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 | 10 | ... | 13

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1373543 25-Aug-2015 09:40

MikeB4:
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.

There are plenty of people out there working and really struggling to make ends meet and could never dream to afford such a luxurious machine.

This is especially an insult to those people .

Given the high profile of this story, MSD should put up the facts or make the woman return the machine. Too often people hide behind privacy laws to escape consequences of poor choices.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1373545 25-Aug-2015 09:42

I think its ridiculous that there is a 'social security appeal authority' for beneficiaries to appeal decisions made by the MSD. Its the first time I have heard about it.

I bet the social security appeal authority is funded by taxpayers too. And it costs nothing to appeal.

Money should be handed out on approval by a board of taxpayers only. There should be nobody but taxpayers on this board. If the taxpayers don't agree, why should it even get appeal? Its taxpayers money for petes sake.

/rant.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1373550 25-Aug-2015 09:48

I assume that all those here that are making definitive decisions have read the MSD case notes and the full findings and transcripts of the SS Appeal Authority.

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

wasabi2k

2102 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 860

#1373552 25-Aug-2015 09:48

DizzyD: I think its ridiculous that there is a 'social security appeal authority' for beneficiaries to appeal decisions made by the MSD. Its the first time I have heard about it.

I bet the social security appeal authority is funded by taxpayers too. And it costs nothing to appeal.

Money should be handed out on approval by a board of taxpayers only. There should be nobody but taxpayers on this board. If the taxpayers don't agree, why should it even get appeal? Its taxpayers money for petes sake.

/rant.

Independent review by a third party is a pretty common and well regarded practice. - See Police Tribunal etc.

Decisions are not made by the MSD Hive Mind - they are made by individuals or groups - sometimes those decisions may not be appropriate.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1373553 25-Aug-2015 09:49

DizzyD: I think its ridiculous that there is a 'social security appeal authority' for beneficiaries to appeal decisions made by the MSD. Its the first time I have heard about it.

I bet the social security appeal authority is funded by taxpayers too. And it costs nothing to appeal.

Money should be handed out on approval by a board of taxpayers only. There should be nobody but taxpayers on this board. If the taxpayers don't agree, why should it even get appeal? Its taxpayers money for petes sake.

/rant.

So we will remove the right to appeal IRD decisions? Police decisions, while we are at it lets do away with the three yearly elections oh and Parliamentary select committees.........

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

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1373554 25-Aug-2015 09:50

MikeB4: I assume that all those here that are making definitive decisions have read the MSD case notes and the full findings and transcripts of the SS Appeal Authority.

It does not matter. The MSD declined it.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1373557 25-Aug-2015 09:52

DizzyD:
MikeB4: I assume that all those here that are making definitive decisions have read the MSD case notes and the full findings and transcripts of the SS Appeal Authority.

It does not matter. The MSD declined it.

Of course it matters people here are making conclusions based of what they have read or listened to in the press.

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

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1373561 25-Aug-2015 09:54

MikeB4:
DizzyD: I think its ridiculous that there is a 'social security appeal authority' for beneficiaries to appeal decisions made by the MSD. Its the first time I have heard about it.

I bet the social security appeal authority is funded by taxpayers too. And it costs nothing to appeal.

Money should be handed out on approval by a board of taxpayers only. There should be nobody but taxpayers on this board. If the taxpayers don't agree, why should it even get appeal? Its taxpayers money for petes sake.

/rant.

So we will remove the right to appeal IRD decisions? Police decisions, while we are at it lets do away with the three yearly elections oh and Parliamentary select committees.........

Correct me if I am wrong, but the SSAA has nothing to to with IRD or Police decisions. Thats a separate topic. This one is about beneficiaries.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/social-security-appeal-authority/about-the-social-security-appeal-authority

The Social Security Appeal Authority is an independent judicial tribunal that hears appeals made by beneficiaries who want to challenge a decision made about their benefit.

Nothing wrong with a service like this. But I as a taxpayer don't want to have my hard earned tax money being used to challenge a decision by the MSD.

Handsomedan

7770 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7408

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1373562 25-Aug-2015 09:54

MikeB4:
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.

The SSA SHOULD BE specific on this.

It should absolutely forbid the ability to claim after the fact unless given specific permission to do so.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1373563 25-Aug-2015 09:54

MikeB4:
DizzyD:
MikeB4: I assume that all those here that are making definitive decisions have read the MSD case notes and the full findings and transcripts of the SS Appeal Authority.

It does not matter. The MSD declined it.

Of course it matters people here are making conclusions based of what they have read or listened to in the press.

I'm saying that the MSD decision was the right one.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1373566 25-Aug-2015 09:58

DizzyD:
MikeB4:
DizzyD:
MikeB4: I assume that all those here that are making definitive decisions have read the MSD case notes and the full findings and transcripts of the SS Appeal Authority.

It does not matter. The MSD declined it.

Of course it matters people here are making conclusions based of what they have read or listened to in the press.

I'm saying that the MSD decision was the right one.

How do you know that?

The Appeal Authority has ruled differently, that authority is independent, appointed by the Governor General.

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

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1373568 25-Aug-2015 10:00

Handsomedan:
MikeB4:
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.

The SSA SHOULD BE specific on this.

It should absolutely forbid the ability to claim after the fact unless given specific permission to do so.

Yes and no, due to the complexity of what the SSA deals with it is very hard to be black and white in the "discretionary" sections of the act. The qualifications for the primary benefits are definitive.

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

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1373569 25-Aug-2015 10:03

MikeB4:
DizzyD:
MikeB4: I assume that all those here that are making definitive decisions have read the MSD case notes and the full findings and transcripts of the SS Appeal Authority.

It does not matter. The MSD declined it.

Of course it matters people here are making conclusions based of what they have read or listened to in the press.

That is because the privacy act is being used to suppress any reasons so you must expect this.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151
Inactive user

#1373570 25-Aug-2015 10:03

MikeB4:
DizzyD:
MikeB4:
DizzyD:
MikeB4: I assume that all those here that are making definitive decisions have read the MSD case notes and the full findings and transcripts of the SS Appeal Authority.

It does not matter. The MSD declined it.

Of course it matters people here are making conclusions based of what they have read or listened to in the press.

I'm saying that the MSD decision was the right one.

How do you know that?

The Appeal Authority has ruled differently, that authority is independent, appointed by the Governor General.

Thats my opinion.

Taxpayer money should NEVER be used for stuff like this.
It makes a mockery of our beneficiary system at the expense of us taxpayers.

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153
Inactive user

#1373575 25-Aug-2015 10:08

She bought a treadmill off an INFOMERCIAL. What has history taught us about exercising equipment from infomercials...
I hope tax payer money doesnt go towards that rubbish. Winz is better off renting some equipment from a reputable company.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 13