Petrol had been forecast to increase to over $2.00 a litre, so I applied on behalf of my wife, Sheryl, for an increase in her allowed kilometer rate of 78cents to be increased to $1.10.

27 February 2008

11 Thomas Place

Foxton Beach

5551

Open letter to:

MR JOHN DIXON

Case Manager

Ministry of Social Development

Work and Income

Levin

Dear Mr Dixon

Re – Response to your letter dated 18 January 2008

Instead of responding with a simple 'yes', “We will increase the rate to $1.10 a kilometer, or 'no', we will not increase the rate to $1.10 a kilometer” - which would have enabled Sheryl to decide whether or not to put the application before a Benefit Review Committee. You applied tricky-dickey stuff by stating:

1.“We accept your letter as a request to “review both the Disability Allowance and Special Benefit”.

2. As an experienced WINZ employee you well understand that Sheryl’s application did not request the Ministry to “review both Sheryl's Disability Allowance and Special Benefit”.

3. On behalf of Sheryl, I specifically made an application for the 78c a km to be increased to $1.10 a km. to which you gave no reference.

4. Sheryl did not make an application to have the amount of allowed kilometers a week reviewed, as you infer by requesting an odometer reading.

5. Those weekly kilometers which the Ministry of Social Services approved and made available to Sheryl for the ongoing activities and treatment of her medical condition are not, and have never been, conditional to an odometer reading.

6. Judge Latham, in his ruling on the 23^rd April 1998, made no order that an odometer reading was to be provided by Sheryl as verification of kilometers traveled.

7. There is no requirement in legislation for an odometer reading to be provided by a person in Sheryl's particular circumstances.

Therefore, I can rightly assume that your request for an odometer reading is an attempt to add to Judge Latham's decision and thus mislead Sheryl with the prejudicial intention of disadvantaging her by canceling all, most of, or some of those available kilometers needed for the continued stability of Sheryl's health and wellbeing. Needless to say, as Sheryl's advocate and husband, I am outraged.

However, If you can provide Sheryl with the section and Act of Parliament, under which you are requesting an odometer reading; and if I consider it applies to Sheryl's particular circumstances, then I will gladly give you the readings from both cars.

If you cannot, I feel I can rightly conclude that your intention of replying in the manner in which you did was to cause disruption to her medical treatments.

And that:

Your letter requesting an odometer reading, in response to Sheryl’s simple application for an increase in the rate of 78c per km is prejudicial, and mischievous.

PS.

I remind you of Jill Tait, who as Service Centre Manager at the Feilding office, cancelled all Sheryl's disability transport allowances pertaining to ongoing treatment for her medical condition despite There being no change of circumstances. She cancelled without notice and was in breach of the Act.

I remember Sheryl receiving a letter from Ms Tait on the 16^th of September 2004. It was dated 15 September 2004. The cancellation was to take effect from that very day - Sheryl's 60^th birthday. This type of arrogance and callous disregard for sick and disabled persons is prevalent with WINZ employees.

You will also be aware of the response to Jill Tait's cancellation from Sheryl's G.P. in a letter to Work and Income:

18 October 04

"My concern is that in the long term, Sheryl may well need Hospital/Rest Home care. I must say I am outraged at this decision as I feel that it is going to have a significant effect on her current and long term mental health”.

Elderly deceived - part two

Yours sincerely

David R. Taylor

advocate

david.taylor1@clear.net.nz