Mark Miller now in private practice
Hello John
I understand you are the owner and administrator of Menz.org.nz. My name is Mark Miller and I am a practising barrister and have been a child support review officer for IRD for over 12 years. My work with the IRD is highly regarded by the department and my name is mentioned regularly in the Menz website for my work as a review officer.
I am leaving IRD as a review officer & intend to utilise my years of experience & knowledge as a review officer and undertake private work in the child support area.
I have a wealth of experience as a review officer & would like the opportunity to offer the following services to your members:
- Advice on applying for child support;
- Advice on applying for an administrative review hearing either as a custodial parent or as a liable parent;
- Advice on being the “other party” in an application for an administrative review hearing;
- How to prepare for an administrative review hearing;
- Commissioner Initiated Administrative Review hearings (CIAR);
- What information should be sought prior to a review hearing;
- What to except at an administrative review hearing;
- Court cases that are relevant to each particular Ground;
- What needs to be established before a departure is made;
- Post review hearing – application for suspension orders, appeal process & likelihood of success;
- Complaints process;
- Other Family Court matters such as contact issues, contracting out, separation, relationship property settlement and so on;
- Civil litigation;
- Criminal matters.
I can provide all assistance in relation to child support matters as well as other Family Court matters. I have also had over twelve years in the NZ Police before becoming a lawyer & have acquired many interpersonal, investigative & other skills.
My hourly rates are very modest and as an introductory offer to your members, I am happy to offer a 15% discount on my fees for the next month. I offer an excellent legal service in friendly & easily accessible surroundings & work closely with my instructing solicitor to ensure value for money for my clients.
I can be contacted on 845 5166, 027 665 0308, 845 5167 (fax) or by email at mwmiller@slingshot.co.nz. I also have a website currently under construction which should be up and running fairly soon. My office is situated on the main road in Pt Chevalier and client meetings are by appointment. There is plenty of parking outside my office.
I would appreciate it if you could pass my details onto your members & other similar organisations & I look forward to working hard for your members.
Regards
Mark W Miller
Barrister
Posts RSS 2.0
Sounds suspiciously like advertising to me?
Mr Miller states;
It is wonderful that Mr Miller knows his work was highly regarded and well remunerated by IRD. I’m sure his job satisfaction equates to the dissatisfaction with his work that so many write of here.
I do wonder why he is leaving IRD? Was this by his choice or their choice? Is he saying that he will refuse to accept appointment as a review officer again. If so that will delight many of his previous IRD customers (many here would even call them victims).
And yes that is a pretty blatant advertisment for which John P should expect a significant donation.
Advertising has always been allowed on MENZ if I approve it.
In this particular case I also consider it newsworthy for this audience.
Mr Miller is trained as a lawyer, so if he is good he will be aiming to get the best deal for his client.
There is at least the possibility that the professional qualities that MENZ contributors have complained so bitterly about over the years, may in fact be ideal if he is working for you.
I look forward to feedback from anyone who does engage his services.
I expect there will be a wide range of reactions to this post! If you want your comments on this page to stay here, please make sure they are respectful, and in accordance with the rules of this site.
Fair call John.
Poachers, gamekeepers, lawyers.
Many people have trained for various professions – Miller IS trained as a lawyer. Good choice of words, JohnP.
Very newsworthy John.
I’ll still refer to Allan for self representation and group support but would consider retaining a child tax lawyer to get an opinion on a specific technical legal matter.(Saves a truckload of reading and analysis!)
I view the move as positioning for the changes planned for 2014.These changes will be a gold mine for lawyers.
Regards
Scrap
John how do you know this is actually for real? We hope it is but are skeptical.
We know this guy very well and yes he is good…at screwing fathers. Irony of irony if it is true, that he now comes looking for sustenance from the very ones he previously sought to suck dry on behalf of IRD. He speaks Chinese and somehow beat the height requirements for cops to rise to the dizzy rank of sergeant. He has a mustache that would humble even Biggles. Was apparently on the DPB himself at one time and was a custodial parent – which is perhaps where he got his incentive to pursue non-custodial parents with such a vengeance.
He is in our view the most complained about Admin Review Officer IRD ever had as a contractor, which is perhaps why he and IRD have finally parted company. The guy has been in private practice as a lawyer since 2000 after getting an honours degree in law from Auckland University after quitting the police in 1996. He may have a good degree but we’re unable to find any cases in the legal databases where he has actually represented clients in any hearings. So that’s the first question we reckon anyone thinking of retaining him should ask. What’s his case record? His legal aid payments have been about $8000-$9000 per year for quite awhile, so that doesn’t suggest a high case load or experience.
We guess his selling point is his track record and he’s a now a hired gun for sale but we urge all to remember this – IRD holds all the ammunition. He’s a hired gun without any bullets and section 96J(6)(b) of the Child Support Act says you can’t engage a lawyer to represent you in an Admin Review hearing. IRD also has about a 70 percent success rate at defeating appeals from Child Support Admin reviews. In our view the money would be better spent on anything other than helping Mark Miller make up the income he’s lost by the termination of his contract with IRD.
Bryan for GM
@ gerrymen Let’s read between the lines here.
The rat is always first off the sinking ship so does that mean less admin review dollars, possibly because the fancy calculator will cut out the bottom end.
Follow the money – the top ends reviews that have been turning up lately have been significant amounts of money and the decisions can only be challenged in the Family Court.
What do we end up with? Contract judges (admin review officers) kicking the shit out of high income earners and self employed men and we have the likes of Miller positioning himself for Family Court work rather than admin review work.
Sounds like standard appeals process descending on the incomes of New Zealand’s higher earning men.
And Miller’s long term aspirations – perhaps Family Court Judge specialising in child support cases.
Very few Child Support cases ever make it to Court. It is just too expensive given the limited chances of success (unless one is self-represented and prepared to do a lot of work). Mr Miller or any one else wouldn’t find half a days work a week specialising as a Judge in Child Support matters.
Dear Allan, most judges I have seen could featherbed out half a day a week of work, to more than a fool time job. MurrayBacon.
@Allan, look at numbers coming out of some these reviews.
Some people are likely to appeal the potential income assessments, don’t you think.
This potential income game could be a real industry starter.
Your Axe is razor Sharp my friend.
Thanks for your comment Murray.
I was fooled by my own pun.
Yes you would think there was potential money in Child Support Admin Review appeals given the dissatisfaction taxpayers have with these.
If someone wished thay could ask an Offical Information request for these statistics from IRD. They can provide numbers of applications under each of the 10 grounds and the decisions be they status quo, or in favout of paying parent or receiving parent. You can also ask for number of cases taken to Family Court.
From memory (of the last time I made this request) this is about 10,000 Admin Reviews a year with only 34 taken on to Family Court.
Another point we raise about Mark Miller – we are aware there is currently a case against him before the Law Society over his alleged practices while an Admin Review Officer which the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) has been examining now for over a year. Could it be IRD decided their faithful servant of so many years was now too hot to handle and let him go before the LCRO releases his decision?
Tony for GM
@Allan I see the comment you made about having to claim child support from the other parent before making an application. How many parents are going to be in this position when the new act comes into force? Surely, they would be contracting new review officers for the flood of applications.
I wonder how much of this potential income stuff is going to surface especially with women coming off the DPB and then I am picking there will be some backdating and penalties.
The drop in penalty rate is not great. I did a rough calculation a while back and while the first year penalties do drop down under 30%, I’m picking this will be a better source of revenue than the existing penalties that make up the alleged 2.7 Billion debt.
Shared care decisions and applications against other parents are administrative matters and don’t need the intervention of Review Officers. Sorry all those Family Lawyers about to become redundant because even Judith Collins (“I’m a Family Court Lawyer myself”) accepts that lawyers can cause more problems than they resolve at early stages of the process. Her current bill and recommendations probably means about 25-40% less Family Court Lawyers in practice. Hopefully we keep the more experienced and conciliatory and loose mainly the newer more adversarial types.
The Govt have been attempting to move people from the DPB for years. It used to be the gold plated benefit but lots of it’s add ons (such as study fees and extra allowances for transport) have been removed and now it’s more of a shiny chrome benefit. No backdating or penalties for DPB recepiants as the pocket being tapped a little is yours and mine as taxpayers. Smile blokes we pay Child Support and Pay taxes. As Scrap has always argued when it comes to Child Support we have always paid twice.
You don’t need a lawyer , you need men, real men that can start a country wide revolution.
I have just instructed my lawyer to lodge papers in the Manukau Family Court seeking a departure order that stems from my administrative review.
A review adjudicated & conducted by Mark Miller.
I will tell you what Mark Miller has done for me and let you judge for yourselves if you want him as your lawyer. I will add that I have paid child support for 5 years, I have never missed a payment despite having to get a court order allowing me to see my children, I have just spent $6k in legal fees in the past 4 months and spent Friday 15th March at the family court all day.
I missed my administrative review as I was caught up at work. I had written into IRD and lodged my defense to the claim by my ex wife. My ex wife wanted extra child support as she discovered I owned a rental property, the property is 100% leveraged and generates no cashflow, hence no child support is payable. Mark noted this but then decided as I work in sales that I must have a company car, and as such any company car is worth $15k extra a year on top of my salary. Mark Miller gave me no right of reply and nor did IRD who presented me with a large bill back dated to last year, payable in 6 weeks.
If Mark Miller had only picked up the phone and asked me he would have realised that as the vehicle is used more than 80% for work purposes it would not be equitable to levy the full yearly cost of the car on to my salary.
Also not happy with magically raising my salary by 15% he then went further and decreed that I should be paying child support on a total of 37% more than I actually earn and this to is back dated to April last year, magically I now owe IRD $13K payable within 6 weeks.
The only good news I have is that after 7 months of supervision and not seeing my children, I finally get my children back.
So Mark Miller, do you think you did a good job? After I get a departure order against IRD I will then becoming to see you.
Chris take great care with what you say here. IRD monitor this site and Posts often pop up in Family Court against you.
Flick me an e-mail and I have a few Child Support suggestions for you.
Allan@uof.org.nz
Hi Chris
Got the same T-Shirt but via another review officer.
Allan-can you explain someting to me. The act states that in administrative review they have to give regard to the financial circumstance of both parents. Why then in review did the review officer state that the mother’s income was of no concern to them. She has a company car also yet no similar adjustment was made as per Chris above???
Shafted,
You are asking too much for logic and consistency and accuracy and even handness from Child Suport.
Mothers income does not count (unless in a shared care situation and you have applied against her) because it doesn’t. That is the logic and the internal policy.
THere are three tests for an admin review.
Special circumstances that set this case apart from the norm. Not quite unique but not your average situation.
Second is fair an equitable and in this mothers income is considered. The test used is if she has some, it is not concern to you and so we don’t take it into account. Alternatively if we considered her multi million income and free car and personal jet and holiday home and per diem and use of the company yatch (including the crew) then that would not be fair and equitable to her.
The third test is “Otherwise Proper” and it would not be to reduce your child support just because she is very weathy and doesn’t need your money and is just using IRD to harrass you.
I jest not.
The good news Shafted is Mr Dunne believes he has the remedy for your complaint awaiting it’s third reading in the house. I’m not quite as confident as Mr Dunne.
Yeah Allan,
That’s as i read it-a complete and utter inequitable beat up. Like i said in previous posts, at least i get relief of $20 per month for my 17 year old son now living with me. He eats that much for breakfast
I guess The proposed changes to Family Court law – especially taking the mother’s income into account when assessing child support, goes some way to explaining WHY IRD HAS RAISED THE MAXIMUM INCOME THRESHHOLD FOR CS-TAS SOME 128% in the last 20years, some 74% OVER AND ABOVE THE RATE OF INFLATION.
By raising the maximum threshhold so deliberately over the last 20 years, I guess most men will under the proposed changes be liable for the more or less the same as they would have been were the formulae not changes, and the threshhold had only moved over the last 20 years inline with inflation, not 2.5x the rate of inflation.
Mr Miller: I am about to undergo my third Admin Review in 4 years. Both previous times, I was assessed at about 30,000 above my actual income. Two children involved. Fortunately I was able to use an inheritance from my uncle to clear the debt that rapidly accrued.
This time my father has died, and I should receive a good-sized inheritance (about $100K). No doubt I’ll see 22% of that disappear in additional CS assessment – this year, and a further 22% for each of the following two years, given that is how CS assessments work (based on your preceding two years’incomes).
Yell you what Mark, since you’ve no doubt performed these types of assessments on poor sods like me, all to IRD’s benefit, why don’t I give the remaining 34% of the likely inheritance to you for nothing. That’s right, up front, you don’t have to do a thing.
Coz I know if I engage you, you’ll drag this through an appeal in Family Court, and in the course of a year or so, nothing will change, and I’ll be $20K or more out of pocket to you anyway.
So go on. Take the lot, and don’t worry about a thing. It’ll save me a year of stress, and I’ll lose the lot anyway, so I might as well accept it and start out the way I’ll end up, and not get too optimistic, only to have any hopes eventually shattered anyway.
Your cheque’s in the mail.
Mr Miller certainly is an odd chap.
I note that on a newspaper blog site he commented in 2009 that
Such a public comment is unusual for a lawyer.
I’m sure IRD didn’t appreciate the idea that unpaid Child Support could be converted to community service or time behind bars in a fines court. That will do nothing to lower their mythical debt mountain.
Dear Mr Miller
I have to say I was very surprised to see your post on this site.
I am sure there are lots of people, apart from me, that have been badly affected by your work as an admin review lawyer.
In my case our review together didn’t start well Mark. You were very late in calling. And during our 20 minutes on the phone your mobile rang and I could hear you walking around, reading papers, opening draws and being, well, distracted. You even told me right there on the phone you were going to make me pay a lot of money.
Never mind, I thought, surely you would be a professional and would do some background checks before making a decision and apply reasonable thinking to the review.
Well you could have knocked me down with a feather Mark! Imagine my surprise when you decided my salary should be more than 4 times my actual salary – and far higher than $126,577 (as you know this is what IRD call “maximum income” for child support).
Golly – that was surprising. The maximum income wasn’t enough?
Hell, why not back date it to create an immediate debt of multiple tens of thousands of dollars. 30 days to pay. 10% and then 2% every month after that. If you thought the national debt was spiraling out of control just check my statement.
One could, if one were being generous, take all of this as simply a bad roll of the dice. Hard but fair. One of those things.
But where your agenda became clear, Mr Miller, was with your comments.
You see, when I finally got around to reading your review I thought, at first, you had mixed up my case up with someone else.
I was confused. These are not my circumstances. Wait there has been a mixup! But then it dawned on me. I realised you’d simply taken the mothers comments at face value – and based the entire review on this.
Then it occurred to me – these things could all be shown to be wrong. There are records that could be shown with a few quick checks of my child support records.
Nothing too major really – probably a few clicks of the mouse.
But you didn’t bother Mr Miller. These are facts that can be checked Mr Miller. Not a grey area. Not my interpretation. Or yours. But facts.
No wonder the kind staff I have spoken to at IRD have expressed surprise. I don’t think they liked it much either. No one likes a massive injustice do they?
So you can see why I am surprised to find you here touting for business Mr Miller. From the very people you ruined through negligence and/or incompetence (I am being charitable here Mark).
Simply put, you are asking me to pay you to represent me to argue against your own review?
Umm, I might pass Mr Miller.
Finally someone that actually had MR Miller and had a bad experience. Real facts at last, love it!.
I wish more IRD (vermin) employees trolled these sites and realised that they! are the problem not just the Paying Parents, they would also learn that not all paying parents are MEN!.
I just met a lady at school camp that also pays child support and had issues when calling IRD explaining her case as the IRD professional was confused that a WOMEN had to pay child support.
We laughed our asses off.
Go IRD you guys rock! That in-house training must be rigourous, during the hiring process what exactly is the test for low moral values? and little to no concience?
@ toast.. hypothesise Mark miller contradicting his own findings!!??!.. that would be hilarious..
It would seem by the posts on this site that my experience with the IRD is not an isolated case.
What bugs me is the way IRD, its administrative review officers and staff do not allow the paying parent the right to reply before making their judgments. They make and enforce their judgments without seeking all the pertinent facts and circumstances.
I was told by Marino Leef (case officer IRD admin review) that the only option open was a family court departure order, this was to negate the error that IRD administrative review office had made. Surely this is not democratic nor lawful?
Marino Leef was not initially prepared to give me the name of her supervisor, Lorina Afakasi-Flavell, It was only after demanding this information that it was supplied. I told Marino that I would be laying a complaint against the way IRD has handled this. My complaint has to include the head of the department as they are responsible for fostering this culture of discrimination.
For all interested parties in proceeding with action against the IRD Administrative Review Office based in Manukau Auckland, please contact me, chris.eccles2@gmail.com.
I will not allude to my plans on this website as the unhelpful staff at IRD troll through here garnishing information.
Twelve years…that’s how long I’ve been living out a suitcase.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcIUrA68_JU
SPOT ON!!!
A suitcase? Luxury!
There was four of us, living in a single suitcase. It was so cramped, we’d take turns sleeping. They flies had to file flight paths, and the only window with a view, was the keyhole on the top. We’d all get home at midnight after working 27 hours a day, and our dad would slice us in two …
This guy Miller and his terrible assessment decisions were my reason for leaving new Zealand 6 years ago
The problem is that there is not enough of these discussions. The idiocy and weirdness of these multiple decisions is rarely discussed
Unbelievable……….
Miller touting for business here cos his IRD gig is finally up.
It’s like the mugger who has just stabbed you in the chest repeatedly suddenly asking “are you feeling ok?” “can I help at all?” Then charging you $10,000 to call an ambulance.
Perversly and steeped in irony is that Miller is exactly the correct type of conscience free maggot to do well on either side of the fence.
Maybe he has run out of targets to maim and is simply broadening his options??
From the discussions I had with various IRD staff members I would suggest he was thrown out. Why else would he quit from a place where he could persecute people. A little Hitler.
Now he is touting for business from the people he persecuted.
I am now making complaints on his conduct via a number of channels. I guess where there is blood in the water…
I have plenty of time. I am quite patient.
I encourage anyone else that been exposed to shoddy reviews from Mr Miller should consider doing the same.
@ toast – post 37.
Please let me know how to complain about his conduct. I took legal advice after a biased and incorrect review and was told family caught was my only option.
has anyone dealt with Elizabeth Collins?
#38 well, I spoke to IRD this week and they tell me that Mr Miller has left. Even though his review of my case had comments that can easily be shown were wrong (a few clicks of the mouse would provide the information) I was told that reviews are ‘quick and cost effective’ and ‘they have no requirement to investigate the facts’.
I had this conversation with ird because I wrote to the complaints department.
Regardless that he made comments that were incorrect, the IRD said his review is supported because I am the father and so should pay the amount he decided I should pay. His incorrect comments had no material bearing on my estimated incomce (5x actual salary, close to $150k).
So while this didn’t return any material result for me now, I strongly suspect mr miller got the boot because of mine and other complaints. I suspect that the person I spoke to was embarrassed by the obvious disregard for facts by Mr Miller. I also suspect my previous letter to Peter Dunne about mr miller may have helped hastened his departure. No one wants to associate with someone that can potentially embarrass them. Maybe I am wrong and mr miller left of his own accord but I can’t imagine mr miller pulling his snout out of the trough.
Now I am going to the law society. Filling in the forms.
The system is stacked against us but I liken it to the slaves in America…you have to chip away against it. If we roll over then nothing will change. We write, we call, we complain…like a dripping tap.
Ps Mark Miller, I truly hope you are forced to add value to make money. If that were the case you will starve.
Hello Toast if I hire a contractor and they mess up I am responsible.
IRD hire a mongrel dog and then set him on paying parents it is their responsibility, they are to blame. This shows the culture within the department. Yes totally agree that the dog needs to be put down, however the owner is culpable for the dog’s actions. They must be held to account.
Yes I totally agree with you, we must continue complaining, bitching, writing letters to MPs until changes are made. This squeaking wheel has only started complaining, I can be very persistent.
Let Mark Miller reap what he has sown.
can someone please tell me who else to steer clear off? at this stage miller has ruined our lives completely, without going into matters too deeply we will have to do another review, are there other mark millers out there to avoid? can anyone give names, and has anyone come across a nice review officer yet? if we go down the same path as the first review i just dont know what we will do
@here we go again: I wish I could pass on some positive feedback. I actually made a compliant to the IRD as suggested by an MP. I pointed out to the IRD during a long conversation that in my review it appeared they had mixed up my case with someone else’s. The review was clearly off and didn’t relate to me at all.
As you can imagine its a bit disappointing to have a debt of $30k landed on you out of the blue accompanied by a stack of pages unrelated to my case. Gosh! What a surprise!
Anyway, during the conversation, the IRD told me (head of admin reviews apparently) that the review officer has no requirement to establish the facts or do any investigation. The fact they got it so badly wrong is irrelevant since the wrongness probably didn’t contribute to the $30k. There was nothing they could do to help and felt there would be no reason to help even if they could.
You are just gong to have to hope like hell you get someone that is human and smart and reasonable. There is no justice. Good luck.
Hello Toast
Flick me an email on chris.eccles2@gmail.com. I will send you a document that may interest you.
valuable reading..for someone new to being shafted by the IRD its good to see Im not alone.
#45. another one bites the dust. No toast, you are not alone. Like us, you are now part of a rather large club of people that are regularly rogered (normally annually as opposed to analy)by the ex and the IRD. Just keep hammering away at MP’s, IRD, Peter Dunne etc and occasionally you get some respite-but not often. Commiserations to you!
We need an IRD CS Ombudsman.
Can’t see it happening, somehow.
there is one in OZ.. should be a kiwi equivalent there..
Can one just contact the ombudsman? Where does one go when the MP can’t help, the IRD are corrupted and couldn’t care less and the family court process cannot work. And one is so far in debt that one will never surface…and the debt survives bankruptcy and death
Basically Toast it cannot survive Death, it can become a charge against an estate. If that’s empty, what’s there to get? The worst part was IRD would not cease its harrassment of the deceased’s immediate family until it had sighted the death certificate
In the event of a coroner’s enquiry.
Sorry Gwahir
Child support liability is extinquised upon death of paying parent but rest assurred they will extract any debt and penalties from the dear departed’s estate.
Agreed Allan. The circumstance was a sudden “Unexplained” Death. There was no estate. His partner dissapeared! and IRD would not cease harrasment of the deceases’s, mother and sister until they could produce a death certificate (9 Months later) Payments and penalties accrued until that majic piece of paper was seen by them. Bankruptsy, they continue to hound.
@Ghwahir what is this case? I am not surprised but I haven’t heard of it.
The matter was several years ago. The victim had been imbibing ‘P’ I took the last phonecall!The death occured in the grounds of Keneperu Hospital. They wern’t open at night! It happened very close to christmas.
Mark Miller, so glad that he is no longer around although having had him TWICE as a review officer my husband now requests that he not be in attendance. Both times Mark Miller assessed my husbands income at triple what he actually earned and back dated it so that he now has arrears that will be cleared by the time the child he is paying support for turns 21. He is a horrible man, very cutting and calculating and clearly thinks that the NCP is out to shaft the CP everytime.
I have complained about him, I have written to the IRD and Peter Dunne and I somehow helped to have him removed from that department.
Tomorrow is my husbands 13th Admin Review in 5 years. He made a cross application along with his response to CP’s application and it has been incorrectly filed by review staff and will now result in another review in a month or so. In the meantime he goes to a gunfight without a gun tomorrow as his response is not in the file that the review officer will have in front of her. In fact she has nothing but the financial statement completed by the CP ommitting income so it makes her looking as if she is suffering hardship. But it appears from what I have read that they don’t look at documentation so why waste the tax payers money and our time even bothering?
Another review officer to be wary of is Stuart Benson, whether he is still around or not, who knows? But if he is decline him as your review officer.
Thank god this is my husbands last year of paying through the nose through the IRD. I do feel sorry for those that have to continue in this system as although changes are coming next year, I can’t see it making any difference to the pro feminist attitude and thinking of IRD child support staff.
Toni-had exactly that experience at admin review. I filed my info (what a mistake) before the review. Was presented with her info AT the review. Asked questions about her info of the review officer who did not know the answers or care. I pointed out some lies in ex’s statement of position and subsequently provided proof. It is an offence under the act to lislead the commissioner. The legislation specifically says so. You guessed it-was told this was not a matter for the IRd but i should “see my lawyer’ or litigate in the family court.Got the usual-yes xxxx, i can see how frustrating this must be for you (they must have a little card to read from), i can hear that you are frustrated and i relate to that blah blah-then proceeded to skull fuck me with backdated penalties plus interest.
The question is why does the IRD ask the respondant, usually the NCP, to file a response when the actual review is hijacked by the IRD contracted lawyer? and furthermore the paper work IRD sends out says that you will not be disadvantaged by not attending, Yeah right!
The fact that IRD purports to follow a process, that is supposedly fair, is bollocks, the process & procedures are run by staff with an agenda utilising contracted legal guns that are often biased against the NCP. Its a total set up from whoe to go.
IRD do not afford you the opportunity of response or reply, even when they mess up! This is insane. Peter Dunne does not care, but I bet he would care if the conduct of the IRD is brought to the attention of the media. The fact the IRD is breaking the law by their conduct is another issue!
Surely its time to stand up to the cretins at IRD?
Damn good question Colin. They pay lip service to the process. In one review I never even got to see the mothers financial position until after the review came in. I asked why but they weren’t interested.
Another time my lawyer wrote to the commissioner asking for the review to be postponed since we were planning to go to FC. According to the Act the IRD had to reply. They didn’t. Because I trusted in the process in those early days I expected the review to be on hold pending a reply but the review went ahead anyway. Still waiting for a reply and that was two years ago.
Why bother participating when the head of IRD reviews tells me on the phone that ‘admin reviews are a fast and cheap process’ and ‘there is no obligation for the review officer to do any investigation of the facts’.
Nice one.