.

I wish to make a formal complaint about Paragon Risk, its investigator Bob Cheetham, and Immigration New Zealand.
Mr Cheetham obtained the complete file of my wife, Oksana XXXXX (a New Zealand resident) from Catherine Francis Hogan, Immigration Officer of Immigration New Zealand. Neither Mr Cheetham nor Immigration New Zealand had the authority of Oksana or me for Immigration NZ to release this private and personal information about Oksana and me to Mr Cheetham.
Mr Cheetham, posing as a “detective” then used the immigration file in his possession to intimidate my wife (who has a limited knowledge of English) to sign a statement he had prepared about my business activities while we were both outside New Zealand in 2003.
As a result of Mr Cheetham having a full copy of her immigration file, his interrogation and demand she sign statements about my business affairs, my wife Oksana is fearful about her immigration status and has sought my help in this matter. I am concerned that private and personal information concerning my wife and I are in the hands of unauthorised persons and are being used for nefarious purposes.
A Privacy Act complaint form signed by Oksana XXXXX in enclosed, but as she is a Russian National with New Zealand residency, she is not aware of her rights in this situation, and thus I am acting on her behalf in forwarding the complaint to you.

Complaint 2

I wish to make a formal complaint is against Mr. Martin Williscroft and Mr. Bob Cheetham.
In February 2006 Mr Williscroft wrote to my GP Dr O’Connor advising that Mr Cheetham of Paragon Risk was undertaking a review and investigation of the past earnings capacity of Mr XXXXl on behalf of ACC. Mr Williscroft instructed Dr O’Connor that he was to provide information under principle 11, paragraph (e) i to iv. A copy of this letter is enclosed, obtained from Dr O’Connor. ACC have not disclosed this letter despite being requested to do so under the Privacy Act.
The purpose of gathering this information, as stated in the Paragon Risk report to ACC dated 19 October 2006, “was to establish if the claimant (Mr XXXX) had committed any offence”. (Note – to date no “offence” has been uncovered!)
As a result of the interview between Mr Cheetham and Dr O'Connor, Mr Cheetham of Paragon Risk obtained a statement from Dr O’Connor and a full copy of my medical files. I believe there is no legitimate reason for Paragon Risk obtaining this copy of my medical files, and seek its return and all copies destroyed.
ACC already had my medical notes, forwarded to the ACC in October 2004 by Dr O’Connor.
Therefore my complaint is that Mr Williscroft and Mr Cheetham are colluding and using Principle 11 paragraph (e) of the Privacy Act for “fishing expeditions” to gather private information, and that the agency does not have reasonable grounds, as required under the Privacy Act, to obtain this information.
I am also concerned that ACC are using Principle 11 paragraph (e) to interrogate my doctor about my financial and business affairs. I believe that this is highly inappropriate and unethical.

Complaint 3

I wish to make a formal complaint against the ACC Corporation and Mr Williscroft for failing to supply requesting personal and private information.
On May 25th 2006 I made a request under the official Information Act and Privacy Act for documents held by Mr Williscroft of ACC. The documents requested were required for a tribunal hearing under Part 5 of the Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Act 2001. The request was declined by Mr Williscroft, citing section 27 of the Privacy Act (Security, defence, international relations etc) and as a result these documents were not made available to me for the tribunal hearing or the subsequent Appeal to the District Court. Because these documents were unavailable, I was unsuccessful in review, and was forced to withdraw my appeal.
On the 8th February 2007 I made a request under the Official Information Act and Privacy Act to ACC for a complete copy of my investigation file. As a result of this request, on the 15th March 2007 I have receiver part (possible about 50%?) of the file and documents it contains, including the enclosed report from Paragon Risk. I wrote to ACC on the 15th March requesting that a complete copy of my Investigation File, but to date this correspondence has not been replied to or the requested documentation supplied.
The summary report of the investigation by Paragon Risk, sent to ACC on the 19th October (page 2 paragraph 2) shows the purpose of the investigation “was to establish if the claimant has committed any offence”.
As this is the case, I believe ACC have no right whatsoever to continue to withhold these documents. Furthermore, I now require this documentation for an Appeal to the District Court for ACC’s unreasonable delay in providing entitlements.



I believe I have been under investigation by Paragon Risk and Bob Cheetham for over 3 years. As has been reported back to me, he has approached friends, acquaintances, business associates, my doctor, Government Departments and my bank, seeking information about my business and private life; and disclosing he is “investigating me for fraud”. This has had an adverse effect on my business contacts, and also in my dealings with the bank.
However, I have committed no crime, I stand accused of no crime; and as Paragon Risk report reveals, the continuing investigation is “to establish if the claimant has committed any offences”. I note that the Paragon Risk report to ACC contains many factual errors and is littered with false assumptions.

As this “investigation” drags into its 4th year, I continue to suffer from the effect of the speculation and innuendo created by Williscroft and Cheetham through their investigation; and my ACC entitlements, including medical treatment and weekly compensation continue to be withheld due to this investigation; and investigation to establish if I have committed any offences. The amount of weekly compensation owed to me, currently being withheld by ACC, now exceeds $240,000.

I consider this situation to be a gross breech of Human Rights as well as provisions of the Privacy Act
I have enclosed copies on my correspondence with ACC in this matter and look forward to your investigation of these abuses of privacy and my rights, by ACC and Paragon Risk.


Yours sincerely,
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 May 2007 - 05:39 PM

Coincidentally I complained about Bob Cheetham, ACC and New Zealand Immigration Services almost 10 years ago about virtually the same stuff to the Privacy Commissioner, amongst others. I too received a letter that also said much the same as what they have said to you. I also questioned as to whether or not my communication was with sufficient clarity containing relevant detail.

As our cases have many parallels and I have seen such parallels with other people's cases it is clear that we have an abundance of same fact evidence to achieve a criminal prosecution against these people.


Parallel to your complaint 1.

Bob Cheetham (ACC) had acquired private information from immigration for the purposes of reducing the ACC liability. In addition they had reconfigured that information to mean something entirely different. In addition they had withheld the information under the Privacy Act claiming privilege for purposes of criminal prosecution. All manner of other migrants had been intimidated by Robert Cheetham whereby he had solicited Corporation of his stories or face prosecution themselves for not co-operating with any "detective". These are people coming from communist countries where these types of threats are very real.

Copies of various immigration files were acquired including my de facto wife (the equivalent to your Oksana) whereupon he was threats of her being deported resulting in her departing from New Zealand on her own account. She returned to New Zealand by way of a special-purpose visa to give evidence in court only to be deported based on Robert Cheetham claiming she was not needed for evidence even though he had submitted his File in the court as evidence. She was also required for the civil appeal within the currency of her special purpose visa from which he was deported for five years on the basis of Robert Cheetham say so rendering me without my witness and that there are my privacy being deprived.


Parallel to your complaint 2

Martin Williscroft and Robert Cheetham communicated with a large number of people acquiring from them my private information in an attempt to determine earnings when the information was already on file. My doctor was told that he was not allowed to make any assessments of my incapacity and that his future medical certificates would be rejected and he would be reported to the Medical Council. The ACC had on my file only a limited consent to acquire information via myself regarding all matters and in particular medical information.

Martin Williscroft and Robert Cheetham arranged for search warrants of a large number of bank accounts including the bank accounts of other people searching for information about me breaching both my privacy and the privacy of others. It is clear that these two were actively engaged in "fishing expeditions" looking for potential crime rather than proof of crime. What these people do is gather information in the hope that they can reconfigured that information into something other than what the information says. In my case quite probably over 100 were interviewed to yield 43 witnesses whom were instructed by Robert Cheetham under the supervision of Martin Williscroft that I was not entitled to my ACC claim even though there is no information to suggest my incapacity had ended or that I was working so as to initiate any kind of medical assessment to determine the level of incapacity.

My doctor and various other medical professionals were examined during the trial so as to attend a manufacture of information on the fly even though there was no actual information in existence to bring the matter to trial. My surgeon was told to agree that he would not have operated on me and he had known that I was not incapacitated. The surgeon properly replied that he does not operate on people that are not injured. My doctor was asked if he would have signed medical certificates had he known that I was working. First of all I wasn't working in the doctor didn't have any information about the allegations that I was working. He said that he would not signed medical certificates at the thought I was working. Secondly straightaway after the trial he was allowed to speak with me again and immediately signed medical certificates confirming that I could not work. He was asked questions about my alleged working both before the trial and during the trial and at each stage he confirmed the nature of the business I owned and the extent of my involvement and my objectives of self rehabilitation and other activities. What he could not say, for reasons of privacy, is that his other patient was the manager of the company and therefore knew far more than he could say.

The bottom line here is the Williscroft and Cheetham actively acquire information and legally and then misrepresenting of information even to the extent of threatening witnesses.


Parallel to your Complaint 3

I had requested information under the Privacy Act and Official Information Act from Williscroft about the alleged work described in my cancellation letter signed by the fraud unit supervised by him. The information was withheld from me based on Williscroft's instructions also citing section 27 of the Privacy Act. Also the information was prevented from being challenged at review hearing rendering a review hearing of the alleged work an impossibility. Because these documents were unavailable I was unsuccessful at review. A slight difference at appeal to the Review Hearing was that the ACC asked the court registrar to delay may appeal rights and definitely because they wanted to rely upon section 27 of the privacy act. 10 years later I still did not have this so-called information protected by section 27 of the Privacy Act. I did not withdraw my appeal so Williscroft initiated a criminal prosecution by asking Cheetham to submit information is to obtain a summons to initiate the criminal prosecution. (Private criminal prosecution as opposed a police or Crown prosecutor prosecution).

I too have requested a full the investigation file after the criminal trial in a can be no possibility of an issue under section 27 of the privacy act or anything similar. The only lawful reason they can keep the investigation file from you is when there is an ongoing investigation. My ongoing investigation when from 1990 until 1999 and even up until the present they still will not release this file. This means that the so-called investigation file has been going for almost 18 years. From 1990 until 1992 the investigation should have been at any when the reviewer to them in a review hearing decision that they were wrong. The evidence it is Cheetham and Williscroft flout the law knowing that no one were taken to task. The lesson I have learnt is that they simply must be prosecuted and put in prison to keep the rest of us safe.
0

#3 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 11 May 2007 - 05:57 PM

Before those lying idots went to your Dr or anybody else they shoud have come to you. Section 309 is there in black abnd white.


Why did you loose ths review hearing. because ACC didn't put forward the information and claimed that they had other stuff.

Request a copy of there contract. Send the privacy Commissioner a copy of the one that you have.

apply for a review under section 308 and 310.
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 May 2007 - 06:47 PM

Dopplegangger the equivalent of S309 was already tried but they found they already had all of the information. What they wanted was new information that was different to the original information supplied by all of the experts. They were going to charge me with this charge but quickly realised that they couldn't because they already had all of the information.

They got search warrants after the review hearing to find the information they thought must have existed to support their hypothesis. The problem is I never found any information and therefore could never deliver it to the court. Nevertheless they perpetuated the lie that they had such information when in fact they didn't. The Hayes appeal is about this subject whereby a criminal court is told by the ACC that he does not need to worry about whether or not the ACC has come to a decision based on any information at all. The court thinks that these minor details that matter to the jury which is the reason why that case goes before the Supreme Court and why my case is one of the very few waiting its turn at the privy Council.

As the ACC fraud unit strategy is to manufacture evidence or claim that there is evidence when in fact there is none people like Spacecadet are in grave danger of a prosecution based on a hypothesis with the assumption that the ACC have made their decisions properly which by the time they get into the criminal court does not need to be proven. In other words prove beyond reasonable doubt is out the window replaced with the ACC assumption and in this case that infamous duo Cheetham and Williscroft.
0

#5 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 11 May 2007 - 06:52 PM

yes Doppleganger - you are correct. And unfortunately the looser in my complaint 2 may be my GP - who I have not complained about. I accept he was bullied by the ACC heavies into handing over my medical files to the PI - someone not entitled to view or receive them.

As for the review hearing: In May last year I applied for a review because ACC was withholding my entitlement under s117 (as advised verbally and in writing by Mr Williscroft). ACC, by letter, denied such a decision had been made, and instead substituted a new decision - entitlement "unable to be determined".

When it went to review, Agent Orange ruled only on this "new decision" (hang on - I never asked for this "new decision"to be reviewed?) Am I loosing the plot here?
I recently obtained a copy of my Pathways file - guess what? It states that in May 2006 my entitlement was withheld under s117 - immediately followed by the letter to me denieing such a decision had been made !!!!!

I lodged an appeal on the grounds the issue I put to review was not the issue that Mr Orange issued a ruling on. I wrote to ACC requested documents under s154 for the appeal. ACC refused to supply the documents, including my pathways file (Contained too much incriminating evidence). Date for filing submissions came and went - so I was forced to withdraw the appeal.
I only obtained my pathways file several months later after the intervention of Warren. Yes - it contained all the information I needed for the Appeal, unfortunately 8 weeks too late!

I am slowly getting wiser as my claim progresses into its 5th year. Current status in Pathways "Accepted and current" - actual status - still on an Invalids Benefit.
0

#6 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 11 May 2007 - 07:18 PM

Allan go and read section 309 especially subsection 4.

Section 117 and they are saying that you have been earning, working ect. The dickheads haven't got back to your case manager . use this against them.

section 308 is about misleading the corporation. you need facts and figures.

Ask you case manager to provide the Medical Certificates from your Drs.

Ask your case manager to privide any earnings that the corporation has been notified of either by you or someone else. that covers part of section 310.

Now your Dr may not know section 309 of the Act and like most Drs he will think that the dickheads will be right.

Your complaint to the Privacy Commission should only be that of the Dickheads as they are the ones that broke the law. They know this part of the legislation (or one would think so)

Need to set some of the staff in your local branch up for a large fall along with the cheeting man and Willycross.
0

#7 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 12 May 2007 - 07:14 AM

To those that contacted me privately

I have published the actual names of those people involved in my complaint and I welcome any of them to take legal action against me.

No I not breeching their privacy - they are breeching mine!

Unfortunately it is not a criminal offence to breech the Privacy Act and there appears to be no remedy. ACC and other Government departments and PIs are aware of this and breech the Act with impunity.

The only practicle purpose the Privacy Act appears to have is that it provides a legitimate grounds for Government Agencies to avoid disclosure of information being held about you.
0

#8 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 12 May 2007 - 09:18 AM

Spacecadet

You have some homework to do.

You need to find out what these 'dicks' can do legaly.

The people who give Private Investigators their up-dated liceices every year or so are the people who can help you here.

I doubt that you would find they have the right to access immigration or your bank accounts. However I have not read what powers they actually do have. It is the first reading I would do if I were in your position.

I would then find out if ACC has the right to use your signed authority for them to gather information, to stretch to these lengths, outside contracted persons. I hardly think so.

As you say you have not be found to have broken any laws and they have had you under investigation for four years. One would think they would have found something by now if there was anything to find.

I think this needs to be attended to before you go to Appeal as the Judge would be interested in hearing all of what you are going through as this is actually what is holding up your entitlements.

Again the length of time they seem to have taken is oppressive and certainly would impact on your mental health and likelyhood of recovery.

Have they smash and grabbed your documentation as well.

I should imagine the lot down south will be including you all in its approach to ACC about handling of these investigations.

Have you compared the document you have from the Investigator to ACC, with the actual contract that has been posted up here between the two of them to make sure they are indeed holding to that contract.

If they are not then obviously the contract is not worth a piece of the old 'proverbial' is it? Remember, they get paid by ACC on the streagth of that document.

Prove yourself innocent. This can be done. Mr Thomas is a exellent example of the fact that if you calm up, and do nothing, you will indeed be found guilty, if they ever lay a charge.

Get in their face!!

Cheers Mini
0

#9 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 12 May 2007 - 09:24 AM

Spacecadet wrote re = "Am I as thick as Easyrider's dog or do I have such a poor command of the English language that the what I am complaining about in my letter is abundantly clear ???? I could also write this letter in German or Russian and make myself understood, but the grammar would not be perfect.

I would be interested to hear if forum members can understand what my complaint is about?"



I'm pretty much zonked out at the moment spacecadet but had absolutly no problems what-so-ever in understanding what you wrote .... so whats their problem?

English, German or Russian language ... We could also translate your letter into "Frustrated ACC Claimants language" Spacecadet, but guess it would need to be tagged R65 lol

You'll know they've read and understood it if it ends up going throught their shreadder or into the wastepaper basket instead of into your file LOL

blurb
0

#10 User is offline   Witchiepoo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 27-January 05

Posted 12 May 2007 - 09:32 AM

Spacie, I would be pulling complete copies of my files from your GP and Paragon Risk, if you haven't already. Hit all avenues ......... you'd be amazed what you can get from other avenues ! Hit everyone they have contacted for afadaviets/evidence of what has gone on .....

You haven't been found guilty of fraud so why are they withholding your ERC ? That is illegal until such time as they have a conviction ! Get your GP to write to the branch manager and complain ..... get your GP to get his lawyer involved - am wondering if your GP is batting hard enough for you ??? They will have interrogated specialists and all sorts of persons (they all hold files - get them !)

What area are you in ?

As I mentioned to you - make a complaint against Cheetham's license to the Registrar of Private Investigators in that he MADE FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ! etc. Registrar's email is : [email protected], Cheetham's PI Number is : Robert Cheetham PI(e) 1174

Your GP should be hounding the Branch Manager for answers on why your ERC is being withheld etc. without a closure on the investigation .....
0

#11 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 12 May 2007 - 09:55 AM

Mini
Dont worry, I know what the dicks can do legally. I even refused to be interviewed by Bob Cheetham - told him I didn't consort with criminals.
All of this is completely illegal - hence my complaint.

Blurb
Vielen Dank für Sie Anmerkungsklappentext. Alles wird verstanden.
Спасибо за Вас реклама комментариев. Все понято.

Witchipoo
is that [email protected] or [email protected] ? (some of us tend to be a bit dyslexic).
I am not convince that complaining to the PIs registration autority would achieve anything - only give them a chance to cover up when they are doing a very good job of stuffing it up as it is.
0

#12 User is offline   Witchiepoo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 27-January 05

Posted 12 May 2007 - 10:13 AM

[email protected]

You must have some LIES (False Assumptions) evidence that you can take to the Registrar ? He is totally unethical, I know .............

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD AT AUCKLAND

PI(e) 1174
In the Matter of Section 59, Private Investigators & Security Guards Act 1974

Between : xxxxxx
Complainant

And : Robert Chester Cheetham
Private Investigator

Date of Decision : 22nd August 2005

DECISION AS TO COSTS

15. I find it strange that a private investigator engaged by the Accident Compensation Corporation to investigate whether a recipient of compensation payments was otherwise working, would be unaware that compensation payments are subject to payment of PAYE tax. Presumably, the ACC personnel who engaged Mr Cheetham would have been aware of this, but did not advise him when otherwise briefing him to undertake the investigation.

16. If it had not been for this incorrect assumption on Mr Cheetham's part, the statement by him of which Miss XXXXXX complained would not have been made, and it is highly unlikely that any complaint would have followed.

17. To a large degree therefore, the Corporation and Mr Cheetham laid the foundation for the complaint in the manner I have outlined.

18. That being so, it does not seem to me to be appropriate to make an award of costs against Miss XXXXX in this case. The application made on behalf of Mr Cheetham for an award of costs is declined.


And believe me, this cost Paragon Risk, with all their Queen Street lawyers, who incidentially spat body fluids on my witness' face while he was in the witness box. Should have taken legal action against him for that alone. To top that off Mr Willie-soft and Mr C h e e t - e m during the proceedings never advised the judge that the investigation had been closed off with no prosecution 3 months earlier (I didn't know either) and they both stated on the witness stand "as far as we are concerned she is still working but short of contacting every employer in Auckland we can't prove it" FERKIN ARROGANT SONS OF ANAL BLOOD FARTS - OBVIOUSLY BOTH EX POLICE RAPISTS ............
0

#13 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 12 May 2007 - 10:31 AM

Witchiepoo wrote, and quite rightly so, the following ... "FERKIN ARROGANT SONS OF ANAL BLOOD FARTS - OBVIOUSLY BOTH EX POLICE RAPISTS ............"

Goooo girl, you Beauty! What an excellent description of an ACC PI!

fran
0

#14 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 12 May 2007 - 11:23 AM

Whichiepoo

It is a little different in cases of self employed people. Sometimes there is no PAYE listed.

But then I would doubt that these Investigators have access to IRD files. It would be well out of line if they did and please let me know without hesitation if this should come to light............anyone at all that is.

As the guy says he would have to approach all employers in Auckland directly!! Makes me think they havent got access to IRD material.

Mind you having said that your bank accounts would show any AP,s and where they came from.

As I have always said, they are very sloppy investigators. Obviously didnt do much investigation in the policeforce. Wouldn't take them as long to find something if they had. Mind you it is a neat way of not giving someone their entitlements as in Spacecadets case.

How bizzare!!
0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 May 2007 - 03:30 PM

The ACC have the ability and authority by legislation to extract information from the IRD. They do this routinely. No doubt this information acquisition must be conducted in the appropriate manner. In my own case when they alleged that I was working you would think that ACC would make a normal request such information in the usual way. Instead a clandestinely request was made that does not show up on my file yet other information coming from the tax IRP does, as is attached.

When the ACC make a legitimate inquiry to IRD and do so on the FICI6 form also attached. This stuff is not rocket science if the ACC did suspect someone was working or providing wrong information regarding earnings the very first port of call would be the IRD and not a PI.
0

#16 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 12 May 2007 - 03:42 PM

Mini Alan is correct, i also have on file a request from acc to ird for all tax details of the last 5 years in the current investigation.

I also see they went to baynet and got credit checks along with phone logs from a cell phone that i havent had for years.
0

#17 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 12 May 2007 - 03:44 PM

[quote]'maungataniwha' date='May 12 2007, 02:52 PM' post='44049']
[/quote] When I tried to complain, the authority did nothing because they didn't have evidence or a conviction against the Dick. Becuase it was my word against his, they said they couldn't do anything.[/quote]


I agree with you on this.

Meanwhile I have other irons in the fire - bigger nuts to roast - if you get what I mean.

Attached File(s)


0

#18 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 12 May 2007 - 03:55 PM

Re IRD / ACC

Please refer to Information Matching Agreements.

I think it is listed under the Official Information Act - have seen it scroll past on my screen recently.
Anyway - there are a multitude of these agreements between Govt Department which allow them to exchange information on their databases - and IRD would have access to every one of these.
I have seen print outs from WINZ with info from the IRD database, so I will make a small leap in assuming ACC can do the same. Probably not at branch level but definitely at Shamrock house.

Note: This information Matching Agreement extends even into motor vehicle registration!
0

#19 User is offline   gaffa09 

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

Posted 12 May 2007 - 04:11 PM

regarding ACC requesting info from IRD ,

This is only if it suits ACC, If acc has an investergation going on you than they seem to aquire the info ,
If the boot is on the other foot , ACC will not gather formation to support your own claim when you make a statement or produce Evidence to support your claim .

I know through my dealing with ACC regarding my taxi that i owned while i was working in the fire service ,
My lawyer also could not gather info from IRD from back in 1977 to 1981 period ,

But it is also funny ACC can find or produce documents that have been hidden all these years ,
Documents that i or my Lawyer has never seen before ,
0

#20 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 12 May 2007 - 04:24 PM

the current Act has a section in what infiormation is shared between departments. this information does not include ACC getting it for private investigators. the section is between 280 and 284. Take note that this does not include obtaining information for Fraud Investigation. You might need to check the IRD Act to see if they are allowed to release the information.
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