ACCforum: Staff Fraud - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Staff Fraud Will they investigate to the maximum

#1 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 13 August 2007 - 10:23 PM

this is the fraud that is in my file that no ACC staff can see or work out. I will post all that I have including the legislation.

For the rest of my story check out;#entry48847

First there is the enquiry to Mr Lahman.

Mr Tony Lahman,
Staff Fraud Unit,
Accident Compensation Corporation
P. O. Box 242
Claim Numbers 90/81/737342, 82/737242. R1735572/001.

Dear Sir,
With the reference to the above claim numbers.

Staff Fraud against claimants compensation when reduction of the entitlement of compensation was completed with out a decision .between 15 September 1987 and 11 August 1988.

The Client Officer had carried out the calculations not using the relevant earnings as had been calculated on the 22 may 1981 in which he has found no error.
The relative Act at the time is 100. Notice of decisions---
(1) Subject to this Act, the Corporation or any agent of the Corporation authorised in that behalf shall, as soon as practicable, give notice in writing of any decision in respect of which an application for review may be made under section 101 of this Act:

Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any decision which results in payment in full, by or on behalf of the Corporation, of any amounts claimed for compensation under any of sections 64, 72 to 77, and 81 of this Act.

(2) Subject to this Act, notice required to be given in accordance with subsection (1) of this section shall---
(a) Where a claim for rehabilitation assistance or compensation is made, be given to the person making the claim; or
(B) Where the decision is one affecting the liability of any person to pay any levy under this Act or the amount of any such levy, be given to that person.

(3) Subject to sections 60 (5), 111 (5), and 112 (13) of this Act, any decision made by the Corporation may be revised by the Corporation if it appears to it that the decision has been made in error, whether by reason of mistake or by reason of false or misleading information having been supplied or by reason of fresh evidence or for any other reason, and the Corporation may thereupon alter or amend any such decision or revoke the decision and substitute another decision therefor:

Provided that any such alteration, amendment, or revocation and substituted decision shall be deemed to be a decision of the Corporation for the purposes of this section and sections 101 to 112 of this Act.

(4) Subject to any regulations made under this Act, the Corporation shall, as soon as practicable, give notice in writing of any decision under subsection (4) or subsection (5) of section 27 of this Act as follows:
(a) In the case of a decision under the said subsection (4), the notice shall be given to each of the parties to the proceedings in which the question for decision arose, and a copy of the notice shall be sent to the Registrar of the Court by which the question was referred to the Corporation:
(B) In the case of a decision under the said subsection (5), the notice shall be given to the person on whose application the decision has been made, and to all other parties to the proceedings or contemplated proceedings.
Cf. 1972, No. 43, s. 151; 1973, No. 113, s. 53

By reading the Corporation management's directions to the staff I can not find the instructions to alter entitlements with out decisions.
Notice of Decisions - Section 100
Each assessment or re-assessment of ERC is to be advised in writing including details of rights of review. Form C62 should be used, except when the assessment may be conveyed more clearly by means of a letter, e.g., one of the provisional assessments (see 4.15).
Section 100(3) grants us the power to revise any such assessment. Again, the revision must be advised in writing in accordance with s. 100(1) and will, if appropriate, carry review rights.

I have no documentation that show me that there is a requirement of the Corporations staff to remove entitlements to curate hard ship and limit rehabilitation. I wrote to the then case manager Ms Christine Beattie to explain that the corporation had made a serious error. Her letter of the 14 April 1993 confirmed that there had need a serious mistake but so far no correction has been completed. This may be due to other reasons.

On the 10 July 2007 Mr Ray Wilson claimed in his letter that there is nothing wrong in the way that the Corporation remove entitlements and thinks that the entitlement should not be paid to the claimant.

There is a rumour that the staff obtain remuneration for not exposing mistakes, often called cover-up. Not only does the person that curates the mistake benefit bit also their managers and there manager's manager.

Due to this office's past performances and unable to obtain factorial information from corporation staff I are requesting under either the privacy Act or the Official Information Act that each fortnight that you send me a progress report on what the office has found out about the missing funds. Do not forget the chain of responsibility when doing the investigation and check that all remuneration gained by the offenders from the performance review system is gained with out removing entitlements from claimants.



Dear Sir,
This is a request for the Corporations Fraud unit to carry out a investigation on the activities of staff looking at the dishonesty in administrating the Act and other Acts in relationship to the administrating of my claim.

The complaint is the allegation of a debt to the Corporation and then the removal of moneys by threat of using a debit recovery company, causing a disadvantage to me in completing the needed Vocational Rehabilitation. At the time of writing the letter 5 February 1993 the staff knew that there was no debt and that no recovery could be sought.

The letter that required the debt to be repaid is dated 5 February 1993. The letter is claiming that there is an overpayment with out taking in to consideration the level of entitlement and the reimbursements that is part of the entitlement, the refund if moneys for travel and accommodation, for the time period in question.

The Memo on the 8th February 1993 shows the intention of the Client Officer was to curate a false credit record to prevent the use of a credit record to obtain the rehabilitation. There may have been other reasons and this will be looked at later by me.

The letter 29 March 1993 is enquiring when the balance was due. A reply to that letter is explaining that the Corporation is the one that has the debt to me and is more detail of the review application received 18 May 1992. The calculation in the memo show that the staff member did not know the legislation as in 1981 the maximum amount of compensation was $360.00 this meant that the maximum was 80% of $378.03 and not $360.00 as claimed. This was a deliberate mistake in 1981 and also in 1993 when the amount was calculated again. You are already looking into this criminal activity so you will of the level of entitlement.

The claiming of a debt, them forcing of the payment is not in any policy of the corporation that I have found. This indicates that the Client Officer was working with in the branch level in a course to deceive the Corporation and the claimant on a equal level. Just after this time period the media was contacted with the concern that certain staff were being made to complete tasks that were illegal. This means that this activity may have been source from a higher management level with the response of employment removed if the instruction are not completed on time.

With Mr Ray Wilson's references in his letter of 10 July 2007 to the letter of 5 February 1993 being correct would mean to me that Mr Wilson has either written his letter to endorse the behavioural problem with corporation staff or has advised the staff member to carry out such actions.

On the receipt of such information Mr Wilson can use section 390 and carry out any necessary corrections of mistakes that have happened in the past. Mr Wilson has failed to follow the legislation into correct the mistakes of the past case administrators and him self. Mr Wilson chooses with out any influence to not report the past practices of case management staff to the authority where there has been a disregard to the dishonest dealing of some staff.

As I have seen with investigation of claimants from this office based on fictitious information I will be requesting a fortnightly up date to see if
That the Fraud Investigation is carrying out an investigation,
That the fraud investigators are receiving honest information from the Corporation staff.
That the investigators are working,
That the investigator employed is of a reliable character. (This would remove Mr Peter Gibbons, Jamie
Clark, and any of there so called friends of now and past.

Attached File(s)


#2 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 16 August 2007 - 08:12 PM

And ths is my reply to their reply.


Dear Sir,
Thank you for your reply on the 7 August 2007.

I am a bit puzzled as of your findings, do not match the expert findings of a person, or persons that have calculated figures during their employment for most of there working life.

To clarify that you have carried out such an investigation, under the Official Information Act please send the policies and procedures that are used as guide lines when carrying out investigations of staff.

Under the privacy Act please supply the correspondence that you used to gather the relevant information or proof that you did personally had access to the relevant information to carry out such an investigation. It the information is not in hard copy then I requite that the information be put into hard copy for all to access and read.

You have claimed that you have reviewed the Weekly Compensation calculations and payments but the independent calculations that I have received, shows that the payments are short to the level of entitlements that are a legislative requirement. To make sure that there is no misunderstanding of the legislation and the claims manual for that period, it is only correct that I have a copy of these documents so that I know that you have the correct information when making your calculations to make a decision. I will also need these documentation from you to supply the Ombudsmen Office for these people to carry out an investigation when it is show that you have not carried out such an investigation.

Please supply under the Official Information Act the claims manual for the period from 1981 to 1992.

You mention in your letter that this subject has been to review, Appeal Court and High Court. Is this an admission that the Corporation lied to the reviewer, the judge at both Appeal Court and High Court to remove the entitlement of Compensation?

Mr Lahman I think that the reviewer would be insulted in saying that he reviewed the short payment in the compensation or the allegations of the debt, the extortion and the attempting of extortion of money in the form of a claimed debt.

The fact that you suggest that this has been to Review, Appeal Court and High Court, makes that the Review, Appeal and High Court are not very proficient in the addition of numbers. I would doubt that Mr Shirly would say that the letter 5 February 1993 is a decision that is the decision that the review application that the Corporation received May 1992.

For Mr Shirley to review the letter 5 February 1993 the corporation would have needed to revise the decision of the 2 April 1992 claiming that there was no offence committed. None of the standard procedures in revising a decision were undertaken so Mr Lahman I don't think that the issue of the debt has been to review, Appeal or High Court unless there has been a review with out a review application.

Mr Lahman when you consider that the payment was short at $16.42 per week in 1981 when the Corporation claimed that the maximum compensation entitlement was $360.00, and that my claim is now 26 years old the amount would be large taking in the increases and the amount of time.

Part of the Compensation or make-up Compensation was paid from 4 September 1987 claiming to use the "up dated earnings". Legislation gave the amount of increase bringing the amount of Earnings Related Compensation to $677.81 per week. The increase is not reviewable as it is part of the legislation. The Corporation only paid make up compensation to the amount of $451.22 as described in the C62 dated 11 August 1988. The $226.59 per week that has been removed from my entitlement may be considered by management with in the Corporation as savings, but in my opinion this is thief of entitlement.

I know and you will claim that my file has been audited twice (or on two occasions by two different professional organisations who were paid under the presumptions of audits), several branch staff including Shelley Johnstone and Eion McDonald, Mr Gary Wilson and Mr Gerald McGreevy. All of these persons were looking for wrong doing in my file but could not find any. None of these staff members or the professional auditors found the short payment despite the review application May 1992 and letter of 2 April 1993 clearly detailing the short payment.

I trust that you have seriously looked at the thief of entitlement, the remuneration for staff when there is a thief of an entitlement. Because there is thief of an entitlement and remuneration to the staff because of the thief then there is fraud.

I gather that the recent review of the fraud unit with in the ACC did not look at fraud with in the Corporation.


#3 User is offline   BLURB 

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

Posted 25 August 2007 - 10:51 PM

13 August 2007

Mr Fran Van Helmond

Dear Mr Van Helmond

Request for Official Information

I refer to your further request of 31 July 2007 for information, under the Official Information Act 1982.

You requested the following information:

How many ACC staff, which includes management down to the branch level, have been caught out and either dismissed and or prosecuted for thief (fraud) over the last 8 years?

This would include all who have been slapped with a wet bus ticket and told not to do it again instead of being sacked/prosecuted.

I can advise you that ACC’s Code of Conduct for employees states that behaviour or instances of staff fraud identified and proven, will likely result in immediate dismissal of the employee. As in all employment related matters, however, the employee would have the opportunity to provide information and a defence in relation to the offences before any final decision is made.

In light of this advice, I confirm that the information provided to you on 8 July 2007 also satisfies your further request of 31 July 2007. That is, all cases of staff fraud for the above period were included in the earlier letter.

If you have any questions, or require further assistance, please call me on 04 918 7414.

Yours sincerely

James Allen
Advisor, Government Services
Strategic Policy & Research
Accident Compensation Corporation
DDI: 04 918 7414
Fax: 04 918 7652
[email protected]

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