Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants visited Respondent’s showroom to select hardwood flooring / Applicants were given sample to take home which were similar to showroom display / Back of sample contained warnings about natural colour and grain variation / Applicants ordered flooring but boards darker than sample and showroom display / Respondent refused to remedy as flooring not defective / Applicants claimed refund of $2,208 purchase price and hearing fee / Held: flooring supplied not of acceptable quality to reasonable consumer / Reasonable consumer would not expect flooring so substantially different from all samples shown / Respondent had not adequately advised the Applicants the extent of potential variation / Flooring did not comply with description in terms of identification / Applicants gave Respondent opportunity to remedy but that was declined / Hearing fee not recoverable / Respondent to pay the Applicants $2,208 / Claim allowed.    

Property / Residential Tenancies Act 1986 / Applicant engaged Respondent to manage rental property / Respondent added tenant in August 2022 without completing promised checks / Tenant later evicted December 2023 for rent arrears property damaged and meth contamination found / Applicant claimed costs for meth decontamination report and legal expenses / Held: Respondent breached agency agreement by failing to conduct checks / Liability excluded under agreement clause for damage caused by tenant / Insufficient evidence meth contamination occurred during tenant’s occupancy / Legal costs not recoverable / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant’s car collided with Second Respondent’s forklift / Second Respondent was employed by First Respondent / Second Respondent reversed forklift onto wrong side of road near intersection / Applicant left with limited time to brake and car collided with forklift / Respondents’ denied liability / Applicant claimed $2,734.63 in repair costs / Held: Second Respondent failed to take reasonable care and was negligent / Second Respondent also contributed to collision / Failed to take reasonable care by not paying attention to the road and not giving way at intersection / Contributory negligence assessed at 65% for Applicant and 35% for Respondents / First Respondent to pay Applicant $957.12 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant provided packing and moving services to Respondent / Applicant claimed $2,000 for services / Respondent counterclaimed $9,100 as Applicant damaged goods and left property behind / Held: Applicant was paid in full and offered no evidence to support claim for additional $2,000 / Contract of carriage was at owner’s risk / Applicant not liable for loss or damage unless they intentionally damaged the goods or were reckless / Respondent failed to prove intentional or reckless damage / No independent valuation of losses were provided / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased Respondent’s battery system from third party / Battery failed after eight years of use / Applicant contacted third party and their agent but received no remedies / Respondent refused liability as batteries not meant to be sold as retail products / Batteries were irreparable and disposed / Applicant claimed $7,419.15 for inspection, disposal and unused battery life / Held: Respondent not liable because it did not intend for batteries to be sold as retail products / Respondent under belief that third party would maintain and service the batteries / Batteries not of acceptable quality / However, manufacturer liability under CGA not applicable for Respondent / Applicant did not notify Respondent of failure within reasonable time / Delay prejudiced Respondent’s ability to assess problem or offer remedy / Claim dismissed.

Insurance / Contract / Applicant purchased travel insurance policy from Respondent / While abroad Applicant got sick and was diagnosed with medical condition / Applicant was advised to undergo surgery / Applicant sought pre-approval from Respondent who declined it as not an emergency and could wait until Applicant returned to New Zealand / Applicant proceeded with surgery at own expense / Applicant claimed $14,493.85 / Held: surgery was medically necessary and fell within policy’s coverage for “reasonable overseas emergency medical treatment” / No requirement in policy that only lifesaving surgery will be approved / Applicant’s symptoms were painful and prolonged so not reasonable for Applicant to suffer through long flight to receive care / Respondent did not appear to have all information when initially assessing necessity but subsequent reports should have alerted them that surgery was the only treatment available / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $14,493.85 / Claim allowed.  

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent’s cars collided at a roundabout / Applicant claimed $4,270.54 in damages / Held: Respondent failed to give way when entering roundabout / Respondent failed to take reasonable care / Insufficient evidence to show Applicant contributed to collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $4,270.54 / Claim allowed.  

Compensation / Vehicle collision / Applicants’ van and motorbike damaged in collision when Respondent failed to give way / Respondent acknowledged fault / Applicants did not have insurance / Respondent disputed quantum of remedy to be awarded to Applicants / Applicants claimed $7500 in compensation / Held: collision was the cause of the damage to the Applicant's motorbike /  Applicants were entitled to $6,501 being the costs claimed that were supported by receipt or valuation less $500 for the wrecked value of the van already received by Applicants / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant held credit card issued by Respondent / Applicant mistakenly paid $3,692.92 to foreign government agency and requested refund / No payment appeared in his account but he was informed that the agency had processed refund / Acquirer reference number was provided to him to assist tracking / Applicant paid $3,692.92 into credit card account to prevent it going into debt / Applicant contacted Respondent multiple times but Respondent incorrectly claimed money had already been paid into account / Applicant claimed $8,000 for financial loss and stress / Held: Respondent breached guarantee of reasonable skill and care by not investigating Applicant’s issue adequately / Respondent breached FTA by not honouring its advertisement to provide timely assistance to customers / Respondent’s failure prevented Applicant from recovering the refund, causing loss / Claim for compensation for stress and time spent did not m…

Contract / Applicant purchased a power station from Respondent / After Applicant purchased additional batteries, they discovered that only manufacturer’s batteries could be taken by system / Applicant claims that product is not fit for intended purpose and Respondent had been misleading and deceptive as battery requirement had not been advertised / Held: No evidence provided that machine was not fit for purpose / Applicant unable to prove Respondent’s conduct was misleading or deceptive / Claim dismissed. 

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $6,500 after seeing an online advertisement / Shortly after purchase Applicant discovered multiple mechanical issues / Applicant claimed that was inconsistent with Respondent’s statement that the vehicle “goes great” / Applicant sought refund of $6,500 and to return vehicle back to Respondent / Held: buyer in private sale has responsibility to carry out their own due diligence before entering contract / Misrepresentation not proven by Applicant /  Respondent’s “goes great” statements found to be opinions, not facts / No evidence Applicant induced to enter contract based on false statement of fact / Claim dismissed.

Contract law / Applicant purchased house from Respondents / Respondents not able to fix 19-year-old oven before settlement so agreed Applicant’s lawyer would withhold $1,000 / Oven was irreparable so Applicant bought replacement oven for $5,358 / Applicant claimed $9,758 comprised of cost of oven, inconvenience and loss of time / Held: Respondent breached sales and purchase agreement as failed to provide oven in reasonable working order / Compensation should reflect a like-for-like replacement adjusted for fair wear and tear / Tribunal assessed value of old oven at $1,607.40 and awarded $500 for inconvenience / Respondents to pay Applicant $2,107.40 / Claim allowed in part.