Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant provided cleaning services for Respondent / Respondent complained several times about cleaning quality / Applicant obtained a new owner who requested Respondent give their cleaning another chance / Applicant agreed but was still unhappy with the service provided / Respondent terminated Applicant’s contract / Applicant sent invoices which the Respondent refused to pay / Applicant claimed $3,552.12 for unpaid invoices / Held: there was a contract between the parties / Clause requiring three months’ notice to terminate services was unduly harsh and unconscionable / Applicant notified multiple times about sub-par cleaning / Applicant had ample opportunity to rectify the situation, but did not / Respondent did not give any notice before terminating services / Respondent ordered to pay $1,776.06, fifty percent of claimed amount / Claim allowed in part.  

Property / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant claimed water from Respondent's property flows to his property causing flooding and accumulation of mud and debris / Applicant claimed for a solution and not compensation / Held: Disputes Tribunal jurisdiction is limited to matter arising out of contract, damage and loss to property / Tribunal cannot order a person to undertake drainage works or maintenance to own land / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make order required by Applicant / Claim struck out.

Contract / Applicants approached Respondent about supplying a kitset farm shed that could be converted into a dwelling / Respondent drew up plans and provided a quote, which the Applicants accepted / Kitset was not supplied / Applicant sought compensation for cost of additional cladding / Held: parties had a contract for the Respondent to provide a shed /Respondent was contracted to include cladding and flashings, which he failed to do / Respondent liable for cost of materials he failed to supply / Respondent ordered to pay $14,404.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to install new shower / Shower continued to leak after attempts to reseal / Applicant engaged another company to fix shower / Applicant claimed their $1,200 payment to Respondent / Held: Respondent did not provide shower installation services with reasonable care and skill / Failure was of substantial character / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and get refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,200 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to design and supply headstone with glass plaque / After design was fully confirmed and paid for, Respondent informed Applicants glass plaques were not authorised in cemeteries in their city / Respondent had earlier assured it would check local authority requirements to ensure smooth process / Respondent offered substitution, but Applicants claimed this would completely alter design / Applicants claimed $8464 refund and $6,536 for emotional distress / Held: Respondent’s failure to notify Applicants of key information affecting design choice was failure of reasonable care and skill / Applicants entitled to cancel contract and receive refund / Emotional distress is foreseeable consequence of breach of contracts for services related to bereavement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $8,464 refund and $500 compensation for inconvenience and distress / Claim allowed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $8,750.00 / Respondent stated there were no issues with vehicle and no money owing / After purchase numerous defects were found / Applicant took vehicle to mechanic who estimated repairs would cost $6,967.18 and charged $69.00 for the inspection / Applicant also discovered Respondent still owed finance on the vehicle / Held: Respondent did not have clear title to sell vehicle / Respondent misrepresented condition of vehicle / Applicant inspected, test drove and accepted vehicle before purchase, therefore lost right to reject vehicle and obtain refund / Applicant entitled to damages / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $7,000.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Guarantees / Consumer Guarantee Act 1993 / Applicant bought a hockey stick from Respondents on 30 April / Applicant noticed the hockey stick was damaged and contacted Respondents / Applicant brought a claim against Respondent for breaches of the Consumer Guarantee Act 1993 claiming the stick was not fit for purpose / Applicant seeks refund of purchase price of the hockey stick / Onus is on applicant to prove her case / Applicant has not proven that the damage caused to hockey stick was due to defect rather than the stick being used on abrasive surfaces / Claim is dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased an e-scooter from Respondent for $1,999 / Scooter stopped working after 6 months / Applicant requested refund / Respondent refused due to water damage / Held: scooter was significantly water damaged / Scooter sold on the basis that it was suitable for commuting, even when it was raining / Scooter became contaminated after 6 months’ of normal commuting use indicated it was not of acceptable quality / Scooter not capable of being repaired / Case for a refund made out / Respondent ordered to pay $1,999.00 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took vehicle to Respondent for engine repair / Respondent provided Applicant with quote for full engine replacement, but only replaced top part of engine in a bid to save costs for Applicant / After Respondent completed work, Applicant took vehicle to several mechanics who reported the engine number was the same as when the vehicle was registered / Applicant claimed he did not receive a full engine replacement and sought refund of $2,656.75 paid for the engine and associated repair costs / Held: Insufficient evidence Respondent did not use reasonable care and skill in repairing vehicle / Respondent had informed Applicant that only the top part of the engine had been replaced / Applicant did not provide Respondent with opportunity to remedy any potential failure / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Money Claims Act 2016 / Applicants engaged Respondent to uplift and reinstall house at new site / Respondent sent “full and final invoice” for work of $75,900.00, which Applicants paid in full / House was placed on metal stands to enable placement of piles / Piling was set back by numerous delays / Respondent issued $3,450.00 invoice to Applicants for rental of metal stands / Applicants refused payment / Respondent refused to lower house until invoice paid / Parties’ relationship soured, Applicants had house lowered by another company for $3,800 / Applicants claimed $19,169.52 compensation / Held: Applicants reasonable to deny liability for invoice / Respondent’s refusal to perform contract unreasonable / Applicants failed to mitigate losses / Applicants entitled to 50% of reasonably foreseeable losses from Respondent’s breach / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $5,558.31, plus $165.44 interest / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Property / Applicant and Respondent entered into agreement for sale and purchase of real estate / Applicant discovered heat pumps were not working / Applicant claimed $1,978 / Held: heat pumps were not in reasonable working order on agreed date / $500 a reasonable value to restore lounge heat pump to working order / $ 1,278.99 not a reasonable value for replacement of dining room heat pump / Applicant not entitled to $200 for cost of purchasing heaters / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,000 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant’s car was damaged while being towed by First Respondent / First Respondent accepted liability for damage, took car to Second Respondent for repairs at First Respondent’s cost / Following repairs, Second Respondent noticed issue with flexiplate, informed Applicant / Applicant claimed First and/or Second Respondent liable for damage, which was not present when he gave car to First Respondent / Applicant claimed $639.88 for diagnostic work, $2,911.14 for replacement transmission, plus cost of renting vehicle at $100 per week for 58 weeks / Held: more likely than not that flexiplate damage caused by Second Respondent’s work / Work not completed with reasonable care and skill / Applicant obligated to mitigate loss, not entitled to full cost of vehicle rental / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,941.02 / Claim allowed.

Rehearing application / Applicant applied for rehearing on grounds his mother-in-law for terminally ill / Held: Applicant given adequate opportunity to present his claim, despite circumstances / Reasons given for non-attendance were insufficient to justify re-opening the matter / Rehearing claim declined.