Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant booked accommodation with Respondent / Applicant was not satisfied with cleanliness of room / Following discussion with staff member, Applicant left and found alternative accommodation / Applicant claimed refund of $400 booking fee and $45 Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent breached CGA / Applicant's photo evidence showed cleanliness of room fell below standard a reasonable consumer would expect from an accommodation provider / FTA breach not considered / Respondent failed to remedy problem within reasonable time / Reasonable for Applicant to leave based on conversation with staff member / Applicant entitled to refund of booking fee but not filing fee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $400 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicants purchased house from Respondent / Approximately two years after purchase, waste pump began to fail / Applicants claimed $8,472.39 for plumber call outs and pump replacement / Respondent claimed pump failure was due to depreciation and misuse / Held: more likely than not that pump failed due to accelerated wear and tear caused by incorrect installation / Pump was not delivered in reasonable working order, therefore was in breach of vendor warranties / Applicants entitled to compensation for plumber call outs and half cost of new pump installation, less cost of service that would have been necessary anyway / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $5,374.08 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant claimed vehicle was struck by Respondent causing damage / Applicant claimed $4,995.99 for repair costs and additional compensation / Held: repair costs were reasonable and caused by Respondent's negligent driving / Applicant entitled to be compensated for repair costs / Agreement was between the Applicant and panel beaters / Applicant paid invoice on time and did not incur any interest or late fees / Applicant not entitled to any further compensation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,223.99 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Contract / Duress / Respondent managed Applicant’s rental property / Applicant alleged Respondent acted negligently by giving her poor advice, resulting in loss of three weeks and one day’s rent / Applicant also alleged she agreed to an early exit for the tenants under duress / Applicant claimed $2495.36 / Held: after Applicant attended property without notice, tenant threatened to bring claim to Tenancy Tribunal / Respondent’s advice to endeavour to mitigate damages through early termination, rather than face potential consequences in the Tenancy Tribunal, was fair and reasonable, not poor advice / Applicant did not agree to early exit under duress / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent ran sticker collecting promotion, where consumers could exchange specific number of stickers collected for free kitchenware / Respondent ran out of stock before Applicant was able to exchange his stickers / Applicant claimed $125 ($80 for stickers and $45 Tribunal filing fee) from Respondent, plus an unspecified value in punitive damages to be paid to charity / Held: Respondent did not engage in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or that was likely to mislead or deceive, or “bait” advertising / Reasonable quantities of the kitchenware were available, with stock only becoming low at end of promotion / Respondent’s messaging was clear that promotion was “while stocks last,” encouraging consumers to redeem stickers early / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Parties were flatmates / Respondent as head tenant asked Applicant to leave the flat and have room professionally cleaned due to drug use / Applicant vacated property but failed to have room cleaned / Applicant claimed for return of $721 bond / Respondent counterclaimed for costs of having Applicant’s room cleaned and for security cameras purchased in response to threats allegedly made by Applicant / Held: implied agreement between parties that if Applicant used drugs inside the property, they were required to pay for professional cleaning to remove drug residue / Applicant not liable for cost of security cameras / Applicant required to pay $531.30 for cleaning, entitled to remaining $189.70 of bond / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $189.70 / Claim and counterclaim partially allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Car had transmission issues while the  Respondent was driving / Repairs were carried out on vehicle / Parties unable to resolve matter / Applicant sought $3000 for repair costs / Held: Respondent did not misrepresent condition of vehicle / Even if the Respondent had misrepresented the car's condition not satisfied that the Applicant was induced to purchase the car by any misrepresentation/ Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant parked in a carpark monitored by the Respondent / Applicant received $160 parking ticket for unauthorised parking / Applicant sought declaration of non-liability for amount of parking ticket and Tribunal filing fee / Held: Applicant breached terms and conditions of car park / Signage of terms of conditions were clear and visible to users of carpark / Applicant accepted Respondent’s terms when she decided to park in the Respondent’s carpark / Applicant ordered to pay $160 parking ticket / Applicant cannot claim filing fee / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant booked rental car with First Respondent using Second Respondent’s website, paid $18.02 deposit / When collecting car, Applicant was advised by First Respondent of $150 surcharge due to Applicant’s age / Applicant refused to pay surcharge as it had not been advised at time of booking, sought refund of deposit / Refund initially refused, but later paid after claim filed / Applicant sought $90 for Tribunal filing fee and $2500 damages for stress and inconvenience / Held: Second Respondent misled Applicant as to price of rental car, breaching FTA / First Respondent was not responsible for content on website, so had not breached FTA / First Respondent failed to provide customer service with reasonable care and skill, breaching CGA / Immediate loss suffered by Applicant was $18.02, which had been refunded / No further compensation payable / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Respondent's shopping trolley hit a parked car owned by Applicant / Applicant claimed $1,530.06 for losses suffered from damage / Held: Respondent negligent in allowing the trolley to roll and hit Applicant's car / Respondent liable to pay $990.15 repair costs / Applicant cannot claim for cost of rental car as Applicant did not provide quote / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $990.15 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Land Transport Act 1988 / Respondent had collided with Applicant’s vehicle / Applicant claimed Respondent was responsible for the collision as he must have been speeding / Applicant claimed Respondent should not have passed her on the left while she was making left hand turn / Applicant claimed $2,408.46 for damages / Held: no evidence that the Respondent was speeding / Applicant was bound to give way to any other vehicle when turning / Applicant was responsible for the collision / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were neighbours with a shared driveway / Respondent had a pile of scoria that was uncontained / Applicants property flooded on three occasions during storms as a result of debri washed down from the Respondents property / Applicant claimed $235.75 for costs of clearing the drain and $514.94 for two days' lost income / Held: Respondent was liable for part of the drain blockage but there were other contributory factors / Unreasonable for Respondent to compensate for two days' income / Respondent ordered to pay $493.22, drainlayer cost and half the amount claimed for loss of income / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant operated museum which needs painting / Applicant accepted quote from Respondent who is a painter / Applicant paid $6,969 deposit to Respondent / Respondent did not complete work and was uncontactable / Applicant sought deposit refund / Held: Respondent repudiated contract by making it clear through his actions that he did not intend to carry out his obligations under the contract / Applicant entitled to cancel contract / Appropriate to grant relief of full deposit refund / Applicant received no benefit from minimal work from Respondent / Applicant incurred significant inconvenience as a consequence of Respondent’s failure to perform contract / Respondent ordered to pay $6,969 / Claim allowed.