ACC challenges
ACC Challenges - Client advocacy
From day one our motto has been ‘ensuring businesses are treated fairly and equitably’. We do a lot of important work behind the scenes which people don’t necessarily see, (that’s probably because we don’t really talk about it). A large part of our business is challenging ACC on certain issues - some are client centric: challenging levy codes, and workplace claims, while others are for the bene t of the general public: policy changes, legislation wording. The size of the challenge varies; we are currently advocating on behalf of a single business, an entire industry, and the general public of New Zealand. As you can see below, what we’re doing is really important; we’re not only helping businesses save money, we’re also completely changing the game. The best part is it’s always for the benefit of New Zealand businesses. Below are the current ACC challenges we are working on.
Use Of Money Interest: ACC as of late 2019 has changed the way it interprets legislation and now believe that ACC do not have to pay Use Of Money Interest on most scenarios that include historical credit notes. We fundamentally disagree with ACC who on a number of different levels contradicts itself with its decision making. Currently before the reviewer to determine whether the formal review process has jurisdiction to hear this argument. ACC believes they cannot be challenged on this making them both the judge and juror. Our goal is to get ACC to pay Use Of Money Interest.
Use Of Money Interest Compounding: When changes to the levy are backdated and credit notes are issued, Use Of Money Interest should be payable on the outstanding amount. This would apply to each year. Currently ACC does not compound this interest which we believe is incorrect. ACC has the ongoing use of the money and standard financial practices determine that ACC has the bene t of the compounding on the use of the levy payers money. We feel it is only fair and reasonable that this is passed on to the employer. Our aim is to have ACC apply compounding to the Use Of Money Interest payments.
New Levy Code for Scaffolders: Scaffolders have been grouped in a general wash up levy code called Construction Other. Historically the scaffolding industry was not large enough to warrant its own levy code however, given the prevalent use of scaffolding, we believe it is now a bonafide industry that should have its own levy classification. The cost of this would respect the claim activity. Anecdotal evidence suggests that scaffolders have a better claim rating than others in the incumbent code. Our goal is to have a standalone levy code for scaffolders.
New Levy Code for Horse Trekking: Horse trekking companies pay the same levy as jockeys who race thoroughbreds and professional sports people. Yet their risk profile is anything but. We are reviewing this with the view to have horse trekking recoded to a better aligned code that respects the actual risk of their industry.
Use Of Money Interest historical challenge: In 2018, ACC had to front on the fact that it had neglected to refund approx. $100m to levy payers covering both self-employed and shareholders who were in receipt of shareholder salaries. Backdating of credit notes went back as far as 2002. ACC have stated that the corporation is not liable to pay Use Of Money Interest on this which we strongly disagree with. Our goal is to have ACC apply the legislation properly and pay out the Use Of Money Interest.
Incorrect acceptance of Workplace Claims: ACC has to do a level of Due Diligence when accepting a claim as a workplace claim but it doesn’t do that. Instead, it auto-accepts all claims and ignores sections 54 and 56 of the legislation. We are disappointed in this given that so many claims lodged against the employer either did not happen at work; was a pre-existing injury; was a repetitive strain injury; was a motor vehicle injury; or was a reaggravation of an old injury. In all these situations the employer should not be liable or at best, be partially liable. Our goal is to make sure our clients are treated fairly and equitably and have claims removed from their pro le due to ACC not following its own legislation.
Medical Equipment definition: ACC uses different terminology covering the same thing. For instance hospital beds are both treated as “medical equipment” and “non-medical equipment”. Where this is relevant is that depending on the de nition used, it adds thousands of dollars to some of our clients ACC levies. Our goal is to a] drive consistency with the terminology; and b] lower our clients’ ACC levies.
Wheelchair manufacturing challenge: In line with the medical equipment de nition but speci cally targeting wheel chair manufacturing. Wheelchairs are not considered medical equipment by ACC (under the levy guidelines) however in other parts of ACC (i.e. funding for medical supplies, ACC clearly states they are medical equipment). Our aim is to have this recti ed and get wheelchairs labelled as medical equipment.
1st Week Payments: ACC only tells the very large employers they can o set the rst week payments made on workplace claim so that this payroll is not liable for ACC levies. Sadly, ACC choses not to tell anyone else about this resulting in well over 150,000 rst week payments per year getting ACC charged on it. Needless to say this does not sit well with us so our aim is to rectify this.
ACC Primary and Secondary Services: Align ACC’s understanding and interpretation of the Primary and Secondary services in selecting the appropriate levy code for employers.
Need help with an ACC challenge? Feel free to get in touch with me, Sue: 027 210 4918, or sue@managecompany.co.nz.
Best wishes,
Sue Walton
Manager - ManageACC
m 027 210 4918
