|
Mar 21
2009
|
|
|
Please note: Current status for Track and Trace number is displayed in bold below.
Time Date Status
12:33 01/04/2009 Acceptance
6:54 02/04/2009 Out for Delivery
7:38 02/04/2009 Delivered
Your item number RQ103749348NZ was delivered at 7:38 a.m. on 02 Apr 2009 and was signed for by "AHMAD ACC".
"Everyone concerned does not want to put up their hand and admit the mistakes, but rather will fight to the bitter end to try to protect the reputation of the system and those involved" David Bain
Update: Received 6/4/09.
Jan White has acknowledged reciept of my letter outlining my concerns . Date 2/4/09.
And has forwarded my concerns to Graham Bashford the new Director of Operations.
Hopefully I will get a sensible answer this time.
For example I do not expect to be told that the C3 certificate included Non cash, benefits!
The ACC C3 certifcate is one of the checks and balances used by ACC to detect employer fraud as a reconciliation of Tax and Levies paid by an employer in comparison to taxable income recorded by IRD for each individual employee.
I do not expect to be told that my Staff Loan as a "borrowing agreement " or "interest reduction facility" and as such not a "staff loan subject to FBT"!
-
19-04-2009 07:40:25 | freefallnz
Round 3. Digging is fun.
Quote:At the time of your incapacty, ACC based your ERC on your earnings details in the 52 weeks prior to incapacity as provided by DFC in the C3 earnings certificate received in May 1990. This C3 showed your earnings were nnn.nn in each of the 4 weeks prior to incapacity with the 52 weeks earnings prior to incapacity totalling xx,xxx.xx.
As the 52 weeks earnings shown on the C3 are considerably higher than the xx,xxx provided in the letter dated 30/04/90 it is considered entirely possible that DFC included the allowances noted in their letter in the earnings amounts provided on the C3. The C3 also provides a higher rate of relevant earnings than your earnings in the 4 weeks prior to incapacity.Linda Guerin Technical Claims Manager 29/11/2006.
A comprehensive argument no doubt! Apart from 1 small fact.
Quote:The letter from DFC dated 11/01/90 does mention a final payment of annual leave but does not appear to explain the difference between monthly and annual earningsThe C3 certificate included 16.5 days of annual leave! Thats basically half the discrepancy!
Dare I say a good reason that the letter from DFC dated 11/01/90 was removed from the ACC file!
-
08-05-2009 01:20:50 | freefallnz
Todays Update.
Well nothing to report. Graham Bashford obviously is not concerned that ACC have not made a formal decision on my ERC...
Well I guess it's time to sell the harley, pay the lawyer to take these bastards to court.
Good news being that i have plenty of people to ask for an affidavit about earnings.
-
20-09-2009 15:59:56 | freefallnz
ACC have identified that the C# certificate provided by my employer 19 years ago is incorrect! And included all the FBT perks!
ACC have twice identified that my staff loan was not subject to FBT and is an "Interest reduction facility" or Borrowing agreement" with my employer. In their wisdom ACC have stated they will use their discretion and continue to pay me!
Clearly not in line with the Ministers directive.
Three own goals? Bring it on! no? Bully the claimant into submission!... Dont discuss the issue coz its unpalatable... or Deny delay abfuscate!... Fill the file with Bullshit and then claim its clouded with contemporaneous issues!
Contemporaneous issues such as ... Linda Guerin Technical Claims Manager Levin Office. fraudulently removing documentation from the file!
-
22-09-2009 05:42:46 |Registered| muppetQuote:Calculation of Earnings related compensation.
"[56] The other aspect of this is that it is the Corporation who are responsible for the loss of documentation through their choice to destroy the file.
[57] A fundamental maxim of equity is that "one who comes into equity must come with clean hands" or that equity will not permit a party to profit by his own wrong.
[58] It should not be that the Corporation who wrongfully suspended the appellant's entitlements should benefit from the loss of documentation which had been in their possession."[url=http://www.accfocus.org/knowledgebase/downloadsjudgements/ downloadsjudgementsentitlement/miller-vs-acc-erc-calculation..html]Miller Vs ACC[/url]
-
21-01-2010 17:04:04 | freefallnzQuote:ACC acknowledges that the majority of allowances detailed in DFC New Zealand's letters dated 24/10/90 and 30/04/90 can be included in an Earnings related compensation assessment. The Staff loan however is a borrowing agreement, not an allowance, and therefore can not be considered as part of an ERC calculation.
Maybe ACC would like to confirm their answer with Stewart Watson their IT manager. I'm sure he'd be surprised that when he was employed by DFC as MIS Manager that his Staff Loan was not a staff loan, merely a borrowing agreement.
-
27-01-2010 03:28:02 | Pete
Any similarity???
8th April 2007-04-08Law Office
r.e. Pete.Greetings ,
I have attempted to make a list of where and when changes have been made in my ACC file and the dates those changes were made.
Unfortunately not an easy task for me nowadays as I have great deal of trouble with such things.
However in my Opinion my Income at the time my claim was accepted by ACC should have been $40,000 per year, based on $20,000 being the figure earned in the six months working for Hanimex.
This included a great deal of overtime and weekend work and quite possibly, as the Night Shift Manager resigned just before I left, and I may have replaced him, increased considerably over the full twelve months.I KNOW ACC took 6 months of my income from Fisheries Research and Six months from Hamimex and intended to pay out 80% of the mean.
I am sure they actually did not use $20,000 as the six month income from Hanimex but halved that and paid out on the mean of Twelve Months at FRD and Six Months (20,000) at Hanimex,
1992 –1993 it is apparent that Drew Dekefalas had considerable difficulties with my file and the “second claim” seemed to become dominant at that time creating total confusion for both Acc and IRD Child Support Agency which explains the massive penalties we were landed with at this time.
1998 Sarah hills Livingstone appears to have done a tremendous amount of work either to try and sort the file out or to make sure that no evidence existed of the original calculation problems.
There are also imprest cheques written out on the "new File" to whom??? was the wrong claim file destroyed???In have to the best of my current ability drawn up a “Time Line” showing some events
Included are some scanned copies from Sarah’s time showing that ACC had no idea at that time of my original claim details.
The attempts she made to find out what my erc and income had been over the years.Unfortunately IRD replied in most cases no return held.
ALSO! A copy of an NZES form from the time when Sarah INSISTED I enrol as Unemployed and visit the NZES Office each week and take a receipt to show I had checked in back to her at ACC.
I had hoped this may throw some light on the Client numbers, or that the reason for the recent number may have been as a result of my only listing as unemployed in 1998.
Although I note that in December 1984 I may have been registered as unemployed in Lower Hutt for a short time.
Please note I hold short diaries for the time I was at the rehab league in Wellington at ACC’s behest, and also short diaries from other periods and a couple of Post bank savings books showing Acc payments in 1989.
Generally it appears my ACC file is simply a complete mess and possibly a fabrication in many places .
I hope this all helpsRegards Pete.
Round 2
Memo from Linda Guerin to ACC Ops Support 18/10/2006.
Letter from Linda Guerin to myself dated 29/11/2003
Well dare I say it ... WRONG ANSWER! The relevant act.(Sec 52) quite clearly states
"Any wages, salary, allowances (including allowances of any of the
kinds referred to in section 72 of the Income Tax Act 1976),
holiday pay, overtime pay, long-service leave pay, bonuses,
gratuities, extra salary, commissions, directors' fees,
honoraria, emoluments, or remuneration of any kind paid or
payable (whether in cash or otherwise) to any person in respect
of or in relation to the employment of that person as an
employee"
Dare I suggest another wrongful action by ACC?
I must however ask ACC Complaints to explain why or how the letter dated 11/01/90 from DFC to which Linda Guerin referred was no longer on file in April 2007.