Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Consumers Guarantee Act 1993 “CGA” / Applicant hired Respondent to install steel roof, repair tiles on roof, supply and install new mains power supply, and the installation and ducting of new rangehood / Applicant claims refund for defects for all areas of work / Held: Goods are to be provided with reasonable skill and care / Respondent not liable for any issues regarding internal gutter and pitch /  Respondent to remove roof and refund Applicant / Concrete tiles are in reasonable condition and Applicant’s tile claim not made / Drip tray to be replaced / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $8057.56.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant was a debt collection agency / Applicant sought to collect $2,325.19 in commission and related costs on two disputed debts that were lodged with it by Second Respondent via its director, First Respondent / Original claim lodged against the first debtor was $1,968.81 / Determined that $125.94 of original debt was payable and collection costs were not payable / Debtor disputed some of the charges before it was sent to debt collection / Claim against other debtor for outstanding balance was filed at the District Court and transferred to the Disputes Tribunal / Claim was never heard, presumably due to administrative error / Applicant submitted Second Respondent breached collection contract by failing to inform it of the transfer / Applicant accepted lodgement of the debts despite knowing they were disputed / Applicant relied on terms and conditions published on its website regarding commission to be paid in full / Respondent stated they never sa…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017/ Applicant claimed for work completed on Respondent’s behalf in relation to an employment issue / Respondent disputed that the Applicant was ever instructed / Respondent stated there was no contractual relationship between the parties / Held: evidence indicated that the Respondent did not accept the Applicant’s offer/ Respondent did not form a contract with the Applicant for their services / An individual not communicating that they do not want a business to act for them cannot be construed as acceptance / No valid contract between the Applicant and Respondent / Applicant had not been engaged / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased property from Respondents / Just prior to settlement, central heating unit developed a fault which could not be repaired prior to settlement / Applicants moved in and raised the issue with the selling agent who organised for it to be repaired / Applicant was advised that the unit was not sufficiently powerful to heat the lounge downstairs / Applicant claimed the lounge downstairs was cold and he had to install a gas heating unit worth $19,081.72 / Applicant believed he was misled as the property was sold as being a “lovely warm home” / Respondent stated he found the heating to be sufficient / Respondent submitted the house had been built to code / Held: evidence did not show the property was misrepresented / Whether the unit sufficiently heated the lounge was a subjective matter / At the time of sale, no specific representation about the effectiveness of the central heating unit / Claim not prov…

Property / Contract / Applicants purchased a house from the Respondent / Settlement occurred but the Respondent failed to remove his belongings from the property for a further 5 days / When Applicants took possession they found the house was infested with vermin / Vermin had wrecked electrical wiring and the carpets, both had to be replaced / Applicants claimed $18,244.00 comprising of numerous costs arising out of the breach of agreement such as pest control, additional accommodation, legal fees, loss of income, cleaning and electrical work / Held: Respondent breached the Sale and Purchase agreement with regards to the carpet and wiring as neither were in working order at the time of settlement / Some expenses claimed by the Applicant were too far removed from the breach of contract and were not reasonably foreseeable so have not been awarded, such as loss of income / Tribunal granted some expenses to a lesser extent than claimed by the Applicant such as legal fees and accommodation /…

Property / Applicant boarded with Respondent’s father / Respondent’s father passed away / Applicant continued to live at the property on week by week informal basis / Arrangement made with Applicant that Respondent would let other family members into the house to retrieve property belonging to the family / Applicant claimed that two sleeping bags and his tent were removed by someone in the family / Applicant claimed Respondent was responsible for his loss / On the basis that Respondent had the house key, was the head of the estate and should have been aware of what the family were removing / Applicant brought claim for $2,750.00 against Respondent / Held: Respondent and his family legally entitled to enter property and remove family items / No proof of who took any items belonging to Applicant / Even if property removed by another family member, Respondent not responsible as he was not vicariously liable / Claim not proved / Claim dismissed.

Tort /  Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Parties were in a romantic relationship for 80 months / Applicant claimed the Respondent took money from a joint bank account without his knowledge / All funds deposited in the account came from the Applicant / Respondent counterclaimed for compensation for lost income and other costs related to stress and harassment from the breakdown of the relationship / Respondent also claimed $28,350 for the work she did looking after the Respondent during their relationship after he suffered an injury / Held: Tribunal only had jurisdiction of the claim based in tort related to property / Taking of money from a bank account a form of economic loss / Money not defined as property in the legislation / Lack of jurisdiction to hear the claim / Respondent did not counterclaim for damage or loss of property in stress and harassment related compensation so unsuccessful claim / Respondent unsuccessful in claim for payment for looking after Applicant after he suffered a…

Contract / Negligence / Applicant provided emergency accommodation for 2 months to Respondents and their dogs / Significant damage to units discovered after Respondents left / Applicant and their insurer claimed $12,621.08 for damage / Held: Damage to Applicant's units caused by Respondents or their dogs with liability arising in contract and negligence / Undisputed that Respondents occupied units at relevant time and evidence shows damage occurred while Respondents occupied units / Damage was either willful or caused negligently by Respondents together or alone failing to take reasonable care to prevent damage / Respondents also signed registration forms accepting liability for any damage caused / Applicant and their insurer entitled to be returned to position they would have been in had damage not occurred / Respondents severally liable to pay $6310.54 each to Applicant's insurer / Applicant's insurer to pay $500 of $12,621 total to Applicant as compensation for excess paid / Claim a…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Respondents visited car yard where Applicant worked, intending to purchase second-hand vehicle / Respondents bought vehicle from Applicant, trading in their original vehicle as deposit / Applicant discovered a security interest registered against the Respondent’s vehicle, preventing its sale / Applicant claimed $3,500 for the trade-in value of the Respondent’s original vehicle and daily parking costs / Held: original vehicle was traded in as part of the new vehicle purchase, not sold under a separate contract / As the original vehicle was not sold for money consideration, the implied warranty under s 135 of the CCLA did not apply / Applicant, having accepted the original vehicle as a trade-in, bore the responsibility to check for any security interests / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1993 (FTA) / Applicant purchased house from Respondent with Second Respondent as estate agent / Applicant asked 2nd Respondent at open home about property boundary / 2nd Respondent said fence was on boundary with neighbouring property / Dispute arose with Neighbours after sale who informed Applicant that part of house encroached on their land / Neighbours told 2nd Respondent before sale about encroachment but vendor said issue resolved / Applicant claims $30,000 of legal, survey and council costs incurred in adjusting boundary through Court process / Held: 2nd Respondent's silence on potential encroachment was misrepresentation and therefore misleading conduct / 2nd Respondent did not take reasonable steps to resolve competing information about potential encroachment / Applicant had clearly asked about boundary and 2nd Respondent was silent despite professional standards creating positive duty to disclose and to avoid contravening ss 9 and 14 FTA / Appli…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased a caravan from the Respondent / While they were on holiday they discovered wear to a tyre inside edge / Vehicle was taken to an engineering company, which repaired the axle and rewelded the axle stub before the vehicle was taken for a tyre replacement / Applicants claimed the stub had been welded to the axle out of square, so the damage to the tyre was caused by a manufacturing fault / Applicants claimed $1,477.07, being the cost of repair and new tyre as well as $115.00 for a night of accommodation while the caravan was being repaired / Held: Applicants established it was more likely than not that the caravan was not of acceptable quality / Respondent ordered to pay full claimed amount of $1,447.07 to Applicant / Claim allowed.  

Negligence / Respondents' shed blown off in a windstorm / Shed damaged Applicant's power pole / Applicant claimed compensation from Respondent / Respondents denied liability / Held: Respondents' shed struck pole and caused it to break / Applicant provided warnings that it should ensure outdoor items which could be blown about in storms be removed or secured / Respondents liable for damages / Risk of shed being blown in very high wind and causing damage must be regarded as foreseeable / Respondents liable to compensate Applicant for damages / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $9,450.72 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased dresser from Respondent / Applicants claimed dresser's timber began to break apart while putting together / Applicant sought refund of purchase price, shipping cost and filing fee / Respondent claimed damage caused by incorrect installing of screws and therefore not covered under manufacturer's warranty / Held: middle panel of dresser is not of acceptable quality / Substantial failure / Drawers cannot be put together securely with a weakened middle panel / Replacement not available within reasonable time / Applicant entitled to refund of purchase price / Tribunal unable to make order relating to filing fee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $397 / Claim allowed in part.