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

#41 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 18 July 2007 - 01:49 PM

Mini , It clearly states in section 252 that ACC is responsible to repay WINZ.

ACC must repay the money.

It does not give ACC the right to furthur withhold or recalculate my entitlement.

When ACC knows about the debt they must pay. Not me.
0

#42 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 18 July 2007 - 03:53 PM

(4) The Corporation must refund the excess benefit payment to the department
responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act 1964---
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

252
Relationship with social security benefits: reimbursement by
Corporation

(1) This section applies if a person---

(a) receives a payment of an income-tested benefit under the Social Security Act 1964 in respect of a period; and

( B ) establishes a claim to an entitlement from the Corporation in respect of all or part of the same period.

(2) An excess benefit payment is regarded as having been paid in respect of
that entitlement
.

(3) An excess benefit payment is the part of the benefit payment (up to the amount of the entitlement) that is in excess of the amount of benefit properly payable, having regard to the entitlement under this Act.

(4) The Corporation must refund the excess benefit payment to the department responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act 1964---

(a) if the Corporation knows that this section applies; or

( B ) if requested to do so by that department.

(5) For the purposes of this section, an excess benefit payment includes a payment of any part of a married rate of benefit that is paid to the spouse of the person who established the claim to the benefit.

(6) Any amount that is treated under this section as having been paid in respect of any treatment, service, rehabilitation, related transport, compensation, grant, or allowance is deemed for all purposes to have been so paid.
0

#43 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 19 July 2007 - 11:02 AM

As I have said previously if you clinge to that theroy I cannot help you.

I take the road that will ensure I am going to recieve some dollars back, so you people who insist on taking the same stance as Al9lifes and try to rewrite the law, while doing without your money. I say good on you for your tenacity, but then you will not be interested in any morsels I can pick up along the way, as to collect them you would have to accept that section 252 is the law and it reads as ACC and the Judges read it, not as Al9lifes would like it to be read.

Good luck with whatever you are doing, but know that those of us that are taking the 'easier' route are unable to assist you.

Remember you are in a classic position, you are aware that you can assist by taking WINZ to the cleaners. You just prefer to type stuff on a screen.

Cheers
Mini
0

#44 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 19 July 2007 - 11:16 AM

How do I

Quote

assist by taking WINZ to the cleaners.

Exactly ?

You did ask if ACC had ;

Quote

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??


Yes I have the letters but the Act says it all.

If you can show us where

Quote

as ACC and the Judges read it

Is able to be located please .

How are you able to read it so that I must pay ? I read ACC.
What can the ACC and the "Judges" see that I am unable ......

Perhaps this requires a qualification in "reading between the lines" so Beat me and judge me is emminently qualified to do so.

(thats good old fashioned justice of, judge me, beat me and rip the taxpayers off )
0

#45 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 19 July 2007 - 11:22 AM

I am simply saying would help you if I could.

I think those in the know would tell you that I am the last person to let the taxpayer get ripped off!!

More on that later
0

#46 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 19 July 2007 - 11:36 AM

Quote

Remember you are in a classic position, you are aware that you can assist by taking WINZ to the cleaners. You just prefer to type stuff on a screen.

Cheers
Mini

Quote

I am simply saying would help you if I could


You claim that I am aware of something and I want clarification please.

Not simply saying you would help if you could.

Clearly you imply I am aware of how I may assist and I want to know why.
And how you think I can assist.


Quote

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

So I supplied this and then....Surely if this is such an important piece of paper

Quote

this is a most important piece of paper. It will assist all of us trying to sort this problem.


And yet you claim the written documentation (being the section 252) does not state whom must repay WINZ. ?

I am a little confused at your changes of tack here mini. Please elucidate me.
With facts if you can as "if you clinge to that theroy I cannot help you" I am unsure what you are referring to here as well.
I respectfully request some explanation.

http://www.accforum.org/forums/index.php?s...ost&p=48259
0

#47 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 19 July 2007 - 04:06 PM

Respectfully do wantever you like!!

Me likewise.

Bye!!
0

#48 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 19 July 2007 - 05:01 PM

Quote

section 252 is the law and it reads as ACC and the Judges read it, not as Al9lifes would like it to be read.

section 252 is the legislation and it is read as ACC and some Judges want it to read , not as Parliament would have intended nor as it was intended to be read.

Actually the Judges remain fairly silent on the subject .
Unless mini could elucidate us on that point perhaps?

Quote

section 252 is the law and it reads as ACC and the Judges read it

http://www.accforum.org/forums/index.php?s...ost&p=48259
0

#49 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 20 July 2007 - 06:33 AM

Sexction 252 does not say that ACC can withhold my Entitlements until WINZ get's it's act together and tells the Truth.

No overpayment has been made .

A huge underpayment has been effected in fact.
0

#50 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 20 July 2007 - 08:06 AM

Quote

27 July 2006

Dear Mr Langdon
ACC
This letter is intended to respond to your email of 14 July, in which you set out your view of the provisions of section 252 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

I am aware of your complaint against ACC concerning the way it is applying this section to your ACC entitlement.

You have set out an interpretation that is not shared by ACC.

Where an Ombudsman receives a complaint involving statutory interpretation, it is outside of their jurisdiction to offer a definitive interpretation of the law.

That can only be done by a Judge in a Court.


It is open to an Ombudsman, however, to consider whether the actions by the organisation are unsupportable by the legislation, based on the ordinary meaning of the language as it appears to an Ombudsman.

To that end it seems to me that I might make some observations as they appear to me on my reading of that section.

The relevant section is section 252 of the Act.

It appears that you have highlighted subsection (4) in submitting that "The corporation must refund the excess benefit to ..... " Work and Income in this case.

I have understood your view to be that this is a debt between ACC and Work and Income, and ACC should not repay WINZ from your benefit; and that ACC is obliged to pay you your statutory entitlements without any deductions.


ACC argues that it has a statutory duty to refund WINZ the amounts it has paid you, and pay you the balance up to the amount of your ACC entitlement.

I note that section 252 is headed, "Relationship with social security benefits".

It contains 6 sub-sections, and it seems to me that all of these sections need to be read together to discern the intent of Parliament in this matter.

Subsection (1)(a) & (B) makes it clear that this section applies where a person actually receives payment under the Social Security Act and during this same period establishes an entitlement to an ACC benefit.

This seems to clearly apply to your situation.

It seems to me that sub-section (2) is a pivotal section.

It reads;
"An excess benefit is regarded as having been paid in respect of that entitlement"

This section refers to an "excess benefit" which subsection (3) clarifies is the difference between what the claimant was entitled to receive from the corporation, and what he actually received under the WINZ benefit.

Subsection (2) states that this excess benefit "is regarded as having been paid in respect of that entitlement" which I take to mean that the WINZ benefit is taken to have been paid in respect of
the ACC entitlement
.

If this is a correct interpretation, then when applied to your situation the WINZ payment you in fact received would be regarded as having been paid towards the ACC entitlement you ought to have received.

The practical affect of this section thus appears to me to be that the benefit you received from WINZ is attributed to meeting part of your ACC entitlement, and that ACC's remaining
obligation is to pay you any outstanding balance.

The net result of this exercise leads to subsection (4) which requires the Corporation to refund the difference back to WINZ.

It seems to me that the way the statute is drafted does not create a situation where ACC is deducting the WINZ moneys from your ACC entitlement.

Rather, the overall affect of section 252 appears to be that the WINZ benefit payment is
regarded as having met part of your ACC entitlement.

Thus your outstanding entitlement from ACC is the difference between what you were actually paid (albeit by WINZ) and the balance of your ACC entitlement.

If, after you have considered this entire section, you remain of the view that ACC's actions are an erroneous application of the law, the next step would be to seek a review of ACC's decision and, if necessary, to then take the matter to the District Court where you could obtain a definitive view of the interpretation of section 252.

For the above reasons I am unable to see any basis for intervention by this office.

I may add that it is my understanding that ACC's current approach has been a standard practice between ACC and WINZ in other similar situations.

Yours sincerely
Beverley A Wakem
Ombudsman

Attached File  27_July_2006_B_A_Wakem.pdf (1.14MB)
Number of downloads: 10
0

#51 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 20 July 2007 - 03:58 PM

Thanks DRSL, and Beverly Waken.

However Beverly has forgotten one little aspect of the whole of section 252, that is, it only applies to the 'income tested' portion of the payment from WINZ, therefore it cannot include all monies paid to you by WINZ.

As DRSL says the supplementary assistance from WINZ and the tax is another couple of matters.

Because you have never signed any paper for wINZ to reimburse the non taxable supplimentaries you are in the unigue position to challange WINZ and ACC in a court of law to have this heard. Even Beveley Waken has said that!!

Do not ask me to do it for you as I am busy with the tax issues, but nothing you will do will interfere with my tax case so go for it by all means.

However you will never be able to challanage the use of 252 or the way it is used unless you at least consider that they may be 'right'. That is the only way you will see outside the square.

If you don't understand any of this just say so and leave it alone. No one expects claimants to understand it, that is why it is done the way it is, so that we would not see the wood of the trees, so to speak.

Oh well back to my figures.
0

#52 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 26 July 2007 - 12:25 PM

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD AT AUCKLAND

Decision No. 162/2007

IN THE MATTER of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation
and Compensation Act 2001

AND
IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 149 of the Act
BETWEEN ALAN LANGDON
(AI 67/07)
Appellant

AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION
CORPORATION
Respondent


HEARD at AUCKLAND on 29 June 2007

APPEARANCES
Mr W Forster, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr D Tui, Counsel for Respondent.

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M J BEATTIE

[1] The issue in this appeal arises from the decision of the Respondent dated 19 October 2006, whereby it revoked its earlier decision of 12 October 2006 and advised that it would make payment of arrears of weekly compensation due to the appellant once it had received further information from WINZ regarding the amount to be reimbursed to it.

[2] That part of the decision which is in contention, and is the reason for this appeal, is the claim by the appellant that he is entitled to be paid the gross arrears of weekly compensation due to him without deduction of any sum for reimbursement to WINZ, as he contends the respondent is not required to make such a deduction before it makes payment to him of the arrears due.

[3] The background facts relevant to the issue in this appeal may be stated as follows:

The appellant has cover under the Act for personal injury and was in receipt of weekly compensation consequent upon his incapacity from that injury.

In or about February 2002 the respondent commenced an investigation into the appellant's claims for entitlements, in particular a number of travel claims submitted.

The respondent's Investigation Unit requested that the appellant complete a statutory declaration pertaining to those claims.

For reasons that are not relevant to this appeal the appellant refused to complete the statutory declaration sought and as a consequence his weekly compensation and other entitlements were suspended as from 26 June 2002.

Whilst the appellant commenced review and then appeal proceedings to question that decision he applied for and obtained a Sickness Benefit from Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ).

The respondent's decision to suspend entitlements was confirmed by Review Decision dated 10 October 2002 and thereupon the appellant appealed to this Court from that decision.

Prior to the appeal of that decision being heard, the respondent did, by decision dated 13 January 2005, revoke its decision of 26 June 2002 and reinstated weekly compensation and other entitlements to the appellant backdated to the date when those entitlements were suspended.

Whilst payment of weekly compensation was reintroduced. to the appellant from the date of the respondent's decision to reinstate, the question of arrears required calculation and from the respondent's perspective, required particulars from WINZ as to the amount sought by it by way of reimbursement.

In a letter from WINZ dated 10 July 2006, it advised that the net sum due to it was $31,010.94.

Before any monies were paid to WINZ, the appellant sought a review of the WINZ calculation and therefore matters of reimbursement were put on hold.

By letter dated 12 October 2006, WI NZ advised the respondent of a reduced figure,for reimbursement, namely $24,442.90.

Consequent upon that advice the respondent wrote to the appellant on 12 October advising him of the net arrears due to him after deduction of the amount due to be paid to WINZ.

The appellant did not accept either the respondent's calculation nor the amount claimed by WINZ to be reimbursed to it, and the appellant sought reviews of each of those decisions.

Consequent upon the appellant lodging an Application for Review of the respondent's decision of 12 October 2006, and on being advised that the sum due to WINZ was again in dispute, the respondent did by letter dated 19 October 2006 revoke its decision of 12 October 2006 and advised that a new decision would be made once issues with WINZ had been resolved.

It is the case that as of the date of the hearing of this appeal, the appellant's review to WINZ of its calculation had not been heard and determined and therefore the net sum due to the appellant by way of arrears of weekly compensation had not been paid to him.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent's decision of 19 October and at the Review Hearing on 4 December 2006, Mr Forster presented the arguments now presented to this Court, that the requirement of Section 252(4) of the Act, that the respondent was required to refund the excess benefit to WINZ, did not apply in the particular circumstances of the appellant's case.

In his decision dated 3 January 2007, Mr Greene, Reviewer, determined that the respondent was statutorily required to refund the excess of benefit to WINZ at the time of the payment of backdated weekly compensation. He therefore confirmed the respondent's decision that it would make payment of the amount due once it had received advice from WINZ as to the correct amount to be reimbursed to it.

As a point to note, it is the case that the amount being received by the appellant from WINZ was greater than the amount of weekly compensation to which he was entitled and on an ongoing basis the appellant's weekly compensation is in fact being "topped up" by WINZ.

[4] The crux of Mr Forster's submission for the appellant is that the respondent is not required to reimburs WINZ before it makes payment of arrears to the appellant, that it can make payment of the full amount of arrears, and that WINZ can subsequently establish a debt and claim repayment of same from the appellant.

[5] Mr Forster submitted that whilst the respondent was relying on Section 252 of the Act for its authority to make the WINZ deduction, it was his contention that Section 252 did not apply in the particular circumstances of this appellant.

[6] The points made by Mr Forster in support of that submission were as follows:

The appellant's factual circumstances did not bring him within (1)(a) and ( B ) as he was not a person who had established a claim to an entitlement.

Subsection (4) requires the Corporation to refund the excess benefit payment to WINZ but makes no reference to that excess benefit having to be deducted from monies due to the claimant.

There was no tag on the appellant's WINZ benefit as might be required by Section 71 (1)( B ) of the Social Security Act 1964. Mr Forster submitted that Section 71 of the Social Security Act 1964 was linked to Sections 252 and 253 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 2001, Section 253 being the provision where WINZ is obligated to repay the
Corporation in circumstances where the Corporation has incorrectly paid an entitlement to a claimant under the Act and the claimant establishes a claim to an income-tested benefit for all or part of the same period.

The appellant was not contending that WINZ had no entitlement to be reimbursed but rather that that entitlement to reimbursement was not necessarily required to be made by the appellant before he receives his entitlement, and that it can be a debt due, either to the respondent if it were to make payment, or to WINZ directly.

By way of emphasis, Mr Forster submitted that Section 252 only applies in situations where it is the action of a claimant lodging a claim that results in the establishment of an entitlement. It does not apply where the Corporation makes an unlawful decision to suspend entitlements and then acknowledges its error and reinstates payment of entitlements. In those circumstances there is no claim.

Mr Forster further emphasised his submission by referring to Section 123 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 2001, which stated that all entitlements were inalienable and where it specifically excepts Section 71 of the Social Security Act 1964 but not Section 71A, which he says is the provision of the Social Security Act which refers specifically to
weekly compensation and requires deduction of weekly compensation from income-tested benefits. Counsel submitted therefore that the respondent could not obtain its authority to deduct from Section 123 .

Finally, Mr Forster submitted that the actions of the respondent in delaying making payment to the appellant of the arrears due is a breach of its statutory duty to provide entitlements and make payment in a timely manner.
He submitted that once the amount of compensation due was determined, then the respondent had a duty to make payment, that such compensation due was inalienable.

[7] Mr Tui for the Respondent submitted that the interpretation of Section 252 contended for by the appellant was entirely misconceived. He submitted the wording of the section did not permit on the interpretation contended for. He further submitted that the Social Security Act did not impact on the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act, there being no reference to that Act in Section 252.

[8] Mr Tui submitted that the wording of Section 252(1) does not involve a timing situation
where (a) must predate ( B ) . He submitted that if timing were to be a factor the word "then" would have been included between the two subsections.


[9] Mr Tui further submitted that Section 123(2)(a) is to be taken in tandem with Section 252 and together the deduction is authorised.

[10] Mr Tui submitted that Section 252 was a mandatory provision requiring the respondent to refund the excess benefit payment to WINZ and he referred to the High Court decision in Wardell (AP 134/02; Wellington Registry) where at para 22, Justice Gendall emphasised the mandatory nature of the deduction and of the requirement that it be made from the weekly compensation payment

[11] Mr Tui finally submitted that by virtue of Sections 252 and 253 of the Act, Parliament has expressed the intention that debts created by the payment of income tested benefits under the Social Security Act and entitlements under ACC legislation must be recovered.
Further it expressed the intention that the debt is to be recovered expediently through refunds being made directly between the Corporation and WINZ.

DECISION

[12] A number of statutory provisions were referred to by Counsel in the course of their submissions, in particular Sections 123 and 252.

[13] As noted from the background facts the appellant had been a recipient of entitlements, in particular weekly compensation, and these entitlements were suspended by the respondent's decision of 26 June 2002 until 16 January 2005. Not only was the suspension of entitlements lifted by that January 2005 decision, but also the respondent accepted that the appellant was entitled to weekly compensation for the period of suspension.

[14] The issue in this appeal does not require the Court to inquire into the background of why the respondent made the decisions it did, and for the purposes of this decision it simply recognises the fact of the two decisions, the second of which restored the status quo ante.
Furthermore, it is a fact that during the period of suspension the appellant was in receipt of
an income-tested benefit under the Social Security Act 1964 for the whole of the period of
suspension.


[15] Despite that state of affairs, Mr Forster submits that Section 252 does not apply to this appellant as (1)( B ) of that provision did not happen with this appellant, that is, after receiving an income-tested benefit he did not establish a claim to an entitlement from the Corporation. He contends no claim was made, rather it was a decision of the respondent to reinstate his entitlement to weekly compensation that had been "illegally" stopped.

[16] I took Mr Forster's submission to mean that there was a temporal relationship between (a) and ( B ) and ( B ), had to follow (a) in point of time and that this was indicated by the word "and".

[17] Mr Forster, in his written submissions, actually added the word "then" after the word "and" as giving emphasis to the interpretation which he contended. Mr Tui, for his part, submitted that as there was no "then" in the section it did not have the meaning claimed and only if that meaning were intended would the word "then" have been included.

[18] It is a basic principle of statutory interpretation that clear words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning and certainly words not contained in the wording cannot be introduced so as to skew a particular meaning which might not otherwise be capable of being so construed.

[19] I agree with Mr Tui's submission that both (a) and ( B ) are recited in the present tense and there is no wording which would indicate that (a) must precede ( B ) in time, but rather both circumstances must in fact arise, as they undoubtedly have done in the case of this
appellant.

[20] It is clear, that on the facts of the appellant's circumstances, an excess benefit payment was made and that by subsection (4) the Corporation is required to refund that excess benefit to WINZ.

[21] I have considered the provisions of Section 123 and note that (2)(a) gives a specific right of the Corporation to make deductions from the entitlement liable to be provided by the Corporation to the appellant.

[22] I find that the respondent need not look past Section 123(2)(a) for its right to make that deduction and that (2)( B ) to U) are simply further statutory exceptions to that principle of inalienability which allow for enforcement provisions of those various statutes for the payment of monies due by a claimant under those Acts.

[23] I find that Section 71A of the Social Security Act has no bearing on the ability to deduct the amount due to WINZ under Section 252. Section 71A provides for the reduction of a claimant's benefit where that person is entitled to receive weekly compensation. It is not a repayment provision or a provision providing for an encumbrance on the entitlement.

[24] It follows, therefore, that it cannot be said that WINZ is seeking to invoke Section 71A and which Section 123(1) would prevent. Section 71A has no bearing on the Corporation's ability to deduct authorised reimbursements.

[25] Finally, I note the watershed decision of Wardell (supra) where the Court was called upon to consider the necessity of the Corporation being in possession of the amount required to refund to WINZ before it could be said to be in a position to make payment of weekly compensation due. Whilst the Wardell decision was primarily determining whether the amount required to refund to WINZ was "necessary information" within the meaning of the interest entitlement provision, where a liability for interest on late payment of weekly compensation may arise, nevertheless His Honour Justice Gendall considered the statutory requirement, now Section 252, and found that it was mandatory that the Corporation make a refund to WINZ in the circumstances where a WINZ benefit had been paid during the period for which weekly compensation was also payable.

[26] The Court has not been privy to what may be the current position as between the appellant and WINZ in relation to his disagreement with the amount it has calculated that it is entitled to receive, but it must be the case that this state of affairs is outside the control of the respondent.

[27] For the record it should be noted that shortly before the hearing of this appeal the Technical Claims Manager of the Respondent had indicated that, providing WINZ could confirm that the reimbursement amount was unlikely to increase from that it had previously calculated, then the Corporation would retain that amount and pay the appellant the balance. This is sensible and probably should have been considered as an interim measure sooner.

[28] In summary, therefore, I find as a matter of fact and law, that Section 252 of the Act authorises the respondent to make a deduction of the amount to be reimbursed to WINZ from the sum of the arrears of weekly compensation otherwise due to the appellant and that it can do so by virtue of Section 123 from the entitlement that the respondent would be liable to provide to the appellant. Whilst it may be that some discretion is vested in the respondent as to whether it does make the deduction before making payment of the balance to a claimant, there is certainly no statutory provision which would preclude or prohibit it from so doing, that being the assertion of the appellant which I find not to be the case.

[29] In terms of the jurisdiction of this appeal, I formally rule that the procedure indicated to be adopted by the respondent by virtue of its decision letters of 12 and 19 October 2005, is a procedure it is entitled to do by virtue of Section 252 of the Act, but that in its discretion it is entitled to take account of individual circumstances and make an interim payment pending the resolution of outstanding claims as to the true and correct amount to be reimbursed.

[30] The Court makes the observation that the proposal mooted by the respondent's Claims Manager in her memorandum of 27 June 2007, ought to be implemented without delay, if indeed it has not already been implemented, as the continued retention of the gross sum is clearly not in accord with the spirit of the Act.

[31] For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed.

DATED at AUCKLAND this 23rd day of July 2007
M J Beattie
District Court Judge
0

#53 User is offline   BLURB 

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

Posted 26 July 2007 - 01:43 PM

29 June ..... 23 days ... signed and issued on 23 July ----- received 26 July

shit that was quick
0

#54 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 26 July 2007 - 02:39 PM

So where to now Al9lifes.

Court of Appeal on a point of law or the High Court on a Point of law.

As I said at #53 if you don't understand it, leave it alone.

One interesting point I note on page three is the fact that your compensation is in fact being "topped up " by WINZ.

This will be the 'non-taxable' benefit, therefore you would never have had to sign any paperwork to allow a deduction anyway. As 80% of your w/c income would be lower than the threshold for allowing accommodation benefit and disability allowance. Basically.

If you had of had non-taxable reimbursement payable to WiNZ. You could have taken them to the cleaners, shame about that.

At least you have your entitlement ordered to you even though they will be holding onto the outstanding amount.

If you had of asked me I could have given you documents which show that both WINZ and ACC threaten non payment of b/d w/c unless you sign. Highly illegal bully tactics. Needs to get to some Judge, sometime. Won't have made any difference to outcome though. Just a bit of custard on Acc face again.

At least Judge Beattie has gone someway to clear that up. Only from what I can gather, all your income was main benefit reimbursement. Or am I reading this wrong.

How did WiNZ jump from 'net sum due' of $31,010.94 at July 2006 to $24,442.90 in October 96. What did the difference ($6,568.04) consist of??

Did they drop the non-taxables?

Don't worry I lost one like that in 2004, but I know lots more now. Pity I don't get another chance.

Mind you I never tried to re-write their law for them. I was argueing what wasn't said.

MIni
0

#55 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 27 July 2007 - 10:13 AM

Mousey

Section 252 applies to the 'income-tested' taxable benefit in any circumstances where WINZ have been paying you previously to your ACC entitlement being granted.

This section doesnt apply to the 'supplimentary' non-taxable benefit, that is why WINZ need your signature to claw the non-taxables back at the same time as the taxables.

What ACC and WINZ have been doing is holding any of the backdated payments due to the claimant when they would not sign to release the non-taxable reimbursement. This is illegal, as one reimbursement has nothing to do with the other.

This case has cleared that up as the Judge says clearly that there is no reason to hold up all the payment, just because some of it may be owing to WINZ. ACC can release the amount they consider is not needed to repay any monies to WINZ. This is a good case to use when that is tried against a claimant.

The only part that ever has to be made into a 'debt to the crown' from WINZ and ACC point of view is the non-taxable supplimentarys. (If claimant will not sign the necessary papers).

I personally think this is incorrect as most of the same payments made as non-taxable by WINZ are actually paid on our behalf by ACC or reimbursed to us as 'travel expenses' etc. Therefore, I consider none of the supplimentarys are repayable by us claimants.

However if you sign WiNZ piece of paper to allow them to have (only the NET supplimentarys, as the taxable beneifit is taken under sect 252), then you are sunk.

The main problem is that WINZ only ask for the Net amount and ACC take the gross. In both instances.

There is no easy way around these issues as they include differing Crown entities and one person does not have the money, time, tenacity etc to take on all of them.

No one is doing WINZ so if anyone would like to give it a go, bearing in mind that nothing will change the Courts mind concerning section 252, I will be able to assist in preparation. Just because I got caught once does not mean that it would happen again.

I just attack it from another angle anyway. The outcome will be to our benefit I hope.

Cheers Mini
0

#56 User is offline   Al9lifes 

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

Posted 27 July 2007 - 11:26 AM

Quote

This case has cleared that up as the Judge says clearly that there is no reason to hold up all the payment, just because some of it may be owing to WINZ. ACC can release the amount they consider is not needed to repay any monies to WINZ.


Yet I am still waiting the release of the amount ACC considers is mine.
The Judge did not instruct the ACC to make the payment .
How do I get my backdated entitlement with this decision ?
0

#57 User is offline   tonyj 

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

Posted 27 July 2007 - 01:29 PM

Why did he say can not shall???

this to me is a worry.

tony
0

#58 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 27 July 2007 - 05:11 PM

Hi Mousey

I understand what you are saying.

When I write, I write of the following situation unless expressly said, as I can only comment on what I know:

The situation of which I write is the reimbursement of both taxable and non-taxable WINz
(This will mean that you would need to be in a Higher ACC entitlement situation than your WINZ INcome)
If the above is apportioned between ACC and WINZ I am sorry I cannot help you as that did not happen in my instance.
Although if it were a straight division between taxable and non-taxable, I would understand that. (ie if you did not need to return an non taxables because you did not hit the level of income needed to lose your non-taxable supplimentaries). I had to pay back both so I include both in my writings and thinking, unless otherwise stated.

This being the case, I am so sorry there is so much about WINZ that I cannot assist you with. I do however, see your problem.

As I have said often, it needs someone to take WINZ for a good workout at the High Court, as obviously they cannot be presuaded to do the right thing at the bottom. I tried including ACC and WINZ together, but alas, got told I was in the wrong court!! You know, go see the other entity. Doing them singerly doesnt help either.

I have asked the Minister of the Courts to look at the problem in the shuffles they are supposed to be making at the lower courts. Don't know what will come of it, but have his door open and he is expecting me back in the next month. Can only try eh??

I am hopeful my case soon to be decided will allow all of us bothered by these antics to state our cases to one entity or the other. I am trying to put the way in which we are bullied by WINZ to sign documents, which then disadvantage us, into my case. It may work or they may just ignore it, I cannot tell at this time.

Never give up asking questions, you obviously have first hand knowledge of all this stuff and your writings are very interesting, especially when you take the children into consideration as well. Others with children will be able to assist you on those curly ones, mine all all grown up!!

Tony could you please explain more, I can't understand what you are asking.

Cheers Mini
0

#59 User is offline   tonyj 

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

Posted 27 July 2007 - 05:59 PM

Hi Mini,

Beatties
30] The Court makes the observation that the proposal mooted by the respondent's Claims Manager in her memorandum of 27 June 2007, ought to be implemented without delay, if indeed it has not already been implemented, as the continued retention of the gross sum is clearly not in accord with the spirit of the Act.

my mistake I meant to say ought instead of can ..

the word should be shall ... ought is not an instruction..

tony
0

#60 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 28 July 2007 - 11:39 AM

Mousey

Keep on in there. But don't forget you have to have a social life as well. It is too easy to get tied down with all this stuff and not have a life, with people and latte's etc in it. Not that we can afford them often anyway.

Like you say, there is always someone worse off than yourself. Not that we should feel good about that, but it helps to keep things in perpective.

You friends case sounds interesting, but then I don't have time to keep on top of my own, so cannot get too involved.

Hopefully by the time you get down the track to reimburse WINZ, you will have a much clearer understanding of what the issue is all about. Hopefully it will be changed by then.

It has already changed slightly by ACC and WINZ not being able to hold onto your money when not needed to repay anyone. Even if it is not a 'direction' from the Judge to pay it, it is certainly a very strong suggestion.

Tonyj

As above last paragraph.

DRSL

Could you not use this case for 'interest'

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