Dear Minister for ACC,

I am requesting under the Official Information Act that the ACC provide me with a copy of a medical article titled “The Management of Subcalcaneal Pain” (Clinical Orthopaedics 1972) authored by Snook, George A. M.D.; Chrisman, O. Donald M.D. that your B.M.A., Dr Hilliard, relied on in the Basford v Accident Compensation Corporation [2016] NZACC 193 (15 July 2016) case, and, which was quoted by Judge MacLean at clause [11] thereof.

Yours faithfully,

Lee M.

Dear Rutger Keijser,

As noted with my other requests, once again a delayed response but no explanation for this. Don't you think requesters deserve the courtesy of an explanation?

Yours sincerely,

Lee M.

Dear Government Services,

The intention and purpose of the FYI website is that members of the public may access and read responses to Official Information Act requests. You have defeated both in claiming that: "A response to this request has been sent to you directly. Please note that if you believe the information provided is in the public interest, you are free to post it on fyi.org.nz at your own discretion."

I want to know how you ascertained my identity when neither my first name nor my surname are published at the FYI website? I also want to know how you ascertained what address to post the requested information to when not only my first name and my surname, but also my private home address, were provided to FYI in the strictest of confidence, I know they have not disclosed this information to you, and I have also never disclosed my personal information to you or any other respondent through the FYI website? In addition, I want to know why I have been discriminated against by the ACC in terms of how differently you have responded to my FYI information requests compared to other FYI information requests?

I naturally consider that you have 'thumbed your nose' at my right to privacy and anonymity, and draw to your attention that Section 16 of the Official Information Act provides;

"(1A)
Subject to subsections (2) and (3), information made available in any of the ways listed under subsection (1) may be made available in electronic form or by electronic means.
(2)
Subject to section 17, the department or Minister of the Crown or organisation shall make the information available in the way preferred by the person requesting it unless to do so would—
(a)
impair efficient administration; or
(b)
be contrary to any legal duty of the department or Minister of the Crown or organisation in respect of the document; or
(c)
prejudice the interests protected by section 6 or section 7 or section 9 and (in the case of the interests protected by section 9) there is no countervailing public interest".

Patently obviously my preferred way of you making the requested information available to me was via the FYI website. Had this not been the case I would have made my information request by e-mail or by letter directly to the ACC.

I wish it to be noted that I have not received anything in the post at my private home address from ACC or its Government Services at date. In any event a response by post is not my preferred way of you making the information available to me and I now require you to publish your response at the FYI website.

Lastly, I do not have my "own discretion" to publish your response at the FYI website. Of course you know this, and in this regard I believe you decided not to publish the information for generalised public consumption as the requested information is contentious and its availability to all and sundry would likely result in more claims having to be approved where plantar fasciitis is a diagnosis. I am also not willing or prepared to go through the hassle of having to write to FYI to ask them to do this when you ought to have responded to my FYI information request at the FYI website and not by post to my private home address. And I am certain that FYI - which operates on a shoestring budget of public donations - would not be happy needing to scan and publish your response either.

This matter is being raised with the Ombudsman as a formal complaint and has also been cc'd to FYI management.

Yours sincerely,

Lee M.

Dear ACC Government Services and Mr David O'Riley at ACC's Wellington Central Branch

I refer to the written and signed authority provided by my wife and copied to the ACC and its lawyers that empowers me to communicate with both aforementioned bodies on her behalf.

I have witnessed over a period of more than 4 years how often the ACC has acted frivolously and vexatiously in communicating with my wife and in particular regard to her Official Information and Privacy Act requests. That you are well aware of the negative effects this has had on her yet have done this once again is unsurprising but reprehensible.

In relation to the information request under discussion S.16(3) of the Official Information Act states :

"Where the information is not provided in the way preferred by the person requesting it, the department or Minister of the Crown or organisation shall, subject to section 10, give to that person—
(a)
the reason for not providing the information in that way; and
(b)
if that person so requests, the grounds in support of that reason, unless the giving of those grounds would itself prejudice the interests protected by section 6 or section 7 or section 9 and (in the case of the interests protected by section 9) there is no countervailing public interest".

I am requesting under the authority provided by my wife and copied to the ACC and its lawyers that you give me :
a) the reason for not providing the requested information in the preferred way
b) the grounds in support of that reason.

You have not only breached the Official Information Act by failing to provide the requested information inside the legislated timeframe but you have also done so by refusing to recognise and respect my wife's legislated right at S.16(2) to have the ACC provide the requested information in the way preferred by her, and which is obviously through the FYI forum. Simultaneously you have disrespected and breached my wife's right to privacy by way of you writing on this public forum that the ACC has her on a "communication plan". Since the consequential harm in terms of embarrassment and humiliation has already been done I bring to your attention through this forum in response that the revised "communication plan" does not apply to this particular Official Information request because it was made on the 8th of August 2016 and the "communication plan" was only updated on the 21st of October 2016 (which is the same date of your reply posted at this forum). Crucially the aforementioned letter was collected by me on my wife's behalf on Saturday the 29th of October 2016 from NZ Couriers.

Since the earlier "communication plan" was in effect at the time my wife made the information request and she had not yet received the updated "communication plan" when you posted your reply at this forum on the 21st of October 2016 it is the conditions of the former not the latter "communication plan" that apply to this particular request.

That you would seek to impose conditions retrospectively is not only unfair and unreasonable but also confirmation of the outrageous lengths that the ACC is willing and does go to in order to frustrate and annoy information requesters.

Updating the "communication plan" to include Official Information and Privacy Act requests was also a frivolous and vexatious response to my wife's valid and legitimate Official Information Act requests posted at FYI most recently, and it is felt that this was deliberately done to hide the ACC;s responses from public view..

My wife has obtained a supportive letter from FYI that confirms she does not have any ability to post any information at this forum that the ACC provides by post. In this communication FYI wrote in relation to S.16(2) of the Official Information Act : "Our position is that this section means our users are almost always entitled to receive their responses back through the FYI system if that is what they prefer. (We also consider that this preference is implicit in all FYI.org.nz requests, as that is the main reason to use our site.)"

As I will be complaining to the Ombudsman on my wife's behalf in due course I am requesting that you reply to the abovementioned further information request as a matter of urgency for the aforementioned reason.

Yours sincerely,

Husband of Lee M.

Dear ACC Government Services and Mr David O'Riley at ACC's Wellington Central Branch

Kindly ignore the abovementioned post and replace it with the following post :

Dear ACC Government Services and Mr David O'Riley at ACC's Wellington Central Branch

I refer to the written and signed authority provided by my wife and copied to the ACC and its lawyers that empowers me to communicate with both aforementioned bodies on her behalf.

I note that you have not replied to my wife's information requests in terms of her having asked :
a) How you ascertained her identity
b) How you ascertained what address to post the requested information to
c) Why she was discriminated against in terms of how differently you responded to her FYI information request compared to other FYI information requests.

I have witnessed over a period of more than 4 years how often the ACC has acted frivolously and vexatiously in communicating with my wife and in particular regard to her Official Information and Privacy Act requests. That you are well aware of the negative effects this has had on her yet have done this once again is unsurprising but reprehensible.

In relation to the information request under discussion S.16(3) of the Official Information Act states :

"Where the information is not provided in the way preferred by the person requesting it, the department or Minister of the Crown or organisation shall, subject to section 10, give to that person—
(a)
the reason for not providing the information in that way; and
(b)
if that person so requests, the grounds in support of that reason, unless the giving of those grounds would itself prejudice the interests protected by section 6 or section 7 or section 9 and (in the case of the interests protected by section 9) there is no countervailing public interest".

I am requesting under the authority provided by my wife and copied to the ACC and its lawyers that you give me :
a) the reason for not providing the requested information in the preferred way
b) the grounds in support of that reason.

You have not only breached the Official Information Act by failing to provide the requested information inside the legislated timeframe but you have also done so by refusing to recognise and respect my wife's legislated right at S.16(2) to have the ACC provide the requested information in the way preferred by her, and which is obviously through the FYI forum. Simultaneously you have disrespected and breached my wife's right to privacy by way of you writing on this public forum that the ACC has her on a "communication plan". Since the consequential harm in terms of embarrassment and humiliation has already been done I bring to your attention through this forum in response that the revised "communication plan" does not apply to this particular Official Information request because it was made on the 8th of August 2016 and the "communication plan" was only updated on the 21st of October 2016 (which is the same date of your reply posted at this forum). Crucially the aforementioned letter was collected by me on my wife's behalf on Saturday the 29th of October 2016 from NZ Couriers.

Since the earlier "communication plan" was in effect at the time my wife made the information request and she had not yet received the updated "communication plan" when you posted your reply at this forum on the 21st of October 2016 it is the conditions of the former not the latter "communication plan" that apply to this particular request.

That you would seek to impose conditions retrospectively is not only unfair and unreasonable but also confirmation of the outrageous lengths that the ACC is willing and does go to in order to frustrate and annoy information requesters.

Updating the "communication plan" to include Official Information and Privacy Act requests was also a frivolous and vexatious response to my wife's valid and legitimate Official Information Act requests posted at FYI most recently, and it is felt that this was deliberately done to hide the ACC;s responses from public view..

My wife has obtained a supportive letter from FYI that confirms she does not have any ability to post any information at this forum that the ACC provides by post. In this communication FYI wrote in relation to S.16(2) of the Official Information Act : "Our position is that this section means our users are almost always entitled to receive their responses back through the FYI system if that is what they prefer. (We also consider that this preference is implicit in all FYI.org.nz requests, as that is the main reason to use our site.)"

As I will be complaining to the Ombudsman on my wife's behalf in due course I am requesting that you reply to the abovementioned further information request as a matter of urgency for the aforementioned reason.

Yours sincerely,

Husband of Lee M.