ACCforum: Langdon V Acc - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Langdon V Acc Repayment of Winz

#21 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 30 July 2007 - 10:34 AM

In the case of M, WINZ conceded on the non taxable allowances prior to ACC Appeal to the District Court (confirming my suspicion they are all (ACC,WINZ, IRD) aware of the legal issues of WINZ seeking repayment of these allowances). Thus it follows that the non taxable allowances would not have been an issue at the High Court and Court of Appeal?
0

#22 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 31 July 2007 - 11:02 AM

OK Spacecadet I will get hold of the powers that be that keep my filing in line. Get you a copy of High Court SSDevelopement v M.

Like I should really dump on-line photos of what my thrid bedroom looks like, but then that is why I can't work eh??

Getting stuff in and out of filing cabinets is just not too much fun and causes lots of pain, so it is scattered, on the bed, on the sewing table, on the floor. You name it, if it is a flat surface, not in a box or cabinet then it is covered with paperwork in this thrid bedroom.

It is my filing system and it works for me. Mind you the dust is mounting up. Will all be over soon I hope.

I will off to try get you a copy. OK happy now?? And hey, you owe me one.

cheers
Mini
0

#23 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 31 July 2007 - 12:41 PM

Thanks DRSL

But this is not the case I am talking about. This is only at the SSAA.

After this case M actually won her case at a Higher Court, the Ministry of Social Developement went overtop of that (couldnt have her setting a precident) and M of SD actually toppled her (M) off her perch again.

Mind you she came out of it alright, as she had the non-taxables wiped at one of the lower courts. It was never part of the case I am taking about.

Am still trying.

Deary me!!
0

#24 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 31 July 2007 - 01:14 PM

Thanks for the files NODRSL.

In the first case, M V SSAA and I quote"

[7] On 26 May 1999 the Chief Executive advised the appellant of her decision to
establish a debt for $138,92.28. A decision has subsequently been made that
the amount of the Accommodation Benefit, Disability Allowance and Special
Benefit should not be recovered as the Chief Executive did not make the grant
of those benefits conditional upon repayment in terms of s.71 of the Social
Security Act 1964 (the Act). The amount of the overpayment sought


Regardless to the SSAA Judgement referring to s. 71 as the reason for not seeking repayments of the Accommodation Benefit, Disability Allowance and Special benefit; I believe the true reason is the argument put forward in my earlier post.

And the argument to the contrary is: That if WINZ could reclaim the Widows Benefit under s71 why not the other benefits?

Paragraph [7] of the SSAA decision is a cop-out; and like many SSAA decisions I have read, are not based on good logic or law.
0

#25 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 31 July 2007 - 01:39 PM

It is all very interesting as all I signed was a piece of paper under section 71 and yet I still paid the non-taxables and got charged 40.2% tax by acc!!!

mInd you there will be very few pieces of paper only have 71 on them any more as they include 71A, which allows them the claw back the Widows Benefit and 81 which is the section NoDSRL refers to as allowing them to backdate debt as though we are criminals.

Ok off to see if I have any mail, to send you guys.

Cheers Mini

PS Not getting much headway made today!!
0

#26 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 31 July 2007 - 01:57 PM

NODSRL

No I don't know if that is the case that went to the High Court. Maybe I need to resort to my pile of dusty old cases here.

However, the whole aim of dropping WINZ and ACC was because I didnt have the time and stamina to keep up three cases at the High Court Level without legal representation. Hence the desire for someone else to do this part.

Will keep looking when I change position and have a rest.

Cheers Mini
0

#27 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 31 July 2007 - 02:26 PM

No Dsrl

Oh you are a dear fella.

That is soooooooo nice of you and I thank you, but I have found the blighter on line where I ordered it through Nexis Lexis, so if you want a better copy send me your e-mail address, preferably private, and I will send you a copy.

I Knew I had the blighter somewhere, but it is just tracking it in my system is a worry.

Cheers for that
Mini
0

#28 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 31 July 2007 - 04:59 PM

Quote

However, the whole aim of dropping WINZ and ACC was because I didnt have the time and stamina to keep up three cases at the High Court Level without legal representation.


Aye and there's the rub!
That applies in most cases as early as first objection to arbitary decision.
Most and I repeat , MOST give up when confronted with drsl and acc mail out of stuff as to be completely flummoxed and probably cannot afford laywers and no nothing about where to get help or even able to access it.
Remember these folk are crook and when one is crook as everyone knows things are immensly more difficult to cope with.
The minister Knowing ly lied in writing to this constituent on several occasions when she said that there is no expense in claimant persuing a dispute.
What she avoided stating up to drsl stage any way. what she did not say and knew this does not apply at district court level or higher.
This fraud called ACC is but a puppet of its stake holders vested in Labour party approved appointees under contract with the minister.
The web of deciet and theft stars at the top. this country is being run by a criminal coterrie withing government and ruthless dykeson is in the gun...........................

one only has to look at the mess every one of her portfilios are in with increasing complaints arrising from pissed off people like us.
0

#29 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 01 August 2007 - 01:34 PM

Flowers

Sorry to brust your political bubble, but Labour wasn't even govt when the shit I am fighting was invented!!

This stuff has been around longer than that!!

Spacecadet, NoDRSL and others are all fighting the good fight, and maybe just maybe one of us or all us can make a difference. Time will tell.

Some of us are lucky enough to have a background in controversey and evidence gathering. It gets one past the DRSL stage, where people understand what one is saying and realise when there is no more wool left to pull over the poor claimants eyes.

Cheers
Mini
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