ACCforum: urgent help please re abatement - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

urgent help please re abatement

#1 User is offline   jordan 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 09-July 07

Posted 13 November 2008 - 06:49 PM

i have started a new job and i worked 10 hours there at $14.50 per hour so i rang cm to see if i would be getting deducted any amount from what i usually got prior to working on ACC which was $486 after tax and i have only been paid $386 something, i am gonna be in shit street without that hundred bucks cause my cm told me because i didnt work many hours my pay wouldnt change

please help someone :(
0

#2 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 13 November 2008 - 10:30 PM

Jordan, did your employer not pay you??
ACC deduct the amount you earned less $80 is it, and then your employer should be paying you as well. OR are you on a work trial??
0

#3 User is offline   jordan 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 09-July 07

Posted 14 November 2008 - 05:46 AM

hi there,

no its not a work trial, im sick of siting around thinkin bout my pain so i gotta part time job
before i started my cm said that i will earn more and she told me on wednesday that my paymnent from ACC wouldnt change but it has so i got $390 from ACC and $151 from work.
man im sooo confused
0

#4 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 14 November 2008 - 09:39 AM

Jordon

Good on you for getting up and getting going. I so admire people like you.

Sometimes you are just too young to sit around and do nothing eh??

Just remember one of your pays will have to be taxed at secondary tax. The smallest one probably which appears to be the job one. It will sort itself out in your favour at the end of the financial year. The tax I mean.

As far as the abatement goes, I cant tell you, but it should be done by ACC. Or they should at least give you a writen letter telling you whay it need not be done. Then they cant hold it against you later on for not telling them or whatever.

Get it all in writing if you have no need of abatement.

Good Luck Mini
0

#5 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 14 November 2008 - 10:00 AM

It would seem from the figures you gave that you are better off by about $55. Is that correct?
Also it is really important that you notify ACC EVERY week of your income or they will not pay you.
Your CM should be advising you properly. Get him/her to explain the system to you so that you understand!
good luck in your job.
0

#6 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 14 November 2008 - 01:34 PM

Sparrow arent we allowed to make $60 or $80 per week gross. I remember CM telling me that.

So maybe that is why there is no abatement.

He sure needs it in writing though.

Mini
0

#7 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 14 November 2008 - 01:42 PM

Acc by my figures should have paid you $456.50 before tax. I am gathering that you are giving the figures before tax is being removed on everything.

Please let know if you have given correct figures. You should be $121,50 better off each week.
0

#8 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 14 November 2008 - 01:45 PM

View PostMINI, on Nov 14 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

Sparrow arent we allowed to make $60 or $80 per week gross. I remember CM telling me that.

So maybe that is why there is no abatement.

He sure needs it in writing though.

Mini


Mini abatement rules changed a wee while time ago and now you can earn 25% of you compensation before any abatement.
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 November 2008 - 01:55 PM

Doppelganger I have a publication of the ACC case managers manual back in the early 1990s that instructs case managers to discount the first 25% before starting to calculate abatement of earnings.

When you talk about abatement rules are you talking about ACC legislation or are you referring to some kind of internal protocol? Naturally I am concerned that the ACC cancelled my claim because they thought I was working and presumably earning rather than calculating abatement of earnings. Could they had got matters so seriously wrong in my case simply because he is continually changing protocols without reference to legislation?
0

#10 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 14 November 2008 - 02:15 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Nov 14 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

Doppelganger I have a publication of the ACC case managers manual back in the early 1990s that instructs case managers to discount the first 25% before starting to calculate abatement of earnings.

When you talk about abatement rules are you talking about ACC legislation or are you referring to some kind of internal protocol? Naturally I am concerned that the ACC cancelled my claim because they thought I was working and presumably earning rather than calculating abatement of earnings. Could they had got matters so seriously wrong in my case simply because he is continually changing protocols without reference to legislation?



I am talking legislation that came in either late lastyear or early this year.
Your manual is totally different as all of the earlier acts were different.


Quote

My causal earnings was abated in the '90's. If I recall it was abated when I earned more than 20 c in the dollar over my compo. Must have a gander when I've got a spare minute


again the Acts were different so do not apply any more.
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 November 2008 - 02:43 PM

Doppelganger I am in the middle of preparing submissions in regards to abatement of earnings so as to address the ACC concerns that I was working 1990-1997. Obviously this covers the change in the Act from 1982 to 1992. From what I can see the foundation of the doctrine that the ACC may receive a discount of its liability for earnings compensation has remained much the same. I you able to point to actual legislation rather than the impression is given from various policies and rules developed by the ACC appear to be inconsistent with legislation. After all we should completely disregard everything ACC says when contradicts with legislation as such advice from the ACC were wrong only lead to trouble.
0

#12 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 14 November 2008 - 03:51 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Nov 14 2008, 03:43 PM, said:

Doppelganger I am in the middle of preparing submissions in regards to abatement of earnings so as to address the ACC concerns that I was working 1990-1997. Obviously this covers the change in the Act from 1982 to 1992. From what I can see the foundation of the doctrine that the ACC may receive a discount of its liability for earnings compensation has remained much the same. I you able to point to actual legislation rather than the impression is given from various policies and rules developed by the ACC appear to be inconsistent with legislation. After all we should completely disregard everything ACC says when contradicts with legislation as such advice from the ACC were wrong only lead to trouble.


An you can search the 82 and 92 Acts just as well as i can I can tell youthat in the 1982 act it is between section 52 to 69. All sections have to be taken into account.

Its in section 47 in the 92 Act which started 1 day july 1993.
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 November 2008 - 04:18 PM

Doppelganger what about if someone is permanently incapacitated in accordance with S60 of the 1982 act?

S47 of the 1992 act was based on S59(1) of the 1982 act which of course only referred to temporary incapacity rather than permanent incapacity of S60.

The references are made to the case managers manual in the early 1990s was of course referring to people with a permanent incapacity engaging new occupations or in businesses and so forth so as to earn a little extra. As they were permanently incapacitated they never lost their entitlements given the nature of the word "permanent" even though they might have been 100% abated. My question is what part of the legislation did the ACC rely upon in the circumstance.
0

#14 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 15 November 2008 - 09:44 AM

Thomo #post 14

You actually saying you have done the yearly accounts for all those companies.

Because that is what you would have to do to prove abatement is correct.

Shit that fairly interesting. Pay backtime!!!

By my reakoning on what you have put online, you should be receiving a refund in everyone of them, for taxes purposes. Because you never took any monies from them.................Right??? Or are you telling the truth for abatement purposes???

Like yeah???
0

#15 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 15 November 2008 - 09:55 AM

The abatement rules changed in August this year. You are now entitled to earn the 20% that you don't receive from ACC of your before accident pay. After you reach the total amount of your pre injury earnings, then your earnings above that are abated $ for $. It is very important that you either supply earnings details your self to ACC or agree that ACC can get that information directly from your employer. There will be a calculation sheet done and you are entitled to ask for each of these as they are done.
Work with your case manager on this but be aware that the actual calculations are done by a specialist payments team. This means that your case manager may not always give you the correct information. If in any doubt ask to speak to a member of the payments calculations team.

Good on you for getting out there and doing what you can :)
0

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 November 2008 - 11:09 AM

Doppelganger I brought this discussion about abatement of earnings back onto this thread because this is where it belongs.
Two review hearing decisions in the middle of 1992, under the 1982 act, confirmed that I was permanently incapacitated unless the ACC paid for the reconstructive surgery. ACC decided that the reconstructive surgery would not reliably meant my incapacity to return to my preinjury occupation so I remained permanently incapacitated without funding for medical or occupational rehabilitation whatsoever.
The relationship my experience has to this thread is that while permanently incapacitated I explored various working options but did not get to the stage of actually "working" as I only got up to the planning phase. ACC however alleged that the act of the activities necessary to plan my own rehabilitation was sufficient for them to say I could return to my preinjury occupation even though I did not exceed two hours per day, as per the limitations on my medical certificate, in those activities.

ACC deliberately remained very quiet about the criteria surrounding abatement of earnings. Perhaps because it is either too complicated for the front-line staff or they do not want to be locked into a situation of someone doing part-time work which prevents further occupational rehabilitation in something that might be full-time. Historically ACC has manipulated hearsay information and then extrapolated that information as if their assumptions were fact in preference to independent qualified assessors.

For these reasons injured claimants doing the decent thing and trying to work to the maximum extent their injuries will allow we need to be wary. My observations are that those who do not want to work or use the residual capacity in any way at all but generally the first to point the finger. ACC rely upon the nervous disposition of such people, which they have intimidated in the first place, to justify wrong thinking.


Mini
Just to clarify matters in your head. I did not work for the companies I owned. The company books not only confirm that I did not work for the company but also that I did not receive any money from the company. Therefore the companies are just simple investments irrelevant for ACC purposes.
I therefore not sure how you are talking about payback time? Are you perhaps make the assumptions by which you are building a hypothesis and concluding with facts? Had you by any chance worked for a government department?

The ACC alleged an overpayment based on the allegation that I was working which was based on a third party member of the publics assumption from which they hypothesised that I might no longer be incapacitated, working and earning and therefore committing fraud against the ACC. The Northern regional manager acknowledged that the ACC had never carried out abatement of earnings in order to carry out a calculation make the allegation of overpayment and promised to carry out a calculation. The decision of overpayment was 1997, the advice from their own legal staff in 1999 was ignored and by 2003 they agreed to make a calculation. It is now 2008 and still no calculation.

It would seem for the purposes of this thread the important information from my experience is that the ACC will use the most flimsy information based on assumption to succeed in a fraud prosecution in order to avoid abatement of earnings calculations.

Fairgo thank you for the update on abatement rules being changed August this year. Was that just ACC policy for was there an actual change in legislation? If that is a change in legislation are you able to quote it please.
0

#17 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 15 November 2008 - 12:23 PM

Thomo

Look at the master/Servant relationship test under the Tax Act, then tell me if your illegent legal people agree that you were not your employees master??

Massa meaning boss, meaning employer, meaning Director/shareholder, and on and on it goes forever. Just like you.

Where the $20,000 come from to pay the tax bill?, oh thats right you sold something, who owned the something?, oh thats right one of the companies!!!!. Who owned the company that owned the 'something' which was sold?, oh that right, Mr Thomas!!!. and on and on it goes forever!!!

Whether Mini worked for a govt dept or not was put up online by one of your mates, copy taken, and seen by a lot of people, probably under your incitement. It was taken down very quickly, probably because it wasnt correct. Try it again yourself and see what happens.

Hope your helpers are charging you well, for the mess they have to work with.

News for you: If your income is the same, or over and above what the 100% of your wage was, or is, then you are entitled to no w/c from ACC, this was in 1992 Act and there on in. I know because I was working while injured then.

That does not necessarily mean you lose your entitlement to other things from ACC, hence all my fighting with entitlements for seven years.

However, they didnt need to prove that you made over a certain amount because they proved in a court of law that you were in a earning capacity and didnt tell them!!. That was your crime, the not telling them. Thats called dishonest in their language and mine. So you are a crim and it doesnt matter how you try to bend the rules you will not get around them. So the ACC didnt have to abate your so called earnings.

Get used to it I say and make a life for yourself where you lay. You need so many advisors, even poor old doople who has his own problems without you wanting him to look up every little thing for you, you lazy crim. You certainly act like a 'Massa'.

But it would be interesting to see you abatement details when you have finished, if you ever get the correct law to complete it.

Still only Mini
0

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 November 2008 - 01:13 PM

Mini the ACC act distinguishes directors and trustees are exempt from the ACC calculations unless they are actively contributing to the day-to-day work task activities generating income. In my case the day-to-day work task activities were delegated primarily to the company manager and suchlike. This circumstance is identical to any owner of a company who has an injury. They continue to own the companies and the directors, claim ACC and have no difficulties.

Your posting again demonstrates your capacity to speculate information and then build a hypothesis from the speculation until you have convinced yourself, and perhaps others, that you have reached factual conclusions.

In my own case the ACC were informed of other people hypothesising that I might be working which eventually grew to the ACC thinking that they had no liability to pay earnings compensation. Their own legal advisors confirmed that they were suffering from wrong thinking and that an abatement of earning calculation was requirement if they had any information describing work and earnings. Many years later senior ACC staff acknowledged that they had failed to comply with legislation and promised to make the calculations.

As the ACC had no information of any work or earnings obviously they cannot calculate for themselves a reduced liability much less an overpayment and as such had committed perjury to the criminal court by alleging the existence of an overpayment. The problem I am experiencing is that the ACC being a multibillion-dollar Corporation they have exercised bureaucratic thuggery to prevent access to the calculating procedures and judicial remedies.

My advice to the person who posted their concerns regarding the with actively working to the maximum extent practicable and earning is that they should lock down each and every fact so as to prevent people who have a rational thinking processes from speculating or hypothesising and extrapolating fragments of information.

Unfortunately in my case ACC has "lost" whole sections of information provided, particularly case management notes since the 1992 review hearing decisions up to the time when the file transferred to the Henderson branch in November 1995. From the experience of ACC constructively relying upon inadequate and deliberately fragmented information led to believe that it is important to run continued updates with the ACC to ensure that they have possession of all information.

Once the ACC to carry out the abatement of earnings calculation so as to determine whether or not there was an overpayment they will have to disclose their alleged "working" facts in order to establish "earnings" which of course will undermine the criminal prosecution and even the 1997 decision to cancel my claim.
0

#19 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 15 November 2008 - 02:48 PM

Anybody can do this "building a case" you great moron.

It is your inability to be able to build a case from the others point of view that is missing, you greater moron.

You do not know how to look outside the square, or turn the coin over. A couple of phrases of many that I can think of. This is what you lack.

Even Chrissy says it in her answer to your on your own thread.

I am not the only one that can see and has been able to see for years, is what my mother called pie eyed!!! Meaning you are not giving the opposition enough credit by even looking at their side of an arguement to see if you can pull it to pieces.

As long as you hold this ground you will never win. As you seriously need to understand where your enemy is coming from. And how you can attack by hitting back in a place they cannot wiggle out of.

And you say I am part of a clique, like you want people to think of me as a pea-brain, but most know I am not. I do everything on my jown and you dont see me asking people to look parts up in the act for me. I do it all myself and up until now I have got most of what I wanted. Sure sometimes I have been too late, missed the deadline, through not having the knowledge when needed, but do I moan: no, I get onto the next one that will bring in another lolly. We only have one life and that is for living not for burying ourselves in this shit.

All the things you posted and put online I read and took out of them a story. That story is mine and is not influenced by others, so look at youself when you accuse others of putting thoughts into my head. You put it there with your own garbage over and over again, and changing your mind when you feel like it to make t he story fit a particular point you want to make at a particular time, thereby placing your credibility at zero.

You do it youself.

Dont give me your idea of what a company director trustee etc has to do.........................I worked in these areas most of my working life. I dont say I know them all, but I passed the papers that say I do!!! Use it or lose it they say. So I would much rather solve a problem, by knowing what the problem is before I decide to start researching it. But then you dont think much of Chrissy and my methods of anylizing issues, so not much point in talking to you about that.

At the end of the day, if I have a factual outlook on you or a hypothesis, it doesnt matter a dam, you are not relying on it to prove anything, so it doesnt matter.

Your problem with me is, if I know more than I say, I am sure I am correct when I say that!!!

I said you were in 'an earning capacity', not that you 'had one'!! Read properly before you comment. That is a fact, you were in an 'earning capacity', even if you did not take advantage of that capacity, you certainly had money floating around you everywhere so were physically in a capacity to reach out and take some. You are easily undermined arent you!!? Just a couple of words can overwhelm you.!!

I have been up against a couple of multi million dollar govt depts. It is no different that dealing with issues on this site. You have four people against you in court or one..................the end will be the same. Why, because the truth will unfold if you give your account correctly and above all the Judge believes you have a live issue to argue.

Mind you with more that 100 cases going at one time, it is not surprising you can't get them to take you seriously.

Your last paragraph, you have to establish the same criteria, to ascertain if they are correct or not.

They do not have to do the calculations if your income is more than your earnings related income would be. As soon as you met the threshold of 100% of your eri they know you are not entitled.

But as I said earlier it is not my understanding that you were charged with earning while on erc, I beleived you got charged with not telling them of your capacity to earn. You even said yourself that the Judge said how much you earned didnt come into it. And he would be right, it was you failure to disclose that mattered.

Why do you think I keep telling this little fella who works part time to make sure he has their blessing on paper. That why they can never say he didnt disclose all. As you are saying they did to you. You should be more interested in protecting him and giving him this advice than in using his thread to blogg with your own regurgitated rubbish.

Mini
0

#20 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 15 November 2008 - 03:03 PM

JORDAN, I AM REALLY SORRY THAT ONCE GAIN THE THREADS HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER WITH CYBERTROLL'S MINGY STORY
You asked advice and I hope that by now you have understood that to go to work you need clearance from GP , Specialist and to notify ACC> It seems you have done this. Good for you.
My apologies for the blogging here. When are folk going to learn to stop fighting on line!!!!!

To Alan Thomas kindly take all the crap out of here and put it in your own thread. The Forum is sick of hearing your sad story of your own demise. Go away
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