Legal challenges against ACC?

[Conquiztador]

The implementation of the increases, in the end, are not in our hands. We can (and do) protest and provide the ones who are prepared to listen, opposing views to ACC's. Regarding how they have wrongly justified and calculated the proposed new levies, the lack of logic they have used and the un-just way they are planning to increase the ACC levy on bikes.

But I have also, on KB, and other places, had a read and realised that ACC has clearly made a few blunders when going down this track. Some of them could even be considered major blunders.

It made me think, that perhaps they have made enough mistakes and left them selves open for a successful legal challenge? (I am not someone with a legal education, and so what I am here pointing out might not have a leg to stand on. But just perhaps...)

Please feel free to prove me wrong, but also add to what I have here come up with.

What I have picked up sofar is:

- The "Advertising Campaign" in major newspapers justifying the increases for bikes. As this was done before the last date for submissions, it was clearly done to support their view. This is clear propaganda. And as the money used was from the ACC levies, surely this is not right?

- Charging GST on ACC levies. Yes, we are taxed from many different angles, and there is not much we can do re it. But surely charging us a tax on a tax is against the tax law?

- Charging the same person the same tax more than once for the same thing. When we own more than one motorvehicle we pay ACC levy on all of them. It could be argued that we therefore are paying the same levy fee again and again. If we are injured while driving/riding we can only get hurt once at a time. Therefore we should not have to pay the same fee more than once. My legal angle is that nobody is allowed to charge the same fee more than once for one service? The ACC levy does not cover the vehicle but the person, so for one person to pay more than one ACC levy is surely against the law?

And I borrowed this one from Wobblyas (hope you don't mind, but I think you have a very valid point there!):
- ACC R.I.S. doesn't comply
Regulatory Impact Statement: All policy proposals submitted to Cabinet that result in government bills, statutory regulations, or that propose that the government support or adopt a Members' bill must be accompanied by a regulatory impact statement (RIS)unless an exemption applies. (ref http://cabguide.cabinetoffice.govt.n...s-requirements) “The Treasury Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Team has reviewed the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and considers that it does not meet the RIS requirements. The RIS does not contain the required information and the analysis in incomplete in a number of key areas. For example, some of the proposals to remove ACC entitlements will shift costs onto other government agencies or on to individuals but the RIS does not quantify these costs. The proposal to introduce experience rating and risk sharing in the Work Account will increase administrative and compliance costs for business and for the ACC Scheme but these costs have not yet been investigated. In addition, the RIS consultation requirements have not been met.” (ref http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/...-bill-2009.asp)


There, a start...

[James Deuce]

A levy isn't a tax so it attracts GST and vehicles attract levies, not people, so multiple levies with additional GST are perfectly legal.

[davereid]

The law also requires that ACC consult.

I bet you that there is a case, that a requirement to consult implies an obligation to consider the submissions, not just do as you intended anyway.

[Conquiztador]

The law also requires that ACC consult.

I bet you that there is a case, that a requirement to consult implies an obligation to consider the submissions, not just do as you intended anyway.

Sadly this is the case in most "legal obligations" where a consultation is required. Take a redundancy process for example. When a company has decided to make someone redundant they need to consult. So there is a meeting where the employee in question can forward their views. But sadly that does not change anything. The redundancy normally happens anyhow.

[Mully]

What about the discrimination angle?

We're being discriminated against because of our choice of transport, whereas cyclists are not.

I know insurance companies are allowed to discriminate (age, gender, so on), but ACCs position is that they aren't an insurance company.

[riffer]

I know insurance companies are allowed to discriminate (age, gender, so on), but ACCs position is that they aren't an insurance company.


Not any more.

[Mully]

Not any more.

Have they actually come out and said that?

Cos then the angle can be:
"Drunk drivers have to pay more for insurance
Repeated disqualified drivers have to pay more for insurance
Motorcyclists do not always have to pay more for insurance
Cyclists don't pay anything
Mountain climbers don't pay anything
Horse riders don't pay anything
and so on"

[James Deuce]

Have they actually come out and said that?


Yep. They're signing correspondence "ACC Insurance".

[phred]

So where's the opinion of the many lawyers on KB or do Lawyers not belong to such a salubrious group as KB?

[Mully]

So where's the opinion of the many lawyers on KB or do Lawyers not belong to such a salubrious group as KB?

They're just attaching some more chrome to their Harleys......

[Winston001]

They're just attaching some more chrome to their Harleys......

Pwwfffaarrr as if!! :shit: Haven't even got my Duc anymore to not chrome....

What you are asking is whether there is a case (High Court) to argue that ACC and/or the Minister has wrongly exercised their powers. Its a complex area wayyyyyyy outside my expertise. The most famous case I can remember was the action to prevent the 1981 Springbok Tour, although there will be plenty of others.

Certainly arguments can be mounted. The time trouble and expense are the barriers. Even with pro bono help you'd have to allow $50,000 for experts expenses and research. And maybe lose.....

Best option is direct and loud noise at the politicians. We need to pick up on the rise of levies for trucks to get wider sympathy.

[Mully]

Even with pro bono help

I think I saw a movie called Pro Bono Help once......

[Conquiztador]

Pwwfffaarrr as if!! :shit: Haven't even got my Duc anymore to not chrome....

What you are asking is whether there is a case (High Court) to argue that ACC and/or the Minister has wrongly exercised their powers. Its a complex area wayyyyyyy outside my expertise. The most famous case I can remember was the action to prevent the 1981 Springbok Tour, although there will be plenty of others.

Certainly arguments can be mounted. The time trouble and expense are the barriers. Even with pro bono help you'd have to allow $50,000 for experts expenses and research. And maybe lose.....

Best option is direct and loud noise at the politicians. We need to pick up on the rise of levies for trucks to get wider sympathy.

And that might be the case. However, by starting this thread I was trying to see what other (apart from what I stated in my post #1) things the ACC had got wrong. I have been able to find bits here and there but was thinking that if all was collated in one thread, then perhaps someone with a Law Degree could give their opinion on what we have here. And who knows, if there is something that is so blatantly against any of the laws, we could use that to stop this nonsense until we have a Government that is not planning to sell ACC to Oz...

[Reckless]

I still reckon there must be something in NZ law as said here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1129507832#post1129507832) ( I won't retype it) in consumer rights etc that prevents any kiwi from being charged twice for the same product, Shit your plumber can't do it, why should they. And the other points Conquiztador has raised??

Anyway 110,000 bikers dived into $50k is worth a whip round isn't it!
I'm serious!
Collection boxes in the shops etc. Bikers raise heaps on charity runs for starship etc why not to protect ourselves!

So they pass the levy, one person refuses to pay for his second bike, they take him to court, we all put in money or start a national collection and defend it under consumer rights!!


Lets do it!!

[Winston001]

And that might be the case. However, by starting this thread I was trying to see what other (apart from what I stated in my post #1) things the ACC had got wrong. I have been able to find bits here and there but was thinking that if all was collated in one thread, then perhaps someone with a Law Degree could give their opinion on what we have here. And who knows, if there is something that is so blatantly against any of the laws, we could use that to stop this nonsense until we have a Government that is not planning to sell ACC to Oz...

Good thinking and I support your aim. Just be aware that administrative law (which this involves) is rare high-end stuff which most lawyers forget as soon as we leave law school. Its a bit like open heart surgery - only a few people have the expertise.


I still reckon there must be something in NZ law as said here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1129507832#post1129507832) ( I won't retype it) in consumer rights etc that prevents any kiwi from being charged twice for the same product, Shit your plumber can't do it, why should they. And the other points Conquiztador has raised??

So they pass the levy, one person refuses to pay for his second bike, they take him to court, we all put in money or start a national collection and defend it under consumer rights!!


Lets do it!!

Admire your enthusiasm and who knows, all arguments can be thrown in the pot.

However - would you expect to insure only one bike if you owned three? What happens to your mate/partner/mechanic riding your unregistered bike and has an accident? Will you cover that since no ACC levy has been paid??

[Reckless]

However - would you expect to insure only one bike if you owned three? What happens to your mate/partner/mechanic riding your unregistered bike and has an accident? Will you cover that since no ACC levy has been paid??

Firstly my 78 Z1R 1000 Classic has a completely different insurance rate! Its much reduced from what was on my VTR1000. I don't see ACC proposing that at all!

You assume the only system is to attach ACC levies to vehicles! Which is the heart of our argument about fairness, Its simply not and possibly illegal. which is what we are asking in this thread? With rego at the present levels its manageable, basically we don't mind paying a bit extra, but put them up to $800 and its discriminatory and unfair!

Secondly as we all know very very rarely do any of us let others ride our bikes! Even if we own more than one! Its the one question you never ever ask "can I ride your baby?" You wait to be offered usually! So the sharing a bike thing is a red herring!

BTW: If you where a mechanic wouldn't you have a current license with an ACC levy attached or have paid for the petrol in it if the levies where on those suggestions put forward??

Or have ACC levies already paid though your company/job/occupation ACC charges?? Shouldn't all the professionals in the trade already be covered even Bike salesman. Their employers pay ACC don't they? How many times to they want to charge for riding a bike!!

[Clockwork]

Are there no arguments around natural justice? Is it fair/just/reasonable to expect Motorcyclists alone to pay for the extra risk associated with their lifestyle choices? It seems to me if we could point out how everyone is cross-subsidised in some way for risks they take in some part of their lives we may bget more sympathy... at the moment it appears that only we are mooching off all other levy payers!

[NighthawkNZ]

However - would you expect to insure only one bike if you owned three? What happens to your mate/partner/mechanic riding your unregistered bike and has an accident? Will you cover that since no ACC levy has been paid??

If the mechanic rides and crashes, technically should be work account but on public road so traffic account or unless it is in the drive way or in the shop and drops it etc goes back to work account. One of the reasons ACC was never designed to have seperate accounts and should go back to the super account. As for the actual bike insurance the shop insurance should cover it.

My mate is not insured to ride my bike so he probably never will. If he steals or takes it with out ask it becomes a criminal act and is a different kettle of fish for ACC. technicall crims should only get a patch up and none of the on going crap that goes on for 20 years

My partner is insured to ride my bike as I am insured to ride hers... whats the difference. If it is done by license then they would be covered would they not, no matter what you ride, drive or are passenger in or on? As you can be in one place at a time...