ACCforum: These Things Take Time - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

These Things Take Time ACC Head Cheese

#21 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 14 July 2007 - 06:46 PM

Quote

12 July 2007
Any continuing dispute about the amount owed to WINZ is a matter for you and WINZ at this stage and ACC cannot become involved in that.

the amount that ACC can pay to you is the amount set out in our letter of the 3 July,

Please confirm that you wish ACC to pay the above sum,
together with interest,
as it is not clear from your email that you wish us to do so.

Yours sincerely
Stephen Coyle
Case Manager


Attached File  12_July_Stephen_Coyle.pdf (472.12K)
Number of downloads: 7
0

#22 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 14 July 2007 - 11:13 PM

[quote name='Jack' date='Jul 6 2007, 11:21 AM' post='47730']
Then how come, in my understanding from others, Winz do claw back those allowances? Do you have documentation that could help others?

Gloria
[/quote]

Its my understanding too that winz claims everything back including partners benefit. You have any information saying otherwise ?
[/quote]

Enclosed is the extract from the ACC Informe manual on repayments to WINZ

"Amounts to be reimbursed to WINZ

The amounts that may be reimbursed to WINZ are outlined below:

The maximum amount that can be refunded to WINZ is the net amount that is due to be paid

to the claimant. Where WINZ have paid an excess amount their claim for reimbursement

needs to be reduced having regard to the level of ACC entitlement.

ACC can only reimburse WINZ amounts paid in the same period for which the ACC

entitlement exists

Benefits paid by WINZ will often be split between the claimant and his/her spouse. ACC will

refund amounts claimed on behalf of the spouse from the claimant's ACC entitlement.

Supplementary benefit amounts are not to be reimbursed by ACC - these are items such as

Accommodation Supplementary, Special Benefit. Only the base benefit can be reimbursed.

ACC reduces the claimant's entitlement by the gross amount paid by WINZ to the claimant. The

gross amount deducted is then paid to WINZ with a deduction for tax paid. Previous tax records

issued by WINZ remain in force with tax adjustments automatically occurring between ACC, IRD and

WINZ."


Is that clear enough?

"Supplimentary benefits are not to be reimbursed"

Full extract enclosed

Attached File(s)


0

#23 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 15 July 2007 - 10:56 AM

Spacecadet & all

Tell me what is the use of me giving you information via my private e-mail if you are going to mislead the forum.

ACC can refund the non-taxable supplimentaries if any of you have signed a document consenting to them doing so. This allows WINZ to issue a 'Notice to Deduct' under their section 89A (If I remember properly or 86A). Forum members can obviously look this up for themselves, as there is obvious talent on the site.

This signature to allow them to do so, is gained by unscrupulous means. Just asking for the Net amount, then ACC deducting the gross amount. The Net goes off to WINZ which is what they have asked for and the Tax off to the Crown account of the IRD. (Not to our tax accounts).

While I am concerned that the gross amount of the non-taxable benefit is reimbursed, I cant take them all on at once, so if someone would be bold enough to confront WINZ about the reimbursement of the net amount and the way they bully the claimant, for the paperwork to be signed, I would be delighted.

I am only dealing with the tax of the taxable and non-taxable reimbursement. Although as you can amagine the whole picture has to be made clear in my case, as individually the three Crown entities look OK.

No one has taken WINZ to High Court over their very clever way of overriding H/C case precident in the Allan case.

The manual quoted by Spacecadet is only covering the 'income tested' taxable benefit. The fact that it infers that it cannot repay the non-taxable supplimentaries means nothing, as if WINZ can prove a 'Debt to the Crown' and issue a 'Notice to Deduct' ACC must reimburse the supplimentary assistance. (By signing the approval for it to happen, you actually allow WINZ to infer a 'Debt to the Crown'.)

So someone who has said 'No' to signing the necessary document for WINZ to have ACC reimburse the non-taxable amount please, carry through, even though you will be threatened with non payment of backdated compensation, (legally this cannot be done) as the payment only requires the taxable reimbursement to be made and this can be done without your signature under section 252 of the current act.

Someone has a very good chance of making a change for all others in the future if they care to take the bull by the horns and 'follow through' all the way to the high court.

I will assist in anyway I can, to make submissions to Review on non payment of backdated weekly compensation, if anyone is serious about this problem.

I have let people know online how I feel about this and I know that Spacecadet has his heart in the right place. However, it is quite wrong to mislead people. You must give them the tools to arm themselves. In this case if you havent signed paperwork for reimbursement from ACC to WINZ then don't, but be prepared to take it all the way to prove the points necessary to show how evil this system is.

However if you have signed paperwork, and you are out of time, to Review, it might be just a matter of sitting back and waiting to see what happens in the future. One persons win may be 100 peoples win. There are no guarentees in this world.

Cheers Mini
0

#24 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 15 July 2007 - 11:09 AM

Al9lives

Your Post #21 shows you are in a unique situation to carry this forward as your letter is dated July 2007, therefore you are in time to review ACC's decision that "the amount ACC can pay to you is the amount set out in our letter of the 3 July".

By golly gosh, if the letter of the 3 july happens to be a decision letter and is in the year of 2007, I for one say you have a very strong case of saying they are paying you the incorrect amount, if you have indeed not signed any documentation with WINZ.

cheers
Mini
0

#25 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 15 July 2007 - 11:24 AM

Quote

So someone who has said 'No' to signing the necessary document for WINZ to have ACC reimburse the non-taxable amount please, carry through, even though you will be threatened with non payment of backdated compensation, (legally this cannot be done) as the payment only requires the taxable reimbursement to be made and this can be done without your signature under section 252 of the current act.


I will assist in anyway I can, to make submissions to Review on non payment of backdated weekly compensation, if anyone is serious about this problem.


I said 'No'.
0

#26 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 15 July 2007 - 11:42 AM

Quote

if the letter of the 3 july happens to be a decision letter and is in the year of 2007

http://www.accforum.org/forums/index.php?s...ost&p=47682
0

#27 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 15 July 2007 - 01:13 PM

Alan

It appear at your letter dated 3 July 2007 that ACC are speaking of the taxable benefit paid and reimbursed under sec 252 of the Act. This completes my arguement that they can 'pay your reimbursement of taxable WInZ received, without your signature'.

So the letters sent to all other claimants threatening them with non-payment of backdated weekly compensation is a load of hoo-ey. Either from ACC or WINZ source.

It is truely a wicked mess that has been generated and we claimants are the ones that are tricked into signing the WINZ document. Some of us because we consider it 'fair' that we don't receive two forms of income and some because they have been threatened with non-payment of backdated weekly compensation.

I realise that you see this differently, you consider that because it was not our fault we have to be on WINZ and we only receive the amount we are entitled too, we should not have to repay any of the WINZ benefit. Taxable or non-taxable!.

Considering section 252 is standing right in the way of your arguement I do not believe a case could ever be won using this stance.

However, because you have said 'no' to signing any documentation to allow a reimbursement to WINZ of the non-taxable supplimentaries this must mean that you are now at Review with WINZ and ACC are refusing to become involved.

In fact, ACC are not as innocent as they would have you believe, however you need to let me know at what point you are at with WINZ review or what their stance is to you not signing the documentation before I can assist any further.

Mini

Oh bugger

I think I wrote my reply on the highlighted document. Please go in there to read it Alan.

I am truely a IT boffhead.

Mini

Oh there we are you little monster!!!
0

#28 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 15 July 2007 - 01:36 PM

Quote

what point you are at with WINZ review

WINZ are unable to show any debt or overpayment as none exists.

Its a potential debt but will only actually become a debt possibly when the ACC pay me.

But the IRD will tax me in the year I recieve it.

WINZ can not prove any overpayment has happened.

As no ACC payment has been made no overpayment exists.
0

#29 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 15 July 2007 - 05:53 PM

One debt has been established.

The 47 k the ACC owes me.

This is an accepted fact.

ACC claims it is their task to ensure the debt they created with WINZ in my name is honoured.
With my entitlements.

I did not cause or contribute to this mess. I am not liable for any repair bill's.
Because of ACC's actions I have been forced to do many things I should not have been made to do and this has harmed me.

Reviews and Appeals and WINZ and IRD and Fraud charges and no Rehab and no other entitlements and just plain old dramas.

It took a special action to get the ACC to make the 3 July decision.
When the ACC have had this information regarding WINZ since last year.

....
0

#30 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 15 July 2007 - 09:49 PM

Is not the non taxable supplementary benefits (such as accom) repayments dependent on the amount of reinstated ERC as to qualify for those benefits.
If you do qualify you don't repay or may only be required to repay part..

We had a major issue with this about 7 yrs ago , and also did something with the IRD to even out the tax situation because of the lump sum influence .
I am sure they did a calculation to work out the differential between tax paid while on the lesser WINZ and the extra paid when lump sum distorted that years income..
If I remember right it did not actually compute out at nearly as much as we expected..(it was correct).

tony
0

#31 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 16 July 2007 - 01:11 PM

Tonyj

For the first time I can't understand your message in the first part relating to the non-taxable reimbursement.

In the second part, it is very interesting that you have had this out with IRD only seven years ago, as I am at adjudication level with them and looking forward to TRA. So far nothing they have told me lets them off the hook for overtaxing us at reimbursement level.

The difference between your income from WINZ and income from ACC will depend on what sort of income you had at the date of accident, this will in turn affect the difference in the tax.

If you were on a low wage, there will be little difference, however if you were on a reasonable wage, the tax difference is a lot greater. And it is tax that should be treated as income in previous years.

Of course the IRD have this part tightly covered, so my attempt at bringing it up after over 20 years is to still enable the Judges to see that IRD have done nothing to correct what the Judges see as 'unfair' legislation in the case of us claimants.

These matters have not been to the TRA (Tax Review Authority) in over twenty years. There is no or little precidence.

I think you are only talking of the taxing of the non-taxable reimbursement to WINZ. If you put that payment back into the years it was paid by WINZ and tax it, there is little difference. However, to extend that to all our backdated weekly compo is a different matter, and this I want to show there has been no change to over 20 years. Even though the Judges, urged IRD to do something about it.

I have recently received a case which shows clearly the H/C considers that no one should be recieving 'two streams of income'. WINZ and ACC, unless of course you are under a certain income level then you would be entitled to 'disability allowance' and 'accommodation benefit.

This is precisely why I have never objected to repaying WiNZ for letting me eat and have a roof over my head while I was fighting for my ACC w/c entitlement. However, I do object to being taxed twice and I do object to being taxed all in the one year.

Alan

You could just hold on until mid August when I should recieve something back from IRD, or trigger the WINZ Review process by accepting the ACC payment.

If ACC have paid you the residual of your w/compo after deducting the taxable main benefit reimbursement to WINZ and WINZ have not taken steps to recover the non-taxable benefit via their sect 89A Notice to Deduct and be taking it weekly from your wages. You are very lucky as most others in that position are having $10 or so deducted from their taxed weekly compo each week. This will of course take twenty odd years or so to pay of and in the end it is still taxed, but WINZ have been able to bully them into paying one way or the other.

If you do not fall into that category I congratulate you on your tenacity. Great going. However, to enable you to collect your entitlement to w/c you must do something to trigger a Review situation or challenge the process in Court.

An appeal to the H/c to look at the questions you need to be answered would be the way I would go. On questions of law are they acting correctly.

I will get the one I have received this morning and give you the details.

As I am an IT boffhead I cannot transfer it online for you. But you should be able to get hold of it from someone.

Tony

have just reread your first part of message and off course you are right it is dependant on the amount you recieve from ACC, however there are other matters that come into the issue of if it is repayable or not, one being because we have to have paid the monies to the entities owed ie car expenses, dr, pharmacy etc, before we can claim these as expenses in our benefits, then are we not just being reimbursed for expenses that are refundable or payable under the WINZ or ACC system anyway?? This is the part that needs taking to H/C. Are the non-taxables, because of our circumstances at the time, repayable?? I really think not, but do not have enough hands, brains, hours in the day to do all the work needed.

Alan is in a perfect situation to trigger and test the problem for everyone just as I am doing with the tax.

I know it is tiring and time consuming and expensive, even when one does their own legal work. But at least we tried and that is the main thing.

See it is not only ACC that are part of our misery!!

OK off to get the name and number of that case.

Cheers
Mini



The case referred to above is :

Chequer v the Chief exective of the Ministry of Social Development
BC200761464
High Court
Wellington
Justice Ronald Young
Civ 207 48 5561
20,28 June 2007

Let me know what you think after reading it.

Cheers Mini
0

#32 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 16 July 2007 - 06:30 PM

Mini,
I just rang the person concerned with the situation 7 yrs ago, Both of us have a head injury and both have thrown out any files and records we had but are both sure it was for the most part sorted by the COMMISSIONER of the IRD using a discretionary power he had .
I will not be able to have him ask for his files on the matter , he was so traumatized by his past dealings with ACC , and is not a well person , he now just wants as little to do with them as possible.. even my questions had him getting upset .

I have often though that there is a huge gap in the available information about solutions other than via the courts that are public and recorded .
The reality is far more solutions are found behind close doors that once sorted just disappear into the ether , more often than not because the client is so burnt out and fragile they want to forget it all.
I don't know what the answer is .

Sorry about the confusing statement in the early posting.

I have a communication problem ,my brain and fingers do not work in unison these days .. I know it all ,just can't remember it all at once or translate my thoughts into the written word..

tony
0

#33 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 16 July 2007 - 07:45 PM

And sub-category 1:....a) Reimbusement of taxable Winz benefits after reinstatement of ACC following wrongful suspension/declinature.


Possibly ?


...Non taxable allowances I think they tried to take back from me.

But my point is the money has not been paids to me. And may never be.

If this is so how can any debt exist for me ? And if it is the ACC's debt then in section 252 it is thier responsibility clearly.

Not to take this out of weekly compensation.

Which the WINZ have been doing from my WINZ benefit which I am elegible for still despite recieving the weekly ACC pittance .

As well as the allowances of accom and disability. I am on the Invalids benefit.
And ACC Weekly compensation. Seems to be one big stupid mess to me. !!?
0

#34 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 16 July 2007 - 09:35 PM

View PostAl9lifes, on Jul 16 2007, 07:45 PM, said:

And sub-category 1:....a) Reimbusement of taxable Winz benefits after reinstatement of ACC following wrongful suspension/declinature.


Possibly ?


...Non taxable allowances I think they tried to take back from me.

But my point is the money has not been paids to me. And may never be.

If this is so how can any debt exist for me ? And if it is the ACC's debt then in section 252 it is thier responsibility clearly.

Not to take this out of weekly compensation.

Which the WINZ have been doing from my WINZ benefit which I am elegible for still despite recieving the weekly ACC pittance .

As well as the allowances of accom and disability. I am on the Invalids benefit.
And ACC Weekly compensation. Seems to be one big stupid mess to me. !!?


How can you be on ACC ERC and the invalids benefit at the same time or am I missing something??

tony
0

#35 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 16 July 2007 - 10:00 PM

Sorry . My bad.

Bit confused with who is giving me what for why.

WINZ must be just disability and accommodation now that ACC is paying the weekly again.
Sorry

P.S.

After reading through the WINZ letters from the last six months I am still unsure as they mention four types of benefits I am or have been recieving.

Disability, Invalids, Special and accommodation.

None the wiser.

MSD is a mystery to me.
0

#36 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 17 July 2007 - 08:11 AM

View PostAl9lifes, on Jul 16 2007, 10:00 PM, said:

Sorry . My bad.

Bit confused with who is giving me what for why.

WINZ must be just disability and accommodation now that ACC is paying the weekly again.
Sorry

P.S.

After reading through the WINZ letters from the last six months I am still unsure as they mention four types of benefits I am or have been recieving.

Disability, Invalids, Special and accommodation.

None the wiser.

MSD is a mystery to me.


I was just concerned in all the confusion that they may have had you inadvertently double dipping becuase one hand does not know what the other was doing , which as well all know is par for the course ..
I am sure down the track they would have lost the documents that exposed how they were instrumental in the double dipping and concocted away to dump it on you . Also par for the course.

I have personally argued for years that a more common link is needed in the management of long term ACC clients and the other supplementary top up payments such as those from WINZ. It for the most part only effects the non or low income earners ( at time of accident) , the majority of whom are the most vulnerable. At the moment its too easy for people to miss out on entitlements or to receive unintentionally a benefit they are not entitle to that will come back and bite them..

tony
0

#37 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 July 2007 - 12:34 PM

Tony

As at my post #31 is it not possible for Alan to be on a low ERC (w/comp), a partial invalids benefit to bring him up to the reqiured least amount he is entitled too, and a disability allowance, accomdation benefit etc.

So long as he is under a certain amount ($22,000 approx from memory) from ACC he would still be entitled to some disab allow and accomd. benefit from what I beleive and have been told by 0800 number.

Could it not be that 80% of his wage was quite low, there WiNZ would have to top it up. And he would also has supplimentary entitlements.

Am just passing this by you, am not looking for a fight, just maybe it is a possibililty.

NODRSL

There is a little more to it than that but you are on the right track.

The main problem is that each Crown entity makes out they have done nothing wrong and yet without each other the system could not operate and as it operates by doing us an injustice by overtaxing us, and no one is prepared to take ownership of the tri-department arrangement, then we have to take each one individually through the Courts and it is very difficult to prove our points this way.

However, I am hoping for action soon. If the action is too late for some people, they may have to combine efforts for a class action, which is what I have be 'yelling' for for years.

Alan

Until you realize that you will not and cannot get past sect 252 you will remain in suspension, not understanding what is going on. You must realize that the law as it stands will not be changed, therefore we must fight with what we have. Lets be realistic.

I sympathise, but can do nothing to help, unless you and I see things from the same angle.

If you want to fight sect 252, that is your right, but I have tried that and lost and truely beleive you cannot get past it. That is why I concentrate on the tax.

Cheers
Mini

Sorry guys I didnt read page two before I wrote, so overlook anything I may have doubled up on eh?? Thanks

Mini

Tony

As at my post #31 is it not possible for Alan to be on a low ERC (w/comp), a partial invalids benefit to bring him up to the reqiured least amount he is entitled too, and a disability allowance, accomdation benefit etc.

So long as he is under a certain amount ($22,000 approx from memory) from ACC he would still be entitled to some disab allow and accomd. benefit from what I beleive and have been told by 0800 number.

Could it not be that 80% of his wage was quite low, there WiNZ would have to top it up. And he would also has supplimentary entitlements.

Am just passing this by you, am not looking for a fight, just maybe it is a possibililty.

NODRSL

There is a little more to it than that but you are on the right track.

The main problem is that each Crown entity makes out they have done nothing wrong and yet without each other the system could not operate and as it operates by doing us an injustice by overtaxing us, and no one is prepared to take ownership of the tri-department arrangement, then we have to take each one individually through the Courts and it is very difficult to prove our points this way.

However, I am hoping for action soon. If the action is too late for some people, they may have to combine efforts for a class action, which is what I have be 'yelling' for for years.

Alan

Until you realize that you will not and cannot get past sect 252 you will remain in suspension, not understanding what is going on. You must realize that the law as it stands will not be changed, therefore we must fight with what we have. Lets be realistic.

I sympathise, but can do nothing to help, unless you and I see things from the same angle.

If you want to fight sect 252, that is your right, but I have tried that and lost and truely beleive you cannot get past it. That is why I concentrate on the tax.

Cheers
Mini

Alan in one of your posts recently you say that ACC have a duty to pay the moneys that created the debt with WINZ.

Do you have a copy of that letter, I could read??

It is a very important letter if it indeed makes that statement, as ACC are admitting 'ownership' of the debt which has been created!!

First time I would have seen that.

Cheers
Mini
0

#38 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 17 July 2007 - 02:06 PM

mini,
we are both singing out of the same song book , I fully agree with your take on it , I was just getting a bit lateral .

I have a thing about getting to the bottom of why things go wrong , going back in time to when the shit started to hit the fan. More often than not its been due to a lack of communication or a genuine mistake by either ACC or the client that has grown into a monster . The likely hood of this happening if the party has a TBI is of real concern. All to often a TBI will over react , get stressed and angry , not only unable to communicate satisfactory but also likely to become their own worst enemy .
The ACC has some CM who are unable to understand and be supportive , in fact they become aggressive and actively set out to screw and get revenge .. with little or no checks and balances .

As time progresses the whole fiasco blows out into a major event with the poor client having to turn his already screwed up life over to the battle.. Rather than focus on healing the energy is devoted to avoiding the system driving you over the edge .But the old saying "you can't beat city hall" applies .. especially if the mental focus is distorted by the head injury.

tony
0

#39 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 July 2007 - 04:33 PM

Tony

Quite true. I hear where you are coming from.

I consider the main point is to get the system changed which is wronging us. We might not be able to beat 'city hall', but certainly have given them a good rev up!!

Hopefully, something real good in the way of a few 'extra bucks' before Xmas will put a smile of everyone's face.

I will keep you up-to-date. There is stuff going on all over the place.

Cheers
Mini
0

#40 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 18 July 2007 - 11:52 AM

Al9lifes

Are you out there??

Did you read my posting at post #38?

Have you written documentation that ACC told you they had an obligation to pay the debt they had created between you and WINZ??

If you have, I say again, this is a most important piece of paper. It will assist all of us trying to sort this problem.

It shows the arrogant mindset of the ACC and their worped theroy of how to use your money to make their mistake go away!!

Please answer me even if you have no intention of letting me use it.

Cheers
Mini
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 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