Superannuates misled part 2

back to:

Articles and Stories

SUPERANNUATS MISLED BY WINZ

part 1

Work and Income employees are a law unto themselves. This is evidenced by the testimony of thousands of hard pressed New Zealanders. There are many disadvantaged and disabled kiwi's in jail, sick, hospitalized or dead as a result of the mean, un-proactive spirit emitting from Work and Income employees.

After 12 years of, deception, misleading statements, and generally given the run around, I had hoped the Ministry of Social Development, via its front line branch of Work and Income, would give me a break.

I am now a superannuate (66). I had sincerely hoped the Ministry would ease up in its endeavours to send me to an early grave by my acquiring stress related illnesses due to conflict with WINZ case managers.

In 2004, Jill Tait Service Centre Manager of WINZ Feilding branch, cancelled in one foul swoop all my wife Sheryl's transport disability allowances necessary for her medical treatments. There was no change of circumstances. They were eventually restored and arrears paid.

Elderly pensioners

I suffered greatly at that time and became quite ill through the Ministry of Social Development's callous disregard for Sheryl who, in a landmark decision, has been ruled a disabled person by the Social Security Appeal Authority.

Many elderly are forced to contribute toward the care of their unwell spouse from their own meagre pension because case managers are too mean and dishonest. They are encouraged by their bosses to avoid spending taxpayer money as much as possible. To achieve this mandatory requirement, the giving out of misleading information and sometimes lies is common. However, case managers are careful not to put their tricky-dickey information in writing.

My new case manager, John Dixon of the Levin WINZ branch (He oversees 2000 Superannuates in the Horowhenua area) has already demonstrated tricky-dickey stuff. Several times over two days I attempted to gain access to Sheryl's file but was told that I was no longer Sheryl's agent – I had been her agent for 12 years. I asked Mr Dixon why this was so. This is what he told me:

“I notified the Call Centre on 17/08/07 (two weeks earlier) and renewed all the information they needed. You should have no problem.”

I asked him to phone the Centre right then and confirm again. He baulked, he was clearly uncomfortable. Three times I insisted he ring the Centre. (I believed that if I had left WINZ office and again tried to gain access to my wife's file, refusal would have been the result). He finally did so and confirmed with the Call Centre that I was indeed Sheryl's agent. I went home and telephoned the Call Centre. Sure enough access was restored.

Over a period of 12 years this 'problem' had never happened. There is no doubt in my mind that John Dixon, although he had renewed my agent rights, had probably requested a note be placed on Sheryl's file saying that I was not to have access.

WINZ has many cards up their sleeve

In recent interviews with John Dixon, in my capacity as Sheryl's advocate, John, on several occasions said that he could cancel Sheryl's Special Benefit if he wished.

Needless to say, this caused me much distress as the Special Benefit is based almost entirely on Sheryl's ongoing need for medical treatment.

The reason for canceling, he stated, is because we have a small “Capital Payment” invested in a 12 month term deposit, which upon maturity is to go toward purchasing Sheryl's lease. The money was acquired through an inheritance.

To justify the cancellation, Mr Dixon has said that the amount is over the $1487.46 allowed as a 'cash asset'. (The term deposit is in my name only).

The following is taken from Work and Income's working Manual for case managers.

“Special Benefit : Cash assets test

Cash assets test

A client will not normally be able to receive a Special Benefit if they (and their partner if any) have cash assets equal to or more than:

Married, civil union or de facto:

$1.487.46 is the asset limit for a married, civil union or de facto couple with or without dependent children -

If the client has cash assets but they are less than the maximum, you should still consider whether the client could be expected to meet the costs they face from these cash assets.

(a) “(Note: Where the client has committed some of these assets to a reasonable and essential expense then this amount does not form part of their cash assets. There is no ability to adjust the cash assets test.

(b) “The outcome of the cash assets calculation may be disregarded in the exercise of your discretion if the particular circumstances of the applicant justify granting a Special Benefit”. See: Tricky-Dickey Stuff

* After purchasing the land on which her freehold home is sited, Sheryl will have an ongoing commitment to repay a loan of $20,000 needed to make up the shortfall.

* Assistance is still needed for her ongoing treatments, the ability to repay the loan, and the ability to buy a loaf of bread. The government allows $242.37 a week called “Standard Costs” from a benefit for food, clothing, rates, payment of essential items and services - such as tradesman undertaking repair and maintenance work. The purchase of other products essential to the running of a home, and the hundred and one other items commonly needed for personal and household use. Sheryl's current deficit eliminates her ability to meet the $242.47 expense

Sheryl's Particular circumstances mean:

Sheryl's inability to pay for the weekly cost of her disability related expenses.

Sheryl's inability to repay the $20,000 loan on a regular basis.

Sheryl's inability to pay for adequate, wholesome food and her inability to purchase essential household items: also -

Sheryl's inability to pay for Repairs and maintenance. All or most of these prevent the “Standard Costs” from being effective.

Mr Dixon, being aware of part's (a) & (b)and Sheryl's particular circumstances has intimated that despite these instructions he is still within his discretionary rights to cancel Sheryl's Special Benefit.

Hasn't the ability

Clearly, having regard for the Department's own policies, and giving an honest interpretation of legislation then applying legislation as the legislators intended - John Dixon hasn't the ability to justify the cancellation of Sheryl's Special Benefit.

Why then would John Dixon indicate that he may cancel Sheryl's Special benefit even though he hasn't that ability?

Simple. As noted above, Work and Income employees are a law unto themselves. This is evidenced by the testimony of thousands of hard pressed New Zealanders. There are many disadvantaged and disabled kiwi's in jail, sick, hospitalized or dead as a result of the mean, unproactive spirit emitting from Work and Income employees.

Sheryl is incapable of responding to any type of bullying. If it were not for her advocate fighting WINZ on her behalf, she would be destitute, living in slum conditions, or incarcerated in an institution.

Intimidation, subtle and not so subtle is the name of the game. (like the time an experienced female WINZ employee walked up to me in a Supermarket and whispered “arsehole” in my ear). Veiled threats intended to put off the sick and impoverished from requesting and pursuing their entitlements are applied to stop them receiving assistance. At times Work and Income staff ignore their own policies.

Unfortunately, legislation, as far as I know, does not protect Sheryl, or any other ill, or well person, from Work and Income's employees comments and statements intended to mislead and intimidate. Go to: Bully boys

Misleading Interpretation

Mr Dixon's interpretation of the law and Departmental policy is perverse. He is an expert at misleading those needing justifiable assistance. Clearly, his intention has been to cause Sheryl and myself undue stress and anxiety.

It is worrying and unfair that a Work and Income employee, after giving regard to legislation, still intimidates disadvantaged persons.

I am outraged that although Sheryl's particular circumstances are unchanged, Mr Dixon still used the intimidating tactic of falsely claiming that Sheryl's circumstances had changed in order to justify the cancellation of her Special Benefit.

It is an instance of a case manager going out of his way to deny the intention of the legislators and the Ministry of Social Services, to support a person in Sheryl's situation.

If John Dixon does cancel Sheryl's Special Benefit it would mean a BRC hearing and then a possible hearing before the Social Security Appeal Authority. There is no question that – at the end of the day - Sheryl would win.

The outcome being that thousands of dollars plus interest would be awarded to Sheryl. It would also cost the taxpayer and additional $15000 for the appeal.

After several discussions and interviews with John Dixon, it was not until the end of our last interview that he said. “I am not going to cancel Sheryl's Special Benefit”

My question for the Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry of Social Services, Peter Hughes:

Do you, in your capacity as a the CEO of the Ministry of Social Services, condone Work and Income employee John Dixon's misleading and intimidating conduct?

continued:Superannuates misled part 2

david.taylor1@clear.net.nz