back to:

Articles and Stories

Elderly deceived part three

Home page

TRICKY - DICKEY LETTER

I object to his request for odometer readings for the reasons listed below.

Firstly let's clarify who verifies what cost. i.e.

A doctor's fee:

This cost is verified by the doctor. Therefore it is the doctor who must provide the verification. He does this by providing proof to Work and Income NZ – a written receipt,

A kilometer:

This cost is verified by Work and Income NZ (at the last Review by setting the kilometer rate. In Sheryl's case 78cents a kilometer). Therefore it is Work and Income NZ who must provide the verification. It does this by providing proof to the Ministry. However, unlike the format of a written receipt from a doctor (which would be impracticable) this receipt is in the form of the already written approval or promise that it will meet the cost of 78 cents for each kilometer it allowed or made available at the time of the last Review.

Could be part of job

1. 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. Never the less I have listed my concerns in regard to Mr Dixon's letter of 18/01/08

Specific request

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

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

4. It was Mr Dixon who reviewed Sheryl's Disability Allowance and Special Benefit at her last Annual Invalids Benefit renewal.

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. In fact he said that providing the readings could not verify which kilometers were for which treatment or activity.

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

8. Jill Tait, Service Centre Manager of the Feilding office, who cancelled all Sheryl's disability transport allowances pertaining to her approved treatment, did not at any stage request odometer readings.

(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.

The response to Jill Tait's cancellation from Sheryl's G.P. in a letter to Work and Income "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”)

9. Mr Dixon is aware that there is no change of circumstances in terms of her condition and the amount of kilometers recommended by medical professionals.

10. The request for an odometer reading is highly irregular and is the first time the chief executive has made such request over the many years Sheryl has been an invalid.

11. The message Mr Dixon's letter is communicating is that he is to hoping to and find a way of reducing the current km's without there being a change in her condition, thus seriously disadvantaging Sheryl by putting her unstable health at even greater risk.

12. His request for an odometer reading – in Sheryl's individual and particular circumstance - has never been a Ministry policy or a legislative requirement in the past 12 years.

13. Mr Dixon indicated to me that he had not requested other disabled person's to provide odometer readings.

14. The “Weekly Allowable Kilometers” are those which have been made available to a client. The law does not 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.

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

16. There were no change in Sheryl's particular circumstances to prompt Mr Dixon to request odometer readings.

17. The change of circumstances which prompted the application was that petrol and other costs associated with vehicle maintenance had increased over since May 2006 when the km rate was increased.

18. WINZ policy not require Sheryl to provide an odometer reading.

19. John Dixon breached faith with Sheryl by requesting an odometer reading when an odometer reading was not a ruling made by Judge Latham on the 23 April 1998.

20. Mr Dixon has not applied the law. Rather his request for an odometer reading is a statement saying that he has the authority to add to, or alter the SSAA ruling when he chooses. This is also a breach of faith with Sheryl and

a breach of the Ministry of Social Development’s Work and Income policy.

21. His request clearly holds an intention to cancel, or reduce the current kilometers available and verified as necessary and ongoing for Sheryl’s treatment by medical professionals and approved by the Ministry, without there being a change in her circumstances if the average weekly odometer readings do not reflect the allowed kilometers.

22. Last but not least, Mr Dixon attempted to nullify Sheryl's application by ignoring her specific request for an increase from 78c to 110 cents.

Conclusion

His response to a simple request is deplorable when a 'yes' or 'no' decision would have sufficed.

It is a deceptive and misleading letter and must be regarded as threatening upon a very ill invalid who does not need to receive this type of tricky-dickey response from an experienced Work and Income employee.

Especially with his understanding that there has been no change in Sheryl's circumstances and that any reduction in available kilometers would cause disruption to Sheryl's medical treatments.

Mr Dixon’s letter demonstrates discrimination against Sheryl, and contempt for legislation, Judge Latham’s decision, and the Ministry of Social Developments current policy in regard to verification by way of odometer readings.

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 two

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

david.taylor1@clear.net.nz