Advertising Standards Authority Complaint 09-734 - their response to my complaint

[riffer]

Okay, scanned now.

Here's what they sent me.

Bastards couldn't even spell my name right inside the document.

PLEASE NOTE: I have saved this as a .XLS file to get around the 1MB restriction on PDF files.

It's a PDF. Change the extension to .PDF and it will work okay.

[Squiggles]

Could follow up on the 16x claim, noting the wording is 16x more likely to make an ACC claim, not 16x more likely to be injured. Noting that what the ministry has recorded in regards to injury doesnt reflect ACC claim numbers... I think (but may have misread) it was ~12000 injuries for drivers/passengers vs only ~3000 claim for the same group in 2008.

[glegge]

thanks for posting the report.
I think it's worth following up on in the sense that the complaints board just rolled over and said to themselves 'well - its ACC, they know this stuff, what do we know' and took what ACC said as gospel.

they didnt think for themselves, they also said 'ACC has to look at numbers to ensure cover into the future/total life of the injury' when that bill has not even passed yet! (fully funding amongst other changes up in parliament at the moment - 'Dick head's (oh i mean Nick's) Bill')

In other words, the complaints authority just took the ACC numbers and went - oh yeah that looks OK, and said - complaint overturned.
it would be too much work for them (poor guys) to actually look at all the numbers etc and make there own opinion or to at least look at our view etc, and also for them to look at this complaint in the light of ACC is NOT working as a fully funded model YET, so in actual fact they ARE mis-construing the truth given that today still, ACC's calculations are false in that they are using fully funding calculations NOT the old ACC model ones. There news paper add assumes the bill will pass and ACC will go fully funded.
*steam*

[Hanne]

Would be worth following up with an appeal, they have stated that a minority of the board thought the ad was in breach of rules 2 and 3 of the code of ethics. Would be worth writing an appeal based on those points now ACC have responded and we have seen what they are using as justifications....

[pzkpfw]

...and also for them to look at this complaint in the light of ACC is NOT working as a fully funded model YET, so in actual fact they ARE mis-construing the truth given that today still, ACC's calculations are false in that they are using fully funding calculations NOT the old ACC model ones. There news paper add assumes the bill will pass and ACC will go fully funded.

My understanding is that ACC is already running under the fully-funded model; and what is being worked on now is how soon they have to "catch up" to the funding they need for the accidents that occured prior to going fully-funded.

(Which, yes, will affect how much they need us suckers to pay per year 'till that magic date.)

[riffer]

My understanding is that ACC is already running under the fully-funded model; and what is being worked on now is how soon they have to "catch up" to the funding they need for the accidents that occured prior to going fully-funded.

(Which, yes, will affect how much they need us suckers to pay per year 'till that magic date.)

Do you HONESTLY believe they'll lower the levies once we've hit the magic fully funded figure?

[pzkpfw]

Do you HONESTLY believe they'll lower the levies once we've hit the magic fully funded figure?

That's a different question*. I was responding to the "...and ACC will go fully funded" type comments.

(*To which my answer is "maybe".)



((And by saying "fully funded figure" you are still mixing up what it means. We already are running under the fully funded model. The "magic" figure is when the residual account has been filled up.))

[glegge]

Do you HONESTLY believe they'll lower the levies once we've hit the magic fully funded figure?

irrelevant.
fully funded = insurance company = NOT ACC as we know it = crap.

assuming we want to keep ACC as it is that is (I know i do) at least we can work on it once it's restored to it's original self.

if there's no interest in it - fine, the majority wins and we get rid of it/change it drastically
personally, i vote for the first option..hence i'm right there supporting as best i can.

[glegge]

Would be worth following up with an appeal, they have stated that a minority of the board thought the ad was in breach of rules 2 and 3 of the code of ethics. Would be worth writing an appeal based on those points now ACC have responded and we have seen what they are using as justifications....

agree.. lets get the complaints committee working for there money

[pzkpfw]

irrelevant.
fully funded = insurance company = NOT ACC as we know it = crap.

I don't think the fully funded model is the enemy. Our protests are not going to change the entire way ACC is funded, and in any case the accidents still have to be paid for.

Our enemy is the "risk based" differential levy setting - this thing where our bike levies are so much higher than car levies.

... and we get stung twice for that, as the higher rates are charged also in the "catch up" for the residual fund. They are back-dating the differential levy; the old pre-fully-funded accidents that they need to catch up for, occured before the differential between cars and bikes was so high.

Personally I think the residual account, regardless of what other things are going on, ought to be paid for from general ACC takings; an equal levy to all those who are levied. It's hardly fair to burden us with the result of what is basically their change of accounting practice.

[bogan]

as I posted here, ACC are effectively now saying bikers cost 95k per claim, and cars cost 100k per claim. From "total to fund estimated lifetime costs", which to me means cost of that years claims for thier lifetime.

Now what I dont understand is how this can be true, as the money that has been paid into the vehicle account for years has been enough, or close to it at least, but thire fact sheet shows cars need to pay an extra $100, and bikes and extra $250-$500 to cover the lifetime claims, begs the question, where do they get the money to fund the lifetime claims from now?

[glegge]

My understanding is that ACC is already running under the fully-funded model; and what is being worked on now is how soon they have to "catch up" to the funding they need for the accidents that occured prior to going fully-funded.

(Which, yes, will affect how much they need us suckers to pay per year 'till that magic date.)

i dont think it is fully funded yet, i could be wrong, but the bill was first read in parliament in october, i cant see that it's been passed yet from my searches, but feel free to prove me wrong..

[davereid]

IMHO they asked ACC, and ACC said, were right, and they just rubber stamped it. Wankers.

[Skyryder]

Would be worth following up with an appeal, they have stated that a minority of the board thought the ad was in breach of rules 2 and 3 of the code of ethics. Would be worth writing an appeal based on those points now ACC have responded and we have seen what they are using as justifications....

You would certainly have grounds based on that the complaint was not upheld on a unaminouse decision. Give the buggers something to do if for no other reason.


Skyryder

[pzkpfw]

i dont think it is fully funded yet, i could be wrong, but the bill was first read in parliament in october, i cant see that it's been passed yet from my searches, but feel free to prove me wrong..

What "fully funded" means:

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/gloss...PRD_CTRB103838

A scheme in which premiums are set at a rate that not only covers the cost of claims in the current year for all injured persons, but also covers the estimated total cost of claims which will be paid in future years for those injuries.

When they changed to a "fully funded" model:

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overv...nded/index.htm

Until 1999, ACC operated under a ‘pay-as-you-go’ basis, collecting only enough levies each year to cover the cost of claims for that particular year. In 1999 the Government decided to change ACC from ‘pay-as-you-go’ to a ‘fully funded’ way of operating. That means we now collect enough money during each levy year to cover the full lifetime costs of every claim that occurs in that year.

...and what the "Residual Claims Account" is:

This Account covers claims for work injuries that happened before 1 July 1999, and non-work injuries prior to 1 July 1992 that are still being managed. This happened because under the original ‘pay-as-you-go’ way of funding, we collected only enough money to cover injury costs in that particular year. Now, to cover ongoing costs of residual claims, part of each levy collected is paid into the Residual Claims Account.

--- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

The bill currently being looked at is not about whether or not they will be "fully funded". They already are operating that way. It is about setting how long they've got to collect the money needed for the "Residual Claims Account".

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0910/S00193.htm

However, the Minister for ACC is introducing amendments to the ACC legislation that will have an impact on the final levy rates set for 2010/11 – in particular extending the date by which the Scheme must be fully funded.

It's confusing because here they use a different meaning for "fully funded". Here they use it to mean getting all that back-dated money they need, for the years they were not operating under the fully funded model.

But either way, the bill currently before parliament is not about whether the scheme is run in a fully funded way (it already is - since 1999). It's about the deadline for the "catch up", for the "residual claims account".



Here's the Bill:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/...LM2417501.html

The 2014 date was originally set in 1998, but the residual accounts are still some way from being fully funded. Volatility in levy rates is likely to increase as 2014 approaches. There is also a need to deal with over- or under-funding of the residual claims liability that would occur after 2014. The amendments will set a final date for fully funding the residual claims liabilities of 31 March 2019 for the Work and Earners’ Accounts and 30 June 2019 for the Motor Vehicle Account.

Again, it's not about whether the scheme itself runs in a fully funded way. It already does. Nor is it about whether the residual claims account needs to be fully funded. It already has to be and still does. They are just changing when they need to have finished catching up.

(By extending the date, they need less off us each year, but they'll take the money for more years. They still want that money.)

This is what riffer meant by the question in post #6. i.e. When the residual claims fund has "caught up", will they drop the fees since they would no longer need that component? But that's a different issue to what I was addressing in post #5, which was about post #3 saying "in the light of ACC is NOT working as a fully funded model YET".