ACCforum: Alan Thomas - Viewing Profile - ACCforum

Jump to content

User Rating: ***--

Active Posts:
21892 (4.4 per day)
Most Active In:
Personal Stories (6263 posts)
10-June 06
Profile Views:
Last Active:
User is offline Yesterday, 12:09 PM

My Information

Member Title:
Advanced Member
Age Unknown
Birthday Unknown
Not Telling Not Telling

Contact Information

Click here to e-mail me

Posts I've Made

  1. In Topic: Reviews v Hearings

    10 January 2020 - 12:11 PM

    Thanks for that Magna Carta.

    However once acknowledging that the administrators of the act and those in the judiciary that we seek to enforce the act are not living up to the expectations that we still do have from the legislation the remains unchanged whether we know the magnitude of the problem or not. Simply increasing awareness of these failures does not in itself improve our circumstance. There needs to be a stratagem or mechanism that could be utilised otherwise the extra knowledge only causes us to wring our hands all the more. My concern is the knowledge that you have imparted to the average person will only cause them to give up all the more readily which I am sure was not your plan. So my question remains outstanding concerning what you think we should do with this "knowledge" of the ACC administrators and judiciary failings.

    I trust that you are aware that I had no review hearing and that the ACC refused to make disclosure of what they called "information" to either criminal or civil court rendering it's an impossibility to have a hearing other than to state that the ACC and the court had failed to submit themselves to the legislator criteria for all decision-making. this of course was followed by the ACC imagining that I would not be happy in making yet another false allegation with the intention of shutting me down altogether
  2. In Topic: Reviews v Hearings

    10 January 2020 - 10:48 AM

    View Postmagnacarta, on 09 January 2020 - 11:00 AM, said:

    Just be aware that ACC are masters of illusion and propaganda.

    You simply cannot believe all that ACC publishes or will keep its word and properly investigate matters with an ACC Minister who is nigh-on useless.

    When you realise from the outset that it's all about them and money and not about you, as an injured claimant, then it can be easier to deal with.

    Could you explain why you think it is easier to deal with the ACC only after the realisation that they are putting themselves ahead of the injured person? I'm sure you are not advising the readers to capitulate to the existing dishonesty so could you perhaps expand upon your statement please.
  3. In Topic: Reviews v Hearings

    08 January 2020 - 11:02 AM

    What is the basis ACC has claimed in law for a shift from the ACC appointing reviewers through to fairway appointing reviewers and making them their own employees who are subject to not only the fairway contract with ACC but also under the influence of fairways management and direction concerning which previous court decisions are to be relied upon for the reviewers to make their decisions along with other various direction such as limiting review hearings to a certain time limit, having review hearings by telephone instead of enabling a claimant to be present at the hearing and many other such departures from legislated criteria for review hearings?

    Is anyone able to shed some light on this component of the departure of legislation as described by Magna Carta
  4. In Topic: Reviews v Hearings

    08 January 2020 - 10:58 AM

     magnacarta, on 07 January 2020 - 09:00 AM, said:

    It is the Parliament who is constitutionally sovereign and makes the law to which we are all governed.

    The ACC (and the Fairway Resolution Ltd reviewer’s) practice can be described as a constitutional coup.

    The current system could almost be characterised as a self-perpetuating oligarchy and changes need to be made.

    Indeed, who should make the law by which we are all governed?

    Should it be made by electable, accountable politicians, answerable to their constituents and vulnerable to summary dismissal at elections, or by unelected ACC employees and reviewers?

    There is a substantive issue arising of failing to give effect to the will of Parliament as expressed in legislation in ss 140, 141 and 142.

    Section 141 prescribes:- “In the course of conducting a review a hearing must be held unless…..” This indicates a separate and sequential process to be followed; i.e. an investigative and informal review and then a formal hearing with representatives (if necessary).

    It is logical that an investigative, informal review might resolve issues at the review level thereby creating no necessity for a formal (and costly and stressful) hearing to be held.

    It is s142 that allows parties to be represented at the hearing indicating and it is only then that a formal hearing with representatives applies.

    There has been no investigative informal review conducted as prescribed in s140.

    I would have thought that ACC-instructed counsel, Mr McBride, would have advised ACC of that in compliance with his fundamental obligation to uphold the rule of law and facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand.

    From what I have observed ACC have a master servant relationship with their legal counsel. In other words despite the legal counsel advising ACC of the relevance legislated criteria the ACC legal services unit will instruct their counsel to proceed in accordance with the ACC's own viewpoint or wishes concerning the interpretation of legislation.

    The advantage that the ACC corporation has is that it can pick and choose which battles to fight in order that it may promote their own viewpoint of the law or direction they want the law to be developed by sheer weight of numbers thus we see the gradualism over many decades to the extent that the original intention of the legislation has been diminished to the financial favour of the ACC. Generally speaking the majority of claimants are physically, emotionally and financially unable to bring about sufficient challenge to the ACC through the appellate courts last progressing so-called case law and the ACC favour. I don't think the legislators would have anticipated this departure of legislation. However politicians and in particular the manager of Parliament having the ACC portfolio have from time to time reconfigured the ACC legislation in order to get the ACC back on the original track. Nonetheless we see episodes where the ACC has been directly disobedient to the legislation by even refusing to generate regulations when the legislation has made such direction such as the need for a properly configured assessment procedure to determine when the claimant is no longer incapacitated or has a capacity to work on a new occupation, as just one example.

    Currently we have a most terrible situation whereby between the ACC and their contracted and profit-making limited liability company have quite clearly departed from being an independent judicial resource to one whereby the ACC pick and choose which battles they fight through to simply refusing to provide a review hearing when a review hearing has been requested and then going on to ignore further review hearings for delay of process stemming from the failure to set a review hearing date and time in accordance with the enforcement procedures involving then decisions on a claimant's favour. We have even seen that reviewers appointed by fairway, instead of ACC, are deciding that such a review hearing would not have succeeded in any way and refusing to address the delay of process to have a review hearing with the direct intention to subvert the ACC legislated automation process to create a decision of the claimant's favour in the circumstances. This again is only one example of many such departures from legislation.
  5. In Topic: What is happening and what should I do?

    13 December 2019 - 11:51 AM

    David Butler "Lies
    You have stated you use Psychos to analyse everyone in here with then publishing your findings
    About time you got looked at yourself
    Do publish the results. Posted Image/>
    Your first post in here is all your own viewpoints so more misleading from you. "

    Indeed, my case and point.
    I rely upon independent qualified and competent experts to provide me with information to the exclusion of my own understanding as I am only expert in my chosen profession.
    What independent expert advice do you rely upon when carrying out your attacks against me?