Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to revitalise leather on lounge suite for $2,300 plus GST / Applicant found that refurbished colour was rubbing off and colour underneath was showing through / Parties agreed the best resolution was to reupholster lounge suite / Applicant paid additional fees / Applicant claimed $5,094.50 refund / Held: service provided by Respondent not fit for purpose of refurbishing leather lounge suite / Parties did not agree to resolution by Respondent reupholstering at trade price / Applicant not entitled to refund / Respondent would not have agreed to supply leather at trade price had Applicant wanted a refund as well as new leather at trade price / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $500 for transportation costs / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought vehicle from Respondent / Vehicle had issues and was assessed as being uneconomic to repair / Applicant claimed $4,669.60 cost / Held: Sale was a private sale and misrepresentation occurred / Applicant asked specific question relating to damage and was answered factually / Seller does not have a positive duty to disclose or point out any defects / Silence on its own does not usually amount to misrepresentation / Applicant advised of fault codes showing before purchasing vehicle / Classic situation of buyer beware / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought a set of gate openers from Respondent / Mechanism failed and electrician found failure was caused by a broken clutch and faulty limit switch / Respondent did not have necessary replacement parts to repair mechanism / Applicant claimed compensation / Held: reasonable customer would have expected that manufacturer might require some time to obtain parts, particularly goods manufactured overseas / Applicant's conduct not reasonable in circumstances / Respondent was willing to attempt and obtain parts for Applicant and did so within four days / No breach from Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Tort / Damages / Dog Control Act 1996 / Applicant's vehicle collided with a dog / Dog ran off and the Applicant was unable to ascertain whether it was injured / Applicant posted incident on social media and was alerted to Respondent’s post / Respondent operated kennel and their client’s dog had escaped and was found nearby injured / Applicant and his insurer claimed $3,982.45 / Held: on balance of probabilities, dog which escaped Respondent’s kennel was same dog that collided with Applicant’s car / Escaped dog matched Applicant’s description of dog / Dog also escaped around time and place of collision and was found injured / Respondent’s kennel had possession of dog hence liable for damages to vehicle / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's Insurer $3,982.45 / Claimed allowed.

Consumer law / Applicant claims compensation following subcontracting installation to Respondent / Wallpaper started peeling off wall in 6 months / Held: Wallpaper failed likely due to insufficient preparation in sizing and sanding / No inherent issue with wallpaper itself / Respondent liable for the cost of the remedy / Claim for costs dismissed as it does not meet criteria for exceptions / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $10,722.18. 

Insurance / Applicant's vehicle was damaged / Applicant said his insurer failed to adequately reimburse him for cost / Applicant claimed $5,000 compensation / Held: amount requested by Applicant was reasonable / Respondent liable to pay Applicant $905 towards door cost, $3,845 for painting and blending / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,750 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Building services / Building Act 2004 / Applicant was head contractor and engaged Respondent as subcontractor for bathroom renovation in 2021 / Work by Respondent was substandard requiring full remediation / Applicant claimed $30,000 from Respondent for remediation costs / Held: Tribunal estopped from reaching finding Respondent’s work was not substandard because of Building Practitioners Board (BPB) decision that work was substandard / Referee relied on BPB decision confirming serious structural defects / Respondent not entitled to remedy due to substantial nature of defects / Applicant entitled to recover reasonable costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $30,000 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Property / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant rented a room in Respondents' home / Applicant unhappy with house conditions and cancelled agreement / Applicant claimed full refund of bond and rent paid / Held: Applicant did not demonstrate issues observed amounted to breach of implied terms / Not uncommon for rodents to be present in roof of a property / Audible noise did not render space unfit for habitation nor impact right to quiet enjoyment / Landlord responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 did not apply / No implied duty in private contracts / Applicant not entitled to cancel contract / Applicant liable to pay three-day's rent / Applicant ordered to pay Respondents $159.86 / Parties to complete and sign bond form to enable return of $840 bond to Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Insurance / Damages / Respondent accidentally drove through Applicant's fence and collided with rear bumper of Applicant's vehicle / Respondent dissuaded Applicant from making an insurance claim and offered to pay repairs / Applicant unhappy with standard of repair / Applicant claimed $2,498.36 insurance claim for further repair / Held: Respondent liable for collision / Repairs were of poor quality and did not restore Applicant's vehicle to its original state / Cost claim proven / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's Insurer $2,498.36 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant bought vehicle from Respondent and paid $9,000 / Vehicle experienced failures within first week of use and is now essentially worthless / Applicant claimed misrepresentation or mistake / Held: where the seller is not a person "in trade", the consumer protection provided by the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, Fair Trading Act 1986 and the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 does not apply / Head gasket failures are almost always the end consequence of a gradual process / No evidence of any symptoms of engine fault up to the point of sale / No misrepresentation or mistake / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Construction / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant awarded sub-contract for electrical work by Respondent for a new build construction / Applicant completed some work outside contract / Respondent requested for further breakdown of variation in contract / Applicant informed contract had been cancelled / Applicant claimed $11,477.12 for lost profit, time spent pricing and claim related costs / Held: oral recollections were the only available evidence / Respondent unable to prove it is more likely than not that Applicant refused to provide further information / Respondent repudiated contract when it informed Applicant work was being awarded to another supplier / No evidence to support costs claimed by Applicant / Applicant awarded 30% of costs claimed / Cost related to tribunals claim not awarded / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,823.30 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant installed alarm system at Respondent's bar / Respondent refused to pay Applicant's invoice claiming installation was not authorised / Applicant claimed $262.50 payment for invoice / Held: Applicant were properly engaged by Respondent to investigate why alarm had not been triggered during burglary / Applicant unable to prove it was more likely than not authorised to do extra work to relocate and install a new sensor / Applicant entitled to be paid for investigating the sensor / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $86.25 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer law / Contract and Commercial law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a pony online from the Respondent for $5,600.00 / Applicant paid $1,426.00 to have the pony freighted to his property / Applicant said it was immediately apparent the pony was not suitable for a child and was a danger to anyone who approaches her /  Applicant claimed the pony’s characteristics were misrepresented / Applicant sought $8,452.00 for purchase price and freight costs / Held: misrepresentation was made in the sale / Advert suggested the pony was docile and child-friendly / Evidence indicated that the pony was sedated prior to delivery / Evidence also indicated that the pony was dangerous / Appropriate for the Applicant to be refunded purchase price of $5,600.00, and transport costs of $1,426.00 / Respondent ordered to pay $7,026.00 to Applicant / Claim allowed in part.