ACCforum: Cog To Have Input Into Fraud Review - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Cog To Have Input Into Fraud Review

#1 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 06 June 2007 - 07:17 PM

As advised on another thread -

Following my request that the fraud review be placed on the COG agenda yesterday and an explaination given as to why COG were not consulted as a stakeholder, Dr White's letter inviting COG to provide a submission to the review arrived....

The upshot being that the review is on the agenda and COG members have been invited to consult with their parent groups and begin to gather any material that members have, that could contribute to providing the reviewer with an overview of claimants' experience of the ACC Fraud team.

This review is not an appropriate forum to advance individual cases.

So over the next two weeks we will be canvasing Acclaim Otago members and preparing information that can be tabled at COG on 19th June.

Should anyone wish to contact us please do so on

[email protected]

for further info.
0

#2 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1214
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 06 June 2007 - 10:18 PM

Fairgo i wonder why you had request it be on COGS when my belief is that COGS should automatically be involved in it all.

Was ACC trying to slip this past everyone in some way or are they that dumb that they need someone to request for this input.

And what of the hundreds of pages would you like lol

This is a systematic problem and im more than happy to contribute anything that may be of use to deal with this as a whole and not all just on my case.
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10425
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 06 June 2007 - 10:44 PM

When I discussed the ACC Fraud Unit Review with Michael Spraggon, who says he is responsible for the review, he stated emphatically that the review was completely internal with no input are many outside party. He claimed that these internal reviews were routine and simply coincidental to the hammering that open the physio review regarding fraud issues and media's concerns regarding different types of fraud.

I was assured that the ACC Fraud Unit review had nothing to do with the allegations of systemic issues involving unacceptable practices of the ACC use of fraud investigators or the way in which they were conducting business. That was mid last week.

Was Michael Spraggon telling the porkies or has the ACC position changed? Obviously this is damage control and ACC want claimants to feel inclusive in the process so as to have warm and fuzzy feelings.

The news media has seized upon had his case as being reasonably typical of ACC Fraud Unit misconduct. The courts have viewed such cases as King, Lyntott, Brown, Donaldson and many others as cases identifying systemic failure on the ACC way in which they go about the business of fraud investigation. Essentially these cases identified gross incompetence to the extent that it is not believable the ACC Fraud Unit exist to discover a fraud but exist for something far more sinister, an alternative exit strategy.

Obviously it is important for any Cogs member to recognise and address the perception of the information they perceive. I have faith in the Cogs members that frequent the site to achieve this objective.
0

#4 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 07 June 2007 - 08:41 AM

Yes exellent news indeed.

If it is not up there it cannot be counted in anyway can it.

I would love to put up my issue of 'underpayment' which is not an individual issue. ACC have not been held to account for this issue and I consider they should have an airing at some stage. Not that I expect them to over ride the 'chums' in anyway.

I might see what I can get to them before the 19th.

I gather the fraud issue will not only be contained to the actions of the PI's. Could you clarify that for me. Thanks

Cheers Mini
0

#5 User is offline   Al9lifes 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 16-October 05

Posted 07 June 2007 - 08:54 AM

I am also happy for any and all my experiences at the hands of the ACC fraud squad and their pet P.I.'s to be contributed.

Whatever I have posted and whatever is needed please ask.

And I shall attempt to supply.

The information generated from the ACC Fraud investigation and related side issues in my case I hereby do offer as and if needed.
0

#6 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 07 June 2007 - 09:47 AM

Mini,

My understanding is that this is an internal review of its Fraud unit to identify areas of possible change. Therefore I would take that to mean the WHOLE unit from management down to examining officers, not just the relationship/contracts with PIs.

I have attached the terms of reference for you to read.

Attached File(s)


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