ACCforum: Acc Fraud - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Acc Fraud Altering Pathways to increase KPI's

#1 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 01 October 2007 - 08:34 AM

Thanks to the diligence of NoDRSL, we now have evidence, by way of the Employment Court, of this practice within ACC. I have extracted the relevant sections from the 10 page decision.

IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT, CHRISTCHURCH, CC 3/07 CRC 22/06

IN THE MATTER OF an application to extend time
BETWEEN KAREN LYNETTE PEOPLES
Applicant
AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Judgment: 13 February 2007

[1] Ms Peoples was employed by the Accident Compensation Corporation
("ACC") for 9 years. In January 2004 she was dismissed. In September 2005,
Ms Peoples lodged a statement of problem with the Employment Relations
Authority alleging that her dismissal was unjustifiable. On 4 April 2006, the
Authority conducted an investigation meeting. On 9 June 2006, the Authority
gave its determination, concluding that Ms Peoples had been justifiably
dismissed.


The merits of the proposed challenge
[25] Ms Peoples was dismissed by ACC for entering false information into its
database which had the effect of enhancing her apparent performance. After
investigating the matter, ACC concluded that what Ms Peoples had done
constituted serious misconduct. In its determination, the Authority
concluded:
[27] ACC’s investigation cannot be faulted in any significant way. Ms Peoples
had a full opportunity to explain herself knowing the potential outcome. There
was no predetermination and Mr Riley properly considered the things said by Ms
Peoples including the few disputed points about the notes. I conclude that the
investigation disclosed conduct capable of being regarded as serious misconduct.
Indeed there can be no serious challenge to the conclusion that Ms Peoples
entered false information into Pathway; that it impacted on her KPIs
which go
towards assessing her performance and her salary level; and that this was a
serious breach of Ms Peoples’ obligations to ACC in light of the potential risk.
[26] In her affidavit Ms Peoples did not dispute the two key findings by the
Authority in this passage: that ACC had conducted a full and fair investigaton
and that her conduct was capable of being regarded as serious misconduct.
The basis of her proposed challenge is that the Authority failed to give proper
consideration to the effect of work related stress on her and that there was
disparity of treatment by ACC between her and other employees of ACC
who behaved in a similar manner.
[27] Ms Peoples did not suggest in her affidavit that she intends to provide the
Court with any evidence relating to these two issues which was not provided
to the Authority. Rather, her case is that the Authority failed to give proper
weight to the evidence or misunderstood it.
[28] The Authority devoted about one quarter of its determination to discussion
of the evidence relating to Ms Peoples’ history of stress while working for
ACC. Most of this concerned events which occurred during 2003,
culminating in an assessment by a psychiatrist obtained at ACC’s cost. In a
report dated 20 November 2003, the psychiatrist concluded:
...since the crisis in October, and a change of team manager, I gather from Karen
that she has overcome her backlog, and feels that she is again in charge of her
workload, and is settled back into her employment. Thus I don’t think any other
particular interventions are appropriate or necessary at the present.
[29] In her affidavit, Ms Peoples did not challenge that conclusion by the
psychiatrist which was given less than 2 months prior to the investigation
which led to Ms Peoples’ dismissal. Equally, Ms Peoples did not say in her
affidavit that she raised with ACC any further concerns relating to workplace
stress following that report and prior to her dismissal. Neither did Ms
Peoples contradict the finding of fact made by the Authority in paragraph
[17] of the determination that Ms Peoples told her team leader in late
November 2003 that her stress levels were "okay".
[30] On the information available to me, I think it distinctly unlikely that the Court
would find Ms Peoples’ dismissal unjustifiable on the grounds that ACC
failed to have proper regard to work related stress suffered by her.
[31] On the issue of disparity of treatment, Mr Shaw submitted that "the Authority
gave only scant consideration to the issue" and failed to understand Ms
Peoples’ case in this regard.
[32] In her affidavit, Ms Peoples referred only briefly to this issue. She said that,
during the investigation process, she provided management of ACC with
documents showing that other staff had engaged in misconduct similar to
hers. She then said "In the meeting, I told them that I did not believe this was
serious misconduct, because it was a widespread practice, that was tolerated
by ACC."
[33] It is apparent from paragraph [30] of the Authority’s determination that
ACC’s response to this statement by Ms Peoples was to investigate the
conduct of other employees and to take disciplinary action against one of
them.
[34] Mr Shaw submitted that the Authority misunderstood Ms Peoples’ case by
regarding it as an allegation of disparity of treatment as between her and the
other staff who were disciplined less severely than she was whereas the true
nature of her case was that her actions should not have been regarded as
serious misconduct because ACC had condoned other employees acting in a
similar way.
[35] This submission overlooks paragraph [20] of the determination where the
Authority specifically recorded evidence, presumably given by Ms Peoples, to
the effect that she "conducted her own review of other case managers’ files
in order to establish that her practice in respect of dating IRPs in Pathway
was common place in the office
." This confirms that the Authority
considered the evidence given about the conduct of other staff not only in the
context of disparity of treatment in subsequent disciplinary action but also in
the context of Ms Peoples’ suggestion that ACC condoned the conduct in
question.
[36] On the information available to me, it seems unlikely that the Court would
conclude that Ms Peoples genuinely believed on reasonable grounds that her
conduct in falsifying entries in the database was acceptable to ACC. The only
evidence it appears she would put forward in support of that proposition is
that other staff members had engaged in similar misconduct.
There is no
suggestion in Ms Peoples’ affidavit or in the Authority’s determination that
management of ACC were aware of such misconduct by other staff members
prior to Ms Peoples raising it in the course of her disciplinary investigation.
The fact that ACC responded to this information by immediately instigating
an investigation of the conduct of those other staff members and disciplining
one of them suggests that such behaviour was not condoned by ACC.
[37] Overall, my conclusion is that Ms Peoples would have little prospect of
success in challenging the Authority’s determination if she were granted an
extension of time to do so.
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 October 2007 - 08:58 AM

If ACC staff performance is measured by the "Key Performance Indicators" and staff are motivated to falsify the information to misrepresent his performance AND the outcome of that falsified information is on reduced ACC liability and reduced claimant entitlement then there is a prima facie case of criminal fraud against both the ACC and Claimant. The ex-ACC staff member in your evidence essentially confirms her guilt and the alleges the of guilt of her colleagues.

To add to the mix the ACC itself must also be culpable to some degree that it would be reckless in the extreme to create the "Key Performance Indicator" mechanism of reward without a quality control mechanism in place. Should be found that the recklessness was deliberate then the ACC itself as a party to the fraud. The ACC have a secondary chain of command called "Peer Review" meaning that if there were no written instructions you check with your peers and you do what they do.

The ACC awareness of something being wrong will show up immediately the "Actuaries" calculation determining the number of injuries and cost to the ACC, so as to calculate the amount of levies needed, does not match up with what was actually spent. Either the ACC charge too much or spent too little. There is no possibility that a multibillion-dollar Corporation will not be aware of the anomaly and should stop at nothing until that anomaly is remedied. My impression is that they have wilfully "see no evil, heard no evil and therefore spoke no evil" in the full knowledge that there continues to be evil.
0

#3 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 01 October 2007 - 09:23 AM

It is interesting that in February of this year I posted an article by the international auditors of ACC whereby ACC was required, in its accounting, to increase the liabiity of its long term claims from some 7 billion to around 21 billion. Of course at the time Mr Mr Thomas describe such a piece a actuary accounting practice as "bollocks". I don't know how much Mr Thomas knows about accounting, but I would not place too much faith in his comments.
2

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 October 2007 - 10:06 AM

Spacecadet I have been unable to find the thread that you are referring to. I have always said that there is Shockey accounting practices subsequent to the calculations of setting Levies. As we are in agreement I mystified as to why you are criticising.
0

#5 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 02 October 2007 - 07:34 AM

View Postboho refugee, on Oct 1 2007, 02:09 PM, said:

I agree this was a great find by NoDRSL and I am pleased to see you have raised it for discussion spacecadet :)

I am wondering how many claimants were managed by this selfconfessed ACC casemanagers and of course
As Alan has introduced another issue concerning LEVIES in this thread and his mystification - the only crossover that I can think of may be the recent rises where it is being promoted to the NZ Public that such huge increases are needed to fund the long term claimants etc This tells me that ACC are seeking to obtain new monies so I wonder what has happened to the money which should have already been tagged etc

Sorry spacecadet - I do not know all the right terms or ideas there to explain myself better - but going back to the actual thread topic on KPIs falsified by staff and other court judgements against staff for fraud in the past - whether they have taken thousands or millions - do you know if any of that reality and ongoing risk was examined by the International Auditors?


Firstly - this is a usual Thomas tactic of blogging a thread that doesn't concern his case.

From memory - the article by international auditors was taken from the Independent. It has to do with ACC being out of step with international actuary guidelines for making provisions for long term claimants. The implication was that either ACC had a devious plan to get rid of their long term claimants, or the ACC accounting was being skewed to make the financial position of ACC look better than it was - which would influence lower levies.
0

#6 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 02 October 2007 - 09:58 AM

[quote]In her affidavit Ms Peoples did not dispute the two key findings by the
Authority in this passage: that ACC had conducted a full and fair investigaton
and that her conduct was capable of being regarded as serious misconduct.
The basis of her proposed challenge is that the Authority failed to give proper
consideration to the effect of work related stress on her and that there was
disparity of treatment by ACC between her and other employees of ACC
who behaved in a [u]similar manner[/u].
quote]


[quote]In her affidavit, Ms Peoples referred only briefly to this issue. She said that,
during the investigation process, she provided management of ACC with
documents showing that other staff had engaged in misconduct similar to
hers.
She then said "In the meeting, I told them that I did not believe this was
serious misconduct, because it was a widespread practice, that was tolerated
by ACC."[/quote]


Notice the quick cover up and one further mug bagged in the interests of looking good.

[u]This is evidence of what we have been saying since the begining that: The KPI and bonus structure that ACC uses leaves the case management of injured and ignorant claimants open to fraud and in fact, actually encourages it. And that this is not an isolated incidence of fraudulent activity by ACC employee's, but rather endemic in the system causing much grief and denial for genuine claimants.......
[/u]

Just look at the errors in your own files and the extreme and almost impossible task of getting these "errors" corrected as the files have been corrupted for bonusus and KPI's for thieving case mongrels.

This just proves the disrepute of ACC case manglement and ACC's past blind eye.

Abolish all kpi's and bonusus and pay them a basic wage as normal kiwi's do, not these self interested public sarvants to beauracracy
0

#7 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 02 October 2007 - 10:13 AM

I think that this would open the gates for claimants to challenge all decisions made by this person and branch on the basis of staff padding the kpi reports and obtaining fraudulent reports for that purpose.
This is fraud and criminal prosecution should follow not just dismissal.......
0

#8 User is offline   BLURB 

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

Posted 02 October 2007 - 12:25 PM

The tribunal document and a link to MGs previous posts concerning Karen Peoples can be found here.

http://www.accforum.org/forums/index.php?s...ic=4908&hl=

I am just posting this info to save confusion because I am one of many that has sent that link to outside interests for comment.

I am also not posting anymore in regards to Karen Peoples because of what is taking place off site in regards to those revelations made by Ms Peoples as in regards to my own and a number of others claimants files.

No disrespect intended but ACC gain to much from this site to prepare counter challenge whatever we say or come up with.

Cheers
0

#9 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 02 October 2007 - 04:23 PM

View PostBLURB, on Oct 2 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

T
No disrespect intended but ACC gain to much from this site to prepare counter challenge whatever we say or come up with.

Cheers


A good timely warning about watching what we post about ourselves and our claims
0

#10 User is offline   tonyj 

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

Posted 02 October 2007 - 04:47 PM

If I remember rightly a directive actually went out to ACC CM's that they were not to notify clients if inaccurate data saw found on their files .. unless the client already knew .

tony
0

#11 User is offline   MadMac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 02 October 2007 - 07:58 PM

:wub: Hi everyone ...

One of the issues that I have been going on about is that I had a work accident on the 7/2/1986 ...

:o what is stuck so far up my nose is that based on what information from where did ACC manage to create and attempt to manage a home accident on the 7/2/1986 on Pathways ??????

:huh: Took me ACC over 4 years to give me a copy of a file that I had been requesting ...

Nearly died finding out about a home accident 7/2/1986 ...

Aprox 140 miles different from where I had my accident to where ACC reckon I had my accident ...

Ssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh Don't tell anyone but the file has been Managed again to manage to show some other detail ... mmmmmmmmmmmmmm could it be something to do with system ?

Do you think it could be rather silly to attempt to manage a claim that never happened ?

;) Have a wonderful day ...
0

#12 User is offline   Class Action 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 03-October 07

Posted 16 October 2007 - 05:01 AM

View PostSpacecadet, on Oct 1 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

Thanks to the diligence of NoDRSL, we now have evidence, by way of the Employment Court, of this practice within ACC. I have extracted the relevant sections from the 10 page decision.

IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT, CHRISTCHURCH, CC 3/07 CRC 22/06

IN THE MATTER OF an application to extend time
BETWEEN KAREN LYNETTE PEOPLES
Applicant
AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Judgment: 13 February 2007

[1] Ms Peoples was employed by the Accident Compensation Corporation
("ACC") for 9 years. In January 2004 she was dismissed. In September 2005,
Ms Peoples lodged a statement of problem with the Employment Relations
Authority alleging that her dismissal was unjustifiable. On 4 April 2006, the
Authority conducted an investigation meeting. On 9 June 2006, the Authority
gave its determination, concluding that Ms Peoples had been justifiably
dismissed.


The merits of the proposed challenge
[25] Ms Peoples was dismissed by ACC for entering false information into its
database which had the effect of enhancing her apparent performance. After
investigating the matter, ACC concluded that what Ms Peoples had done
constituted serious misconduct. In its determination, the Authority
concluded:
[27] ACCís investigation cannot be faulted in any significant way. Ms Peoples
had a full opportunity to explain herself knowing the potential outcome. There
was no predetermination and Mr Riley properly considered the things said by Ms
Peoples including the few disputed points about the notes. I conclude that the
investigation disclosed conduct capable of being regarded as serious misconduct.
Indeed there can be no serious challenge to the conclusion that Ms Peoples
entered false information into Pathway; that it impacted on her KPIs
which go
towards assessing her performance and her salary level; and that this was a
serious breach of Ms Peoplesí obligations to ACC in light of the potential risk.
[26] In her affidavit Ms Peoples did not dispute the two key findings by the
Authority in this passage: that ACC had conducted a full and fair investigaton
and that her conduct was capable of being regarded as serious misconduct.
The basis of her proposed challenge is that the Authority failed to give proper
consideration to the effect of work related stress on her and that there was
disparity of treatment by ACC between her and other employees of ACC
who behaved in a similar manner.
[27] Ms Peoples did not suggest in her affidavit that she intends to provide the
Court with any evidence relating to these two issues which was not provided
to the Authority. Rather, her case is that the Authority failed to give proper
weight to the evidence or misunderstood it.
[28] The Authority devoted about one quarter of its determination to discussion
of the evidence relating to Ms Peoplesí history of stress while working for
ACC. Most of this concerned events which occurred during 2003,
culminating in an assessment by a psychiatrist obtained at ACCís cost. In a
report dated 20 November 2003, the psychiatrist concluded:
...since the crisis in October, and a change of team manager, I gather from Karen
that she has overcome her backlog, and feels that she is again in charge of her
workload, and is settled back into her employment. Thus I donít think any other
particular interventions are appropriate or necessary at the present.
[29] In her affidavit, Ms Peoples did not challenge that conclusion by the
psychiatrist which was given less than 2 months prior to the investigation
which led to Ms Peoplesí dismissal. Equally, Ms Peoples did not say in her
affidavit that she raised with ACC any further concerns relating to workplace
stress following that report and prior to her dismissal. Neither did Ms
Peoples contradict the finding of fact made by the Authority in paragraph
[17] of the determination that Ms Peoples told her team leader in late
November 2003 that her stress levels were "okay".
[30] On the information available to me, I think it distinctly unlikely that the Court
would find Ms Peoplesí dismissal unjustifiable on the grounds that ACC
failed to have proper regard to work related stress suffered by her.
[31] On the issue of disparity of treatment, Mr Shaw submitted that "the Authority
gave only scant consideration to the issue" and failed to understand Ms
Peoplesí case in this regard.
[32] In her affidavit, Ms Peoples referred only briefly to this issue. She said that,
during the investigation process, she provided management of ACC with
documents showing that other staff had engaged in misconduct similar to
hers. She then said "In the meeting, I told them that I did not believe this was
serious misconduct, because it was a widespread practice, that was tolerated
by ACC."
[33] It is apparent from paragraph [30] of the Authorityís determination that
ACCís response to this statement by Ms Peoples was to investigate the
conduct of other employees and to take disciplinary action against one of
them.
[34] Mr Shaw submitted that the Authority misunderstood Ms Peoplesí case by
regarding it as an allegation of disparity of treatment as between her and the
other staff who were disciplined less severely than she was whereas the true
nature of her case was that her actions should not have been regarded as
serious misconduct because ACC had condoned other employees acting in a
similar way.
[35] This submission overlooks paragraph [20] of the determination where the
Authority specifically recorded evidence, presumably given by Ms Peoples, to
the effect that she "conducted her own review of other case managersí files
in order to establish that her practice in respect of dating IRPs in Pathway
was common place in the office
." This confirms that the Authority
considered the evidence given about the conduct of other staff not only in the
context of disparity of treatment in subsequent disciplinary action but also in
the context of Ms Peoplesí suggestion that ACC condoned the conduct in
question.
[36] On the information available to me, it seems unlikely that the Court would
conclude that Ms Peoples genuinely believed on reasonable grounds that her
conduct in falsifying entries in the database was acceptable to ACC. The only
evidence it appears she would put forward in support of that proposition is
that other staff members had engaged in similar misconduct.
There is no
suggestion in Ms Peoplesí affidavit or in the Authorityís determination that
management of ACC were aware of such misconduct by other staff members
prior to Ms Peoples raising it in the course of her disciplinary investigation.
The fact that ACC responded to this information by immediately instigating
an investigation of the conduct of those other staff members and disciplining
one of them suggests that such behaviour was not condoned by ACC.
[37] Overall, my conclusion is that Ms Peoples would have little prospect of
success in challenging the Authorityís determination if she were granted an
extension of time to do so.



"There is no suggestion in Ms Peoplesí affidavit or in the Authorityís determination that management of ACC were aware of such misconduct by other staff members prior to Ms Peoples raising it in the course of her disciplinary investigation.
The fact that ACC responded to this information by immediately instigating an investigation of the conduct of those other staff members and disciplining one of them suggests that such behaviour was not condoned by ACC."



We challenge the CEO of ACC, Dr Jan White, to issue a statement confirming that the management of ACC were not aware of such misconduct, as practiced by Ms Peoples, by other staff members prior to Ms Peoples raising it in the course of her disciplinary investigation, which led to her been dismissed.

We also raise the question as to why the other staff member was not also dismissed.

Dr White, we understand you are kept fully informed, at all times, of what is posted here, and your staff have the ability to contact the forums administrators when-ever the need arises. Please use that avenue of contact, within a timely manner, to forward your response so it can be posted here.

Thank you.

Dated: Tuesday 16 October 2007
0

#13 User is offline   MadMac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 16 October 2007 - 02:49 PM

:wub: Hi everyone ...

Wonder if ACC advised the Claimant that there file had been :huh: " Tutued with " and if any issues had been fully resolved amicably and with integrity ?

Wonder if the Claimant is one of us ?

;) LoL
0

#14 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 08 November 2011 - 06:03 PM

Refresh
0

#15 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 08 November 2011 - 06:52 PM

blimmin tired of the fraud!

especially after reading my IT file today!

everything i have ever said in here, is backed up in hard copy in my file ggggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
0

#16 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 09 November 2011 - 02:55 AM

the file seems to have been heavily "pruned"...
0

#17 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 09 November 2011 - 10:29 AM

Of cause they will be pruning the files to prevent litigation .

this is litigation due to poilcy and policy from Wellington.

policy is to prevent Vocational Rehabilitation, prevent the claimant to return to work, (Legislation has no requirement for injured to return to work unlike the 1972 and 1982 Acts)

This is also to cover the arses of the legislation changes recomended by the ACC and Board.
0

#18 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 26 April 2013 - 05:33 PM

refreshed for whomever was looking for this
0

#19 User is offline   Tussock 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 18-July 12

Posted 26 April 2013 - 06:55 PM

View Posthukildaspida, on 26 April 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

refreshed for whomever was looking for this


I wasn't looking for it but this is a fascinating case!! I have bookmarked it - thanks hukildaspida
0

#20 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 27 April 2013 - 12:35 PM

BOP yuo need to add "Evaluation of Vocational Rehabilitation under the IPRC Act 2001" by the Auckland University to show this did not change and it was a problem through out the Accident Compensation Corporation staff.

Just a couple of document showing parliment knows of the dishonesty

[PDF]Introduction 1. I am an advocate with experience in the ACC ...

[PDF]List of questions - New Zealand Parliament
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