ACCforum: ... - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

...

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 23 June 2007 - 05:47 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 23 June 2007 - 07:25 PM

Anonymously bankruptcy does not relieve someone of fraud allegation when an overpayment was achieved by way of a dishonest act or omission. It only means the person does not have to pay the sum back in these types of cases.

You rightly seek transparency to the way in which ACC and WINZ fraud investigators carry out their calculations. I think it is reasonably clear that these ACC and WINZ fraud agencies had no idea where to begin to calculate overpayment or reparation.

In my own case they have been promising to make such calculations or 10 years but cannot because there is no information for purposes of the calculation. In the case that you are talking about she was released from prison because there was no calculation as to the extent of overpayment. By a very cursory examination of the paperwork so far it is very likely that it is less than $10 per week. The balance of the file being released from WINZ so as to compare that information with the ACC information will assist with that calculation.

1. There is no doubt that she was underpaid by the ACC by a substantial amount.

2. WINZ made the overpayment by failing to take into account the information ACC had given, according to the ACC information. As she was brain damaged she was entitled to rely completely upon the expertise of both ACC and WINZ and in particular the ACC case manager who should have provided social rehabilitation to assist in such matters as dealing with WINZ. Notwithstanding that she should have remained on ACC with 80% of her projected income and not 80% of only one other income streams (S60 1982 act)

3. She was convicted for fraud based on the premise that she had a guilty mind for not reporting to WINZ anomalies between permanent ACC ERC entitlements and her WINZ invalid benefit entitlement. WINZ apparently had all the information from ACC but failed to make any calculation. She continuously reminded WINZ but then the file was examined recently they failed to go back into a file to see if she had already notified them. Legal aid lawyers failed to acquire either ACC will WINZ file and therefore failed to provide her with a defence.


These fraud cases are totally reliant upon the respect of fraud units not knowing the means by which entitlements are calculated and the inability and insufficiency of legal aid lawyers. In short she was railroaded without hearing. Society failed her in every single respect.

In these fraud cases in competent to bungling fraud investigators are able to destroy people's lives to the extent that they had no possibility of legal redress, think they have done it right and therefore continue to do what they are doing. What they are doing of course is a legal and deserving of custodian of sentences themselves. I find no excuse whatsoever for these fraud investigators and case management personnel that were meant to care for this woman and others like her.

The Huggy case has disclosed just the very start of this destructive process instigated by both ACC and WINZ. The way in which these cases go of course are far worse and extraordinary destructive to not only the person involved but their families friends and others besides.
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 June 2007 - 01:57 PM

Anonymously just going back to basics. How can it be fraud versus overpayment? You cannot have fraud unless there is pecuniary advantage, overpayment. To achieve fraud WINZ must not only just allege overpayment they must prove it beyond reasonable doubt. This means these facts together with the arithmetic must be disclosed. In this case no facts and no arithmetic was disclosed to the court.

She was released from prison because there was no information to suggest that the overpayment was sixpence or $50,000. The invalids benefit did not release the information it relied upon that it received from ACC. The conviction has been allowed to stand until such time as WINZ surrender the information it has withheld so as a proper appeal can occur.

My case is similar in as much as ACC has withheld information but continue to promise to release the information and make calculations. I know that they can't because the information does not exist because I did not work and therefore they cannot calculate overpayment.

The Hayes case appealing to the Supreme Court is about the court of appeal saying the jury does not need to know about such technical details but just to rely upon the integrity of the bureaucrat. Bollocks!
0

#4 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 24 June 2007 - 04:07 PM

Mousey

The trouble is with wINZ that their computor cant tell the difference.

I have a WINZ document which says my payments back are 'overpaid family benefit' or some such thing and it is only a reimbursement of WINZ I rightly gained before I gained my rightful entitlement to ACC.

Because the computer cant tell the difference of a illegal or legal 'overpayment', (which my payment never was), then you will have a hell of a time trying to make any sence of it.

Mind you I would love someone to take SSA to H/C over section 81. There is a lot of what they call 'overpayment' which is certainly not treated as being not of our doing, so therefor should be written off under the Act. Problem is is it is not WINZ fault either, they are only giving us money to have necessities of life.

I am working on it from another angle, but don't know how much that will help what you are doing??

One thing is relevent, that is the claimants are the ones out of pocket by it all, that much I have shown already.

Good hunting.
Mini
0

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 June 2007 - 04:22 PM

Anonymously the ACC case manager or PI persuading a claimant to make reparations when the claimant has no idea whether there has been an overpayment or not is kind of like being bullied into having sex when you don't know the person. It's like rape whereby the rapist has gained some kind of de facto consent. The ACC specialised in a programme of submission by way of social engineering. At this stage they could do almost anything they wanted was someone condition to be submissive in this way.

The overseas legislation is virtually the same as the legislation in New Zealand it is just that claimants in New Zealand have been far too permissive allowing case managers to have their wicked way with them for too long to the point whereby case managers think what they're doing is okay. It is not okay and we are traumatised. Traumatised people don't scream and shout no no no. They are like the bunny looking at the lights of the oncoming car frozen and unable to move.

The case that you are referring to is not about advanced payments or loans. It is about calculated entitlements. It is either ACC have a liability or WINZ have a liability. In this case the potential overpayment is less than $10 per week and not over $100 a week as the WINZ have imagined. Remember the sentencing was based on the WINZ and imagination rather than calculation.

I have received a letter from her just recently and had discussions with her lawyer on her behalf. Once the information from WINZ arrives then we will be able to match that information with the ACC information so as to demonstrate the mismanagement of both parties. At this stage WINZ are doing all they can to avoid releasing the information. They are doing this in cooperation with the ACC because ACC carry the true liability which would make overpayment of any amount WINZ could pay or have paid completely impossible while the ACC liability remains outstanding. ACC owe WINZ and therefore ACC have defrauded the WINZ.

This is not rocket surgery it is just arithmetic. The definitions found in policy describing legislation are all very fine language. The bureaucrats have simply ignored their employers instructions. This is a simple case of bureaucrats making decisions without reference to the information on the file because they needed to go to the archives to get that information. They were too lazy and guest fraud instead then try to prove the fraud by jiggery pokery. The bureaucrats are attempting to make a dog's breakfast of everything so as to hide the guilty secrets. What is most disgraceful is that they are prepared to put people in jail so as their mistakes are not revealed.

We got her out of prison because of the failure ACC and WINZ to release the information that was necessary for the calculation. Now we need the information so as to prove no overpayment and more importantly the continuing liability of the ACC at the proper amount so we can have the conviction quashed.

Anonymously we just had to sequence through everything stage by stage to unravel this mess. Nothing can be done until WINZ release the archived information.
0

#6 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 24 June 2007 - 04:34 PM

I hope that you have the privacy comminsor on to this and chase the commisnor up at relevant toime periods.

Just remember that short letters to the comminsor is better than long ones.

You make long letters to ACC when you are asking for something so the ACC must read all of the letter to supply entitlements. this causes the ACC staff a problem in that they spend a longer period of time just to answer your requests. this also affects there bonuses .
0

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 June 2007 - 04:38 PM

This is a very serious case whereby both the ACC and WINZ failed to make disclosure to a criminal trial. They then failed to make disclosure to the appeal. This is outside the league off a Privacy Commissioner. This situation requires punishment of those who failed this woman, not to mention legal aid and the legally aided lawyers are also did nothing.
0

#8 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 24 June 2007 - 04:45 PM

I see that you are taking the difficult road.

The privacy Commission is to gain the information not to propscute that comes after you have the information.
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 June 2007 - 05:35 PM

Dopplegangger I think you have missed the point. This woman has already been prosecuted, convicted of fraud and gone to jail by WINZ as result of the ACC failing to provide the proper ERC causing this woman to seek a WINZ benefit. Both ACC and WINZ failed to release the information to enable this woman a defence.

The reality is the Privacy Commissioner and legal aid is totally ineffectual in New Zealand and does not serve to protect invalids.

We are now several years after WINZ accused his woman based on information they claim to have in their possession which they did not release. The reality is the information was in the archives and they were too lazy to get it but preferred instead to rely upon their assumptions.

Legal force will be required. The information is required to demonstrate WINZ and ACC have been wrong and that she is innocent.
Once legal force is applied and it is discovered that she is innocent naturally the wrongful conviction will yield significant compensation.
0

#10 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 24 June 2007 - 06:58 PM

Allan if you do not want to get the information through the proper chanels of the privacy Comminsor then you may need the force. Extreamly large force.

the Job of the Privicy Comminsor is to collect private information from Goverment servents including the servents crocked lawyers.

you carry on applying the large force what ever the force is.

I did not miss the point that information is required off a goverment agency
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 June 2007 - 07:04 PM

The extremely large force is a directions order from the court. A directions order upon the ACC will WINZ is an automatic consequence of ACC or WINZ making a prosecution. In my own case a directions order was issued in the case adjourned on several occasions yet the ACC simply ignored the directions order. In situations where ACC and WINZ simply ignore the court there is no higher authority than the court.
0

#12 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 24 June 2007 - 07:08 PM

Allan the lawyers may not have the info but winz ansd ACC staff probably don't know anything about the case so it will probably not be hard to get

its called cutting the crap out if process.
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 24 June 2007 - 07:51 PM

This case is not about WINZ under payments but ACC under payments. The issues go back prior to either ACC will WINZ having computerised records. The problem is these organisations archived documents and did not retrieve those documents when making new decisions.

By the time there was a criminal prosecution then an appeal to that prosecution both ACC and WINZ had every opportunity to clarify matters but the proof is they still did not bother as the original documents remained in archives! ACC have retrieved these documents and provided copies while WINZ had not. ACC records show information going to WINZ that place the woman in the right. The problem is that is a WINZ prosecution relying upon WINZ information.

The legally aided lawyers both at the original trial and the appeal did not bother enforcing discovery!

The solution to this case is to simply go back to basics. Get the original information, compare that information with the legislation and carry out the calculations.
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