Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Building / Building Act 2004 / Applicants purchased a new house built by the Respondent / Applicants noticed paint deteriorating on the garage door within first year of ownership / Applicants later noticed more doors deteriorating and paint work chipping off / Applicants advised Respondent, who considered problem was due to wear and tear / Applicants claimed for compensation to have the paintwork repaired / Held: implied warranty that doors and paintwork would be of acceptable quality / Not proven that paintwork was defective / Areas of deterioration were in high use areas only / More likely than not that it was a wear and tear and maintenance issue for which the homeowner was responsible / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Dog Control Act 1996 / Applicant and Respondent were neighbours / Applicant’s dog was attacked by a dog that came onto Applicant’s property / Dog belonged to the Respondent’s grandson / Applicant’s dog was injured in the attack and required vet treatment / Respondent’s grandson paid vet costs / Afterwards, Respondent installed a electric dog containment system / Applicant’s dog was attacked again by the same canine on the Applicant’s property / Attack dog was not wearing the containment collar / Applicant’s dog required vet treatment / Applicant sought $832.30 vet costs from Respondent / Held: Respondent was the registered owner of the dog when the second attack occurred / Attack dog did not have the containment collar on when the incident happened / Reasonable to infer lack of reasonable care by Respondent when the incident occurred/ Respondent legally liable for the Applicant’s dog’s injuries / Respondent ordered to pay $832.30 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle and e-bike collision / Applicant claimed reparations / Held: First Respondent negligently caused damage to Applicant's e-bike and property when Respondent failed to give way when turning right / Second Respondent breached her duty of care to other road users by allowing a suspended driver to drive her vehicle / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $1999.00 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant engaged Respondent to move household goods / Applicant claimed $8,774.00 being the cost of repair or replacement for items he said were damaged in transit by Respondent / Respondent stated work was undertaken on an owners’ risk basis and did not believe they had legal liability for the damage as damage was not intentional / Held: terms of the contract of carriage did not provide the Applicant with a remedy / Carriage of goods under the contract was undertaken at “owner’s risk” / No evidence to prove intentional damage / No basis for compensation to be awarded / Claim dismissed.  

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant hired Respondent to move her property into storage facility operated by Second Respondent / No written agreement for storage but Applicant agreed to pay monthly fee / Applicant expected property to be stored in individual unit that she could access herself / Second Respondent stored property in shared unit with supervised access / Second Respondent sold property after it believed Applicant was in arrears for two months / Applicant claimed $18,200 for fees paid and value of lost property / Second Respondent counterclaimed for $555.45, amount Applicant was allegedly in arrears plus interest / Held: Second Respondent breached CGA by selling Applicant's property when it was not contractually entitled to / No evidence parties agreed to disposal for being in arrears / Applicant most likely not in arrears as she made payments in the relevant months which appeared to have not been applied by Second Respondent to Applicant's account …

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to fix faulty sink mixer / Applicant’s plumber visited and advised Respondent to get a new mixer, as it could not be fixed / Respondent supplied a new mixer which was fitted but did not work properly / Applicant claimed $347.95, total for two plumbing invoices / Held: Applicant’s plumber should have checked all tap components were working / Plumber failed to check tap was operational / Respondent gave Applicant an opportunity to remedy / Evidence accepted that Applicant’s plumber found the tap to be faulty / Applicant was unable to provide a remedy / Applicant checked all tap components were working properly when it was first installed / Applicant could have advised Respondent that tap was faulty, avoiding need for return visit /  Respondent therefore not liable to pay second invoice of $139.67 / Respondent liable to pay first invoice of $208.28, as tap was fitted properly and fault unrelated to Applicant’s work…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant brought sofa from Respondent with USB and reclining functions advertised / Applicant complained to Respondent about electrical fault six months after purchase as USB and reclining functions failed / Respondent attempted repairs of sofa / Applicant found repairs were unsuccessful and had damaged leather / Respondent collected sofa and offered replacement, partial refund, or in-store credit and suggested power surge caused issues / Applicant did not agree to those options / Applicant claimed for non-electric sofa of same value or full refund of $2099, plus compensation and reimbursement of filing fee / Held: sofa was not of acceptable quality as marketed functions failed after six months / Applicant rejected sofa within reasonable time after giving Respondent reasonable opportunity to remedy faults / Applicant entitled to full refund of $2099 for sofa, refund of $50 carrier fee Respondent charged for transport of sofa for repairs, p…

Tort / Negligence / Nuisance / Applicants own properties on shared driveway and Respondents own house next to driveway / Applicants concerned about excess water flowing from Respondents' property over driveway from damaged pipe / Respondents gave impression that issue would be fixed within 2 months but it was not / Respondents believed driveway already damaged and denied they nor activities on their property had damaged driveway / Applicants claimed $2500 as contribution to repair costs / Held: Respondents breached duty to Applicants by causing or exacerbating damage to driveway near Respondents' water pipe / Pre-existing damage present but damage adjacent to Respondents' property was more severe / Independent construction consultant found damage was exacerbated by continuous flooding from Respondents' water pipe / Applicants contributed to driveway damage as Applicants aware of pre-existing driveway damage but did not take remedial action / Apportionment of responsibility for damage e…

Tort / Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were involved in a vehicle collision / Applicant and Respondent recalled conflicting versions of event / Applicant claimed cost of repair estimate plus towing and storage costs / Held: Respondent liable in negligence for collision as she was found guilty of careless driving at the District Court / No contributory negligence on Applicant's part / Respondent liable to pay remaining costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $5976.41 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Vehicle collision / Applicant claimed Respondent came into her lane and collided with Applicant / Respondent stated he was not the driver of the vehicle at time of collision / Respondent provided evidence that he was on other side of town when collision occurred / Respondent stated he was not person in photo that Applicant took / Applicant claimed vehicle repair costs / Held: cannot be determined whether Respondent was the driver involved in the collision / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant changed booked flights with Respondent airline and had to pay a change fee / Applicant sought a refund of the amount paid for the change being the difference between what he paid and what he thought he was going to pay / Held: change fee was clearly indicated / Number of steps had to be taken before a customer committed to paying for the flight /  When customer paid for the cost of change, the customer was in fact accepting the change fee being paid / Applicant did not pay sufficient attention to the costs for the change when he was making it / Applicant not entitled to a refund / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant purchased property from Respondents / Contract had clause warranting that vendor had not received notice or demand from any party / Property had water tank moved by Respondents and a drain prior to Respondent's ownership / Applicant said she asked Respondents prior to purchase if water tank overflowed and was told it had not / Respondents said Applicant had not asked them about any issues / Water tank overflow was not compliant and Applicant had to have overflow attached to public stormwater / Tank leaked after a storm and Applicant realised boundary drain was blocked and broken / Neighbour told Applicant that they had frequently discussed water overflow issue with Respondents / Respondent said these discussions had not happened / Applicant claimed $15,000 towards drainage repairs alleging that Respondent breached sale agreement by not informing her of issues / Held: Respondents had engaged contractor who issued compliance notice so to Respondent's knowledge the ta…

Contract / Property / Applicant listed property with Respondent / Contract terms state $1750 to be expended on marketing with the Applicant paying half if property was withdrawn from the market / Property was not marketed due to market being quiet and it would be promoted again when the market improved / Applicant withdrew property from the market / Applicant denies liability for repayment of marketing fees / Held: Applicant withdrew listing and is liable to repay marketing / Applicant's wording in text clear that the property was to be taken off the market and re-listed at a later date / Applicant liable to pay marketing fee / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $1,750 / Claim dismissed.