back to:

Articles and Stories

ELDERLY DECEIVED

part two

Home page

Duk - here's John full of surprises and dirty tricks which is no surprise	"Wash yourselves and be clean. Put away the evil of your deeds out of my sight. Cease to do evil and learn to do right, pursue justice and champion the oppressed; give the orphan his rights, plead the widow's cause." Isaiah 1:16-17. Link to: Benefit Review Committee a farce Deception-name of the game Duk-here's Bea! Duk-here's Jill! Elderly deceived - part one Elderly deceived - part three Elderly deceived - part four Misinformation Poor crushed Service centre managers Superannuates misled part 1 Superannuates misled part 2 Temporary Additional Support – T.A.S. The lie Tricky-dickey stuff WINZ – bullies	My case manager on his way to bank the bonus he earned for denying pensioners their entitlements

On 27 February 2008

I informed Mr Dixon in writing that if he provided me with the section and Act under which he is requesting odometer readings, and the legislation applies to Sheryl's particular circumstances, then the readings would be forthcoming. He has not replied.

11 March 2008

During an interview with Mr Dixon I again informed him that if he provided me with the section and Act of parliament on which he bases his request for odometer readings, I would provide the Ministry with the readings.

He remained silent. Neither did he make an attempt to retrieve the information from the computer. He then said that 'because I had approached Mr Hughes the matter was out of his hands'.

It is a part of a case manager's job to provide legislative information when a client makes a specific request. That he did not, means he has in effect said, “NO, I am not going to provide Sheryl with the information she requests”. His reply, or lack of it sets off alarm bells about his true intention behind his request for odometer readings.

My concern

Mr Dixon, instead of assisting to resolve the issue by providing the information, is prolonging it. To me, it is becoming more apparent that Mr Dixon's intention is to disrupt Sheryl's ability to partake in those treatments and activities relating to her illness. During our interview on 11 March, I expressed my feelings in this regard. He jumped up and down in denial. However, my experience over many years has been that almost every case manager and Service Centre Manager has applied tricky-dickey stuff with Sheryl to stop her receiving her lawful entitlements without a change of circumstances, or by insinuating there is or could be a change of circumstances.

Mr Dixon's letter of 18 January 2008

Out of the blue, he requested odometer readings, but did not state under which section/s and Act he was making the request. Clearly, he should have. Do you wonder why I have little or no confidence in Work and Income employees.

Earlier interview - Capital Amount

A 'Capital Amount' is a one off” amount (In Sheryl's case it was an inheritance) which was designated for a particular purpose. WINZ Instruction Manual states that a Capital Amount is 'not to be classified as income, Therefore must not be included for the purpose's of assessing or reviewing Special Benefit or Temporary Additional Support'.

After the Mortgage, and 1996 Diamante were paid for, the remaining $44,000 was invested in my name only for 12 months and earmarked for the purchase of the land lease of our property).

I remember the state I was in when Mr Dixon inferred that he could cancel Sheryl's Special Benefit after she received an inheritance from her father.

At Mr Dixon's request I brought the investment documents in to him. I remember his look of disappointment when he realised he did not have the ability to carry out his implied threat to cancel Sheryl's Special Benefit a couple of weeks earlier. (The investment was in in my name only)

Could be part of job

The fact that Mr Dixon requested an odometer reading is not in itself trick-dickey or misleading as it could be said that he is just doing his job.

However, in the light of the above and other factors, my concern is the intention or thought which prompted his request for odometer readings.

Other Factors

1. The “Weekly Allowable Kilometers”, say 100, are those which have been made available to a client. The law, to my knowledge does not set a condition that the kilometers traveled must be verified by odometer readings to satisfy the Ministry that the 'allowed' or 'available' number of weekly kilometers had been met.

2. The SSAA did not rule that odometer readings were to be provided. In fact, in making his decision in 1998, Judge Latham said:

“He - the writer – produced some documentation to show that his vehicle did travel in some weeks 550 kms but to what extent that was related to his wife's disability we do not know,” Surely the same would still apply.

3. The fact that over the last twelve years no other Work and Income employee had ever requested odometer readings.

4. The fact that s.69C of the Social Security Act does not stipulate odometer readings are to be provided in cases such as Sheryl's.

5. The fact that there were no change of circumstances - in terms of kilometers needed to meet the treatment and activities pertaining to Sheryl's illness - which could prompt Mr Dixon to request odometer readings.

6. The fact that Mr Dixon indicated to me that he had not requested other disabled person's receiving travel allowances to provide odometer readings.

7. Mr Dixon reviewed Sheryl's Disability Allowance a few months earlier at the time of her Annual Renewal. By informing Sheryl now that he had not requested other beneficiaries to provide odometer readings, Mr John Dixon is demonstrating discrimination against Sheryl.

8. With his words “We accept your letter as a request to review both her disability allowance and special benefit”. Clearly, this is not what Sheryl requested.

9. Last but not least, Mr Dixon sneakily attempted to nullify Sheryl's application by ignoring her specific request for an increase (adjustment) from 78c to 110 c.

Being an experienced Work and Income employee, Mr Dixon would be well aware of the above at the time he wrote the 18/01/08 letter.

Conclusion

Case manager – John Dixon – is clearly a menace to Superannuates and other beneficiaries. God help us. And God help the other 2000 Superannuates he 'assists' to obtain their due entitlements. With his tricky-dickey methods he must be disadvantaging many elderly beneficiaries.

His letter requesting an odometer reading, in response to Sheryl’s simple application for an increase in the rate of 78c per km is discriminatory, prejudicial, deceptive, cunningly devised and mischievous. Clearly his intention is to be unproactive and to disadvantage Sheryl by reducing the current Ministry approved available kilometers needed for her treatment, without there being a change to her particular circumstances.

To be continued

Elderly deceived - part three

david.taylor1@clear.net.nz