Are you on Workcover? Or disability pension?whos watching u?

Joined: 03 Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia

Victoria regional and metro:

The chances are if you are on workcover or on a commcare injury claim or payment(s), there are firms out there employed specifically to 'ADJUST THE LOSS' to insurance companies that contract to workcover and commcare...

By going to your medical appointments do you think they (Workcover, commcare) are obliged to pay your claim if the medical practitioner finds that you are truely unfit for work (or the like)??????

Nope, what they will do is send out surveillance investigators to check on you PERIODICALLY, following your movements, taking VIDEO FOOTAGE of you, taking note of the persons at your home, taking note of the state of your home, etc. The list goes on... And you guessed it, its all legal.

I do not agree with the evasion of privacy that occurs and am hence forth educating those that may be subject to surveillance and showing you the dirty tricks employed to 'CATCH YOU OUT'. I have been a surveillance op for 5 years and believe me, this is real, you just may not know about it. They will continue to come, to watch your movements, but I can show you and your family how to nip it in the bud.

You will have 'good days' and some 'bad days' when pain is almost impossible to describe... I have seen people with spine fusions being offered a settlement of approx. 50% less than originally offered due to footage of lifting an object from the ground, but the video was edited to not show the holding of the back after the lift. These situations can be avoided.

It is a service I am offering, daytime or afterhours. PM me for details.

Joined: 28 Nov 2002 Location: Melbourne

Dirty tricks to catch you out? Rolling Eyes

You only get caught out if you're doing something wrong.

Now I'm a HUGE advocate of privacy, I think the bounds of what is acceptable in terms of invasion are overstepped far too often, however when it comes to claiming compensation from the Government (and therefore me) I'm more than happy for them to spend some money making sure people aren't screwing the system over.

Although I would suggest they should probably contract the surveillance work out to Today Tonight and ACA, they'd probably do it for free if they get exclusive rights to the story of everyone they catch.

Joined: 27 Nov 2002 Location: Lost in Melbourne.

lolergram wrote:

Nope, what they will do is send out surveillance investigators to check on you PERIODICALLY, following your movements, taking VIDEO FOOTAGE of you, taking note of the persons at your home, taking note of the state of your home, etc. The list goes on... And you guessed it, its all legal.

they do it in very few cases..
When I went thru all that shit after my accident, the lawyer said there were no charges on the case uptil a certain date, then there was 1 mth with charges from "Agents"... but we busted him.

Must have been his first day.. missus and me walked into bras and things, he followed us (why he didnt wait outside!) then left and went to Coles, then back to bras and things, when I walked up to him while he was holding a Pr of D Cups and said we were going to get some bread and we would meet him in the carpark... at that point he ran out the store and down the escalator.. #Rofl

as I said he must have been new at this gig..

but yea, on the flip side, mate a few weeks before his case went to court, raced and won the NSW Formula 1 races at Oran Park.. in court they showed him video footage of the races after they asked how badly his back hurt and was he really sure it hurt that bad. I think Keith races 400's now.. LMAO

Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Location: hunter nsw

it cos of all the scumbags that try to rip off the system you offering a service not to get caught is only helping the criminals

Joined: 24 Dec 2002 Location: South Australia

ssfabricator wrote:

it cos of all the scumbags that try to rip off the system you offering a service not to get caught is only helping the criminals

you are far too naive...

the government departments that handle welfare/ compensation don't just catch out the "crooks". they trump up charges, change evidence, delete years worth of files, and even when they are proven to be deliberately misleading the high court of australia, they still drag out the cases for years, destroying families for what are quite often mistakes with the ADMINISTRATION side of things, not due to the people who are truely suffering.

as lolergram points out, they EDIT footage. you may have to quickly pick your kid up to stop them burning themselves/whatever. you may be in hospital for days afterwards for the move, but they will only show you picking up your kid.

Joined: 27 Nov 2002 Location: Lost in Melbourne.

bad_religion_au wrote:

ssfabricator wrote:

it cos of all the scumbags that try to rip off the system you offering a service not to get caught is only helping the criminals

you are far too naive...

the government departments that handle welfare/ compensation don't just catch out the "crooks". they trump up charges, change evidence, delete years worth of files, and even when they are proven to be deliberately misleading the high court of australia, they still drag out the cases for years, destroying families for what are quite often mistakes with the ADMINISTRATION side of things, not due to the people who are truely suffering.

as lolergram points out, they EDIT footage. you may have to quickly pick your kid up to stop them burning themselves/whatever. you may be in hospital for days afterwards for the move, but they will only show you picking up your kid.

What he says is true.. think of it as Current affair/todaytonight are the ones showing the evidence... They are paid to make you lose the case, what do you think they will do to save $1,000,000?

Joined: 10 Jun 2004 Location: North West Qld

So many innocents in life, yet so many predators. Crying or Very sad

Oh the humanity!

Joined: 27 Nov 2002 Location: Lost in Melbourne.

Barnsey wrote:

Oh the humanity!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Morrison_(announcer)

Joined: 28 Nov 2002 Location: Melbourne

bad_religion_au wrote:

as lolergram points out, they EDIT footage. you may have to quickly pick your kid up to stop them burning themselves/whatever. you may be in hospital for days afterwards for the move, but they will only show you picking up your kid.

It's a government department, and surely your case is heard in court. if you're not dodging the system, and were really in hospital as a result, surely the evidence is very easily gathered and presented in court?

Joined: 27 Nov 2002 Location: Lost in Melbourne.

Ben wrote:

bad_religion_au wrote:

as lolergram points out, they EDIT footage. you may have to quickly pick your kid up to stop them burning themselves/whatever. you may be in hospital for days afterwards for the move, but they will only show you picking up your kid.

It's a government department, and surely your case is heard in court. if you're not dodging the system, and were really in hospital as a result, surely the evidence is very easily gathered and presented in court?

Most of the companies from what my lawyer told me are private companies. They have no ties to Gov..
The Gov wouldnt (would they?) edit - but call it selective editing by the private companies...
Of course they are only going to show the bits they want the court to see. its in their best interest, they get %age payments on what is saved. - again this is only going on what I was told.

Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Location: Sydney

bogged wrote:

Most of the companies from what my lawyer told me are private companies. They have no ties to Gov..
The Gov wouldnt (would they?) edit - but call it selective editing by the private companies...
Of course they are only going to show the bits they want the court to see. its in their best interest, they get %age payments on what is saved. - again this is only going on what I was told.

Well, I don't know too much about this. Only what my wife tells me. She owns an investigations company Wink

They report on facts, and get paid an hourly rate. No more no less.

Joined: 17 Jul 2004 Location: Waikerie; SA

Ben wrote:

It's a government department ...

not really.

ALL cases are handled by case managers, all of whom are employed by private companies on contract.

The only Government employees in work cover ( W C ) are a few people in an office somewhere who creatively write up all the facts and figures and decide who gets the contract for the next year.

Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Location: Wollongong

Worker's comp is covered by insurance and its the insurance company that runs the case up to and sometimes including having investigation work. My fiance worked for GIO as a case manager and if you knew how many oxygen thieves there were rorting the system you'd be happy to have them regulated by any means.

I can imagine as with all human controlled activities there'd be dodgy people involved but there's more on the bludger side so i'm not too upset.

I've been on the other side when my brother had cancer and couldn't work full time and I never blamed the return to work officer, always the bludgers that ruined what should be helpful system.

Joined: 04 Jan 2004 Location: Sunshine Coast

If you are doing nothing wrong then there is nothing to fear. I am sick of people ripping off the system and you offering to help them, also makes me sick!

Joined: 28 Nov 2002 Location: Melbourne

Eddy wrote:

Ben wrote:

It's a government department ...

not really.

ALL cases are handled by case managers, all of whom are employed by private companies on contract.

I understand that, but when it comes to prosecuting someone, standard rules of law, etc, must apply. A private company doesn't take you to court.

Joined: 21 Aug 2005 Location: capalaba qld

What about when you can't sleep at night from the pain ????? do they show that ??
I had a hernia for years and was told not to work by a doctor and found the interogation from the government departments was so bad i just kept working which in the end nearly killed me.
Wife has a repetitive work injury in her left wrist and the shit workcover has put her through has been hell. Her boss insisted on light duties but went against doctors orders and made her work with her left wrist which enflamed the problem again.
If you believe survelance only happens to the cheats and you only get caught if you are cheating you are extremely naive.
Just like today tonight they don't tell the full story they tell just enough to get away with paying you
Insurance companies also use any dirty tactic they can to save the save money,which effects plenty of inocent people.

Joined: 02 Aug 2003 Location: Croydon, Victoria

Having worked in workers comp for 19 years I find this all very interesting.
A couple of quick facts:

*Each state has it's own system.

*There is a different system for federal government departments a select few companies that compete with these departments.

*the rules for who manages claims will vary depending upon the state your claim is managed under. Some schemes are privately underwritten (so an insurance company compete's for your employers business like in NSW), some are on contract to the government workers comp department (so the insurance company gets paid by the government based on a variety of matters like in Vic) and others are run by the government themselves (Like in QLD). Finally there are companies who are large enough who self insure and cover the costs and manage claims themselves.

*Yes surveillance does get used and yes people do get caught out doing what they say they cant.

*When surveillance is required, it is contracted out to private companies who are required to hold a variety of licences. the government department or insurance company does not do this work.

I dont know every investigation firm and I dont know every case manager, but for the majority of people in the industry, we dont care what surveillance shows us and we dont mind paying claims. Our job is to ensure compensation is paid equitably. If surveillance shows you limping or whatever then great, we know we have a genuine claim. If it shows you taking the mickey or working then that's great too and we treat the claim differently.

I am sure however that if an investigation firm was found editing material then they wouldn't be permitted to continue operating. So lolegram, pm me who you are working for and I will make sure we dont use your firm.

Joined: 12 Dec 2002 Location: Wangaratta

bad_religion_au wrote:

ssfabricator wrote:

it cos of all the scumbags that try to rip off the system you offering a service not to get caught is only helping the criminals

you are far too naive...

the government departments that handle welfare/ compensation don't just catch out the "crooks". they trump up charges, change evidence, delete years worth of files, and even when they are proven to be deliberately misleading the high court of australia, they still drag out the cases for years, destroying families for what are quite often mistakes with the ADMINISTRATION side of things, not due to the people who are truely suffering.

as lolergram points out, they EDIT footage. you may have to quickly pick your kid up to stop them burning themselves/whatever. you may be in hospital for days afterwards for the move, but they will only show you picking up your kid.

Deleting files .. I dont think so.
I know the systems that are used in most of these departments and have been on the reciving end of orders of discovery. ( court order .. a bit like a tax audit ... but without the rubber glove or lubricant)
The burden of proof is on the dept not you. If you have even the dodgyest bit of evidence to show your in the right .. and they have none .. you win.
Its called EDRMS .. we use a product called TRIM, pretty sure DHS use oracle doc manager. Once it goes in, it is almost impossible to remove (even when you remove it, a copy of the file is left behind to say it was removed)

Joined: 24 Dec 2002 Location: South Australia

Ben wrote:

Eddy wrote:

Ben wrote:

It's a government department ...

not really.

ALL cases are handled by case managers, all of whom are employed by private companies on contract.

I understand that, but when it comes to prosecuting someone, standard rules of law, etc, must apply. A private company doesn't take you to court.

right, because the court system is infallible?

One case i know well, a guy was being pursued to pay back an overpayment due to a gov dept oversight... one that he'd already paid back (and had reciepts to prove it). He also had a letter from the agency stating that he no longer had any outstanding debt, as he'd finished repaying it.

The Gov agency fronted up to court claiming he had to pay it back, as the "payment recieved" notice was fake. they were caught out in a lie (had edited his file to delete the notice).

They then claimed it was a "computer error", and that he still had to pay, as they had no record of his repayments.

it turns out that 3 years of his file "went missing"... the 3 years in question.

Even though he had signed/dated/stamped reciepts from the department covering that 3 years, the judge still ruled that he had to make up the payments that the agency had no record for.

Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Location: Sydney

bad_religion_au wrote:

Even though he had signed/dated/stamped reciepts from the department covering that 3 years, the judge still ruled that he had to make up the payments that the agency had no record for.

I smell something fishy. Did he have legal representation in court?

Joined: 28 Nov 2002 Location: Melbourne

Exactly. Surely they'd appeal?

Joined: 24 Dec 2002 Location: South Australia

Gonzo wrote:

bad_religion_au wrote:

Even though he had signed/dated/stamped reciepts from the department covering that 3 years, the judge still ruled that he had to make up the payments that the agency had no record for.

I smell something fishy. Did he have legal representation in court?

That time yes, he had the "welfare rights" laywer. the appeal... no one would touch.

you can "smell something fishy" all you like, but this isn't the only case like this out there.

Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Location: Sydney

Do you know when/where the court case was?
I can look up the details (pm if you prefer).

If you mate had evidence, and the Gov admitted they had nothing, it should have been an open and shut case.

Joined: 24 Dec 2002 Location: South Australia

Gonzo wrote:

Do you know when/where the court case was?
I can look up the details (pm if you prefer).

If you mate had evidence, and the Gov admitted they had nothing, it should have been an open and shut case.

a few years ago, haven't got the exact dates. i'll try to remember to get the info next time i speak to him.

Joined: 12 Dec 2002 Location: Wangaratta

bad_religion_au wrote:

Ben wrote:

Eddy wrote:

Ben wrote:

It's a government department ...

not really.

ALL cases are handled by case managers, all of whom are employed by private companies on contract.

I understand that, but when it comes to prosecuting someone, standard rules of law, etc, must apply. A private company doesn't take you to court.

right, because the court system is infallible?

One case i know well, a guy was being pursued to pay back an overpayment due to a gov dept oversight... one that he'd already paid back (and had reciepts to prove it). He also had a letter from the agency stating that he no longer had any outstanding debt, as he'd finished repaying it.

The Gov agency fronted up to court claiming he had to pay it back, as the "payment recieved" notice was fake. they were caught out in a lie (had edited his file to delete the notice).

They then claimed it was a "computer error", and that he still had to pay, as they had no record of his repayments.

it turns out that 3 years of his file "went missing"... the 3 years in question.

Even though he had signed/dated/stamped reciepts from the department covering that 3 years, the judge still ruled that he had to make up the payments that the agency had no record for.

There is more to this than what you have been told.
Government agencies are audited on a regualr basis (usually at least twice annually) by third party firms. These records are in the public domain, as are the names of the firm that does them. If they somehow managed to selectively delete records but keep him and his debt on file .. the auditors are not doing their job properly.
If he had recipts they would have transaction numbers on them.. these are sequential and extraordinarily difficult if not impossible within reason to modify in any large accounting system I have come across.

These could easily be found by an order of discovery.
http://www.naa.gov.au/records-management/access/records-held-by-naa/discovery/index.aspx

I have been personally involved in cases similar .. all the "customer" had was an email that was several years old .. we could not prove it had been responeded to .. even though it was quite preposterous ... we lost open and shut.

Joined: 26 Oct 2002 Location: Geelong

Gonzo wrote:

bogged wrote:

Most of the companies from what my lawyer told me are private companies. They have no ties to Gov..
The Gov wouldnt (would they?) edit - but call it selective editing by the private companies...
Of course they are only going to show the bits they want the court to see. its in their best interest, they get %age payments on what is saved. - again this is only going on what I was told.

Well, I don't know too much about this. Only what my wife tells me. She owns an investigations company Wink

They report on facts, and get paid an hourly rate. No more no less.

I have friend who is a PI gets paid an hourly rate for this work.
he gets sent out when they believe person is faking.

Does a lot of it too.

a lot are innocent and nothing happens. but a hell of a lot do what they claim they cannot do and they get caught out.
M

Joined: 24 Dec 2002 Location: South Australia

love_mud wrote:

There is more to this than what you have been told.

Government agencies are audited on a regualr basis (usually at least twice annually) by third party firms. These records are in the public domain, as are the names of the firm that does them. If they somehow managed to selectively delete records but keep him and his debt on file .. the auditors are not doing their job properly.
If he had recipts they would have transaction numbers on them.. these are sequential and extraordinarily difficult if not impossible within reason to modify in any large accounting system I have come across.

These could easily be found by an order of discovery.
http://www.naa.gov.au/records-management/access/records-held-by-naa/discovery/index.aspx

I have been personally involved in cases similar .. all the "customer" had was an email that was several years old .. we could not prove it had been responeded to .. even though it was quite preposterous ... we lost open and shut.

so they're audited? by another company on the Gov payroll? yeah, corruption never happens Confused

he had the reciepts, and yes they were numbered, along with other documents from his file.

the numbers were all properly in sequence, the documents in the "edited" file were not

i.e, in his copy of the records, document 80 was some random reminder, number 81 was the letter from the agency stating that the debt had been repaid. 82 was a change of address form. in the file presented by the agency, document 80 and 82 matched what his file had, but 81 was a blank page...

Joined: 05 Dec 2003 Location: Brisbane Australia

bad_religion_au wrote:

Ben wrote:

Eddy wrote:

Ben wrote:

It's a government department ...

not really.

ALL cases are handled by case managers, all of whom are employed by private companies on contract.

I understand that, but when it comes to prosecuting someone, standard rules of law, etc, must apply. A private company doesn't take you to court.

right, because the court system is infallible?

One case i know well, a guy was being pursued to pay back an overpayment due to a gov dept oversight... one that he'd already paid back (and had reciepts to prove it). He also had a letter from the agency stating that he no longer had any outstanding debt, as he'd finished repaying it.

The Gov agency fronted up to court claiming he had to pay it back, as the "payment recieved" notice was fake. they were caught out in a lie (had edited his file to delete the notice).

They then claimed it was a "computer error", and that he still had to pay, as they had no record of his repayments.

it turns out that 3 years of his file "went missing"... the 3 years in question.

Even though he had signed/dated/stamped reciepts from the department covering that 3 years, the judge still ruled that he had to make up the payments that the agency had no record for.

sounds like total garbage to me.

The person working for the government has ABSOLUTELY no reason to edit his file to say payment hasnt been made.

Why would someone do it?

Sounds like you have been very mislead by whoever told you that story.

Joined: 12 Dec 2002 Location: Wangaratta

bad_religion_au wrote:

love_mud wrote:

There is more to this than what you have been told.

Government agencies are audited on a regualr basis (usually at least twice annually) by third party firms. These records are in the public domain, as are the names of the firm that does them. If they somehow managed to selectively delete records but keep him and his debt on file .. the auditors are not doing their job properly.
If he had recipts they would have transaction numbers on them.. these are sequential and extraordinarily difficult if not impossible within reason to modify in any large accounting system I have come across.

These could easily be found by an order of discovery.
http://www.naa.gov.au/records-management/access/records-held-by-naa/discovery/index.aspx

I have been personally involved in cases similar .. all the "customer" had was an email that was several years old .. we could not prove it had been responeded to .. even though it was quite preposterous ... we lost open and shut.

so they're audited? by another company on the Gov payroll? yeah, corruption never happens Confused

he had the reciepts, and yes they were numbered, along with other documents from his file.

the numbers were all properly in sequence, the documents in the "edited" file were not

i.e, in his copy of the records, document 80 was some random reminder, number 81 was the letter from the agency stating that the debt had been repaid. 82 was a change of address form. in the file presented by the agency, document 80 and 82 matched what his file had, but 81 was a blank page...

Yeah corruption over a small debt by a governmet agency and a some random (they usually are) accountants from a company like Delloites, as well as editing a finance system that is by design incredibly difficult to edit. The change logs are actually not editable in most decent packages for very good resons.
Yep .. your mate must have really pissed em off somehow. To get what would normally be the finance manager, records area, a third party accounting firm and the judge against him... His name isn;t Osama or Sadam is it ? Wonder if these guys ever worked at Enron ?

Joined: 24 Dec 2002 Location: South Australia

Shadow wrote:

The person working for the government has ABSOLUTELY no reason to edit his file to say payment hasnt been made.

personal vendetta's do happen in these organisations...

but it can also be SOP. for instance, Centrelinks standard operating proceedure is to contest all appeals, even if they have a remarkable lack of evidence. they will do this up until the day before the court date and drop the case then, meaning everyone has put in hours of work to prepair, witnesses have taken time off of work, and by dropping the case, they only have to back pay/ wipe the debt, and it takes further legal action to attempt to get reimbursement for time lost due to the frivolous appeals.

it makes sense when some of these organisations deal with 6 million people annually, and make close to a quarter of a million mistakes annually. the harder they make the appeals process, the less people will appeal, saving both face, and money.

my housemate that is struggling against centrelink ATM has been fighting them for a year to the day next week, and hasn't seen a cent from them in 10 months, despite fitting all their criteria to recieve at least a healthcare card. all because her mother won't declare her income...

they've admitted to my housemate that an offspring has no way to get a parent to comply to disclose income, and that they shouldn't have stopped the healthcare card/meagre payment she was getting, BUT won't reinstate it until the court case is heard (in 3 months unless Centrelink asks for more time).

so to assume the legal system works when your fighting government agencies is naive at best.