WINZ expected to pay for a 3k treadmill

Forums › Off topic › WINZ expected to pay for a 3k treadmill

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 13

5695 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1630
Inactive user

#1373476 25-Aug-2015 07:52

MikeB4:
nathan:
joker97: I went to Amazon and the product is withdrawn from market, has extremely bad feedback.

Anyway, since you can just buy something off late night shopping channel, we should all buy something we really need and claim it back.

beneficary bashing is sometimes well deserved

No it is not

my tongue was firmly in my cheek

this is not bene bashing

this is stating that the proper process should have been followed when you are spending someone elses money

not having a Eureka moment while watching infomercials on TV and signing up to buy a tread climber for $2999.91, at 73 installments of $41.67 per week before checking where the money was coming from

johnr

19282 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2526
Inactive user

#1373481 25-Aug-2015 08:06

MikeB4:
nathan:
joker97: I went to Amazon and the product is withdrawn from market, has extremely bad feedback.

Anyway, since you can just buy something off late night shopping channel, we should all buy something we really need and claim it back.

beneficary bashing is sometimes well deserved

No it is not

A 3k treadmill is excessive when they could of got a second hand one generally these things are sold cheap as on Trademe sorry but this lady is taking the pi$$

vexxxboy

4339 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2077

#1373484 25-Aug-2015 08:07

Some people have no idea about how WINZ works , Beneficiaries get get a certain amount of money set aside each year for emergency payments etc if needed, which if used has to be paid back in weekly installments out of their benefit. They have to show why they need it and can be turned down. The only thing she did wrong is buy the treadmill first, if she asked first she may have got it but she still would have had to pay the money back.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

BinaryLimited

796 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

#1373486 25-Aug-2015 08:11

johnr: " A beneficiary's decision to buy a $3,000 running machine advertised on late night TV has ended up in the High Court after Work and Income said "no" to paying for the exercise equipment "

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/beneficiary-s-3000-treadmill-gets-ministry-running-to-high-court-q07249.html?autoPlay=4440812724001

Here is the same lady on the TV show ' Neighbours at war '

What do you think?

love the acting in this show! The commentary is hilarious!!!!

" Debbie has more privacy issues than facebook and google combined" HAHHAHA

Binary Limited - Safe. Secure. Simple. ™
www.binarylimited.co.nz

richrdh18

232 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 102

#1373490 25-Aug-2015 08:23

No WINZ should not pay in this case. They way I heard the story was that she ordered/purchased the item before obtaining approval from Winz in the first case. I used to fix computers for Winz clients, and I had to quote, complete the paper war and wait for approval from Winz before proceeding with any work.

Inphinity

2780 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1184

#1373493 25-Aug-2015 08:37

Where's my $3k handout, jfc. Maybe we should all stop working so we can get some free stuff, too :P

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

BinaryLimited

796 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

#1373501 25-Aug-2015 09:01

Inphinity: Where's my $3k handout, jfc. Maybe we should all stop working so we can get some free stuff, too :P

Try applying for a community services card for free insulation....and then getting declined because you earn too much and pay too much tax....very depressing.

Binary Limited - Safe. Secure. Simple. ™
www.binarylimited.co.nz

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1373502 25-Aug-2015 09:09

The original decision by the MSD Office may be the correct one, on review the Independent Review Authority saw it differently. MSD can and I believe correctly are seeking a judicial review in the High Court. When that body makes its decision that should be the end of it.
It has nothing to do with the "gimmie gimmie I want some" mentality or character assassination of those involved.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

xpd

Geek of Coastguard
14116 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4579

Retired Mod

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373506 25-Aug-2015 09:17

"Most taxpayers would agree that it's not unreasonable to expect a beneficiary to get the approval first before they order a $3,000 piece of fitness equipment, especially one ordered from late night television," - EXACTLY.

The short time I was on a benefit years ago, I was made to jump through hoops just to get a 2nd hand $150 bed so my back wouldnt fudge out on me from the old one I had.

XPD / Gavin

LinkTree

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1373508 25-Aug-2015 09:20

xpd: "Most taxpayers would agree that it's not unreasonable to expect a beneficiary to get the approval first before they order a $3,000 piece of fitness equipment, especially one ordered from late night television," - EXACTLY.

The short time I was on a benefit years ago, I was made to jump through hoops just to get a 2nd hand $150 bed so my back wouldnt fudge out on me from the old one I had.

It is the "normal process" to assess and decide before the fact, however it does not exclude after the fact decisions given the circumstances. The SSA is not specific in this.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1373511 25-Aug-2015 09:24

MikeB4: The original decision by the MSD Office may be the correct one, on review the Independent Review Authority saw it differently. MSD can and I believe correctly are seeking a judicial review in the High Court. When that body makes its decision that should be the end of it.

Problem is far more taxpayer money would have been wasted when they get to that decision.

This going to the high court makes a mockery of our beneficiary system.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Sideface

9652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15606

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373516 25-Aug-2015 09:28

johnr: " A beneficiary's decision to buy a $3,000 running machine advertised on late night TV has ended up in the High Court after Work and Income said "no" to paying for the exercise equipment "

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/beneficiary-s-3000-treadmill-gets-ministry-running-to-high-court-q07249.html?autoPlay=4440812724001

According to her advocate in this OneNews video clip: "I would say that it's a great thing for beneficiaries to show their initiative to try to fix their problem."

If all beneficiaries "used their initiative" in this way, their support system would go bankrupt within weeks.

Sideface

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1373518 25-Aug-2015 09:31

vexxxboy: Some people have no idea about how WINZ works , Beneficiaries get get a certain amount of money set aside each year for emergency payments etc if needed, which if used has to be paid back in weekly installments out of their benefit. They have to show why they need it and can be turned down. The only thing she did wrong is buy the treadmill first, if she asked first she may have got it but she still would have had to pay the money back.

Am I missing something?
Taxpayers are paying that money back.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373537 25-Aug-2015 09:33

Inphinity: Where's my $3k handout, jfc. Maybe we should all stop working so we can get some free stuff, too :P

It's Ok - we just paid $8000 in Provisional Tax on Monday, so she's covered. Glad we worked so hard just to help her out.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1373539 25-Aug-2015 09:35

MikeB4: It is hard to make a judgment here as the circumstances are not known. There maybe medical reason it is needed or other reasons. MSD cannot and will not make details known to the public.

Nope, the woman bought it without first checking first. Just assumed that I would be happy pay for her toy.

MSD just need to let the company who sold it to her repossess.

I put MSD in charge of looking after my money and they are just abusing this trust.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 13