The Corporation‎ > ‎

FAQ

The Corporation does not seem to believe me. If I provide enough proof will they accept my claim?

Nothing you say or do will satisfy the requirements of the Corporation. This is where the Corporation is in its element. The Claimant is lead by the nose believing that the ACC can be reasoned with if only one more requirement is fulfilled. In fact the ACC has no intention of approving your claim it merely wants to drag things out as much as possible until you are to demoralised to continue. The Corporation actively seeks to avoid receiving information that will hinder it in it's absolute determination to decline your entitlements. The counter to this is simple. Everything you say and do should be for the purposes of winning at Review. The Review is a much fairer and reasonable process where you will have your case decided on its merits as opposed to whatever ultra vires processes the ACC uses to dis-entitle you. 

What does ultra vires mean?

"Ultra vires is a Latin phrase meaning literally "beyond the powers", although its standard legal translation and substitute is "beyond power". If an act requires legal authority and it is done with such authority, it is characterised in law as intra vires (literally "within the powers"; standard legal translation and substitute, "within power"). If it is done without such authority, it is ultra vires. Acts that are intra vires may equivalently be termed "valid" and those that are ultra vires "invalid". Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_vires

"The principle of ultra vires refers to decisions or actions outside the lawful powers of a person or body." Source http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/guidance/publicfinance/pfaguide/31.htm/ This site expands on the principle of acting ultra vires 

The ACC has sent me a letter declining my claim. They are quoting legislation and seem very certain. Should I believe them?

Absolutely not. There is a very strong chance that your Case Manager has concocted some officious sounding drivel that appears lawful but will not stand up to scrutiny. The ACC rely on Claimants and Specialists taking what ACC says at face value. This is a very big mistake. This little trick by the ACC is referred to as an "Authoritative Logical Fallacy". Simply put the person making the statement makes the statement as if speaking from a position of authority is the only requirement to determine the veracity (truth) of the position held.  They adopt a deep voice (yes they really do) and speak with utter conviction thus convincing the recipient (you as the Claimant) that an inaccurate statement is actually the truth. For a detailed description of your Case Manager at work then check out this site. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

But if I have to go for a Review wont that take more time and money?

The ACC exploit these concerns the way a Internet Scam does its victims. The victim is lead to believe that if they just put in a bit more they will get what they already have put in back or in our case avoid having to go to Review. You will have to go to Review anyway. Therefore your best efforts should go into getting to Review with the required Medical Evidence that will allow the Reviewer to make a determination based solely on the merits of your case. The ACC can drag your claim out for months and then decline you. This I refer to as "the handbrake". Then it may take three months to get in front a Reviewer and then another month for the decision to come back. The sooner a Claimant realises that the ACC will handbrake the sooner the Claimant can get on with obtaining their own medical evidence in the prescribed legal and clinical manner necessary to win their claim. If you go to Review with decent Medical Evidence and a good advocate you may be able to recover most of the money you have had to put out leaving you with costs of some hundreds at worst. If on the other hand your Claim gets tied up in the ACC created fiasco that ACC excel at, you will be up for thousands to beat them. 

What if I go the Minister of ACC?

The Minister will send you a response making the appropriate yet non committal noises to cover his or her political butt and ACC will carry on business as usual. The ACC will generally explain to the Minister that you as a Claimant are mad or bad or both and ACC long suffering organisation that it is will battle on regardless because the ACC cares. There is likely to be liberal doses of comments such as ACC takes its role as a provider to the needs of sexual assault victims very seriously sprinkled with innuendo, nasty comments and omissions that always somehow seem to paint you as a twisted psychopath on the take. A good example of what the Ministers input is worth regardless can be found in Osborne v ACC in the Judgements section. I draw your attention to Sections [49] to [52] of that judgement. It is very informative. 

What if I go the Media?

ACC cases are confusing and often fail to excite the media. Many people go to the media so you become one of many screaming for justice. The current state of affairs with Bronwyn Puller is unusual. As Michelle Boag is involved thus dragging the Government into the fight the media have been hot on the subject. It is true that the Herald and John Campbell have raised concerns before the Privacy matter hit the Dominion Post. This has not changed the Corporation. The Corporation cannot be shamed as it has no shame. The ACC simply waits these things out in the certain knowledge that media attention will wane and it will back to business. 

Will ACC get the message if I harm myself? 

ACC could not care less what happened to you. As mentioned earlier ACC has no shame let alone remorse or guilt. There have been suicides reported but they did not result in changing the Corporations behaviour. Don't give the Corporation the satisfaction.