Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993  / Applicant paid $8000 to Respondent for 8 weeks accommodation / $4,000 was paid as a deposit when booking and another $4,000 was paid at the beginning of the Applicant's stay / During the stay, Applicant requested not to run the heating unit above 19 degrees while out of the unit / Applicant wished to have room heated when returning / Respondent entered the unit, altered the temperature and removed the remote while Applicant was out / Applicant left the accommodation and moved to another location nearby as a result of the heating dispute / Respondent claimed there was a 2 week notice period for cancellation / Respondent attempted to charge the Applicant fees for damage to the heating unit, TV and two smoking breach charges / Applicant claimed refund of $7000 / Held:  Respondents claims for damage and smoking breaches were unsubstantiated / Respondent not allowing Applicant to use services as advertised was a failure of substantia…

Negligence / Applicant paid Respondent, a school student, $39 to do some gardening work / Applicant later found chunk missing from weatherboard of his house / Respondent denied causing damage to the house with lawnmower and sought to send a builder around to inspect the weatherboard / Applicant refused access and claimed $500 in damages / Held: evidence showed Respondent probably caused damage to weatherboard through negligence / However, as Respondent’s parents were denied opportunity to obtain independent evidence about weatherboard’s condition, a 40% reduction to claimed costs was made to account for possible betterment / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $300 / Claim allowed in part.  

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted Respondent to design, manufacture and install custom gates / Applicant paid deposit of $4,524.95 / Respondent advised gates would be installed in late-February / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to complete the work and sought refund of $4,524.95 / Held: Respondent failed to complete work by agreed or reasonable completion date / Applicant already agreed to previous time extension so not required to agree to further extension / Applicant not required to give Respondent opportunity to remedy failure as failure to deliver goods was not capacity of remedy / Applicant entitled to cancel contract / Respondent to pay Applicant $4,524.95 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Shared care agreement / Applicant purchased dog but could not continue to house and care for it / Entered a shared care agreement with Respondent / Breakdown of parties relationship and shared care arrangements / No terms for termination of agreement were established by parties / Applicant claimed return of possession or in the alternative an award of costs associated with purchase price, grooming and legal fees / Held: terms of the shared arrangement were not sufficiently clear, particularly relating to termination / Respondent to retain possession and ownership of the dog / Respondent had been primary carer of the dog for almost three years / Would be unjust for the Respondent to be forced to give up the dog / No basis for a costs award / Claim dismissed. 

Negligence / Respondent collided with Applicant’s parked van / Applicant did not dispute liability but disputed the loss suffered / Applicant claimed collision caused axle and transmission damage / Respondent arranged the towing of the van to a mechanic and paid $1,127 for panel repairs, no structural or transmission damage was found but extensive rust was noted / Applicant claimed $9,500 / Held: Applicant did not prove any damage beyond what Respondent repaired was caused by collision / Mechanic’s independent assessment did not support Applicant’s claim of structural or transmission damage / Evidence showed van was unwarranted, unregistered and in poor condition before collision / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Building contracts / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contracted Respondent to supply and install steel elements for maintenance shed including staircase / Respondent delivered most elements and staircase / Staircase installation delayed because of communication issues / Respondent failed to respond to repeated follow ups about staircase installation / Applicant then engaged third party to install staircase when fitment issues with alignment of structure were identified / Applicant paid third party invoice of $14641.93 / Applicant claimed $13860.72 for cost of alternative contractor works as damages after Respondent repudiation on contract / Held: Respondent’s silence and lack of communication constituted repudiation and Applicant validly cancelled / Applicant entitled to damages / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $13860.72 / Claim allowed.

Contract law / Applicant and respondents were family friends / Applicant paid $20,000 into a third party’s bank account, claiming it was a loan to first respondent to be passed to first respondent’s father overseas / Applicant alleged the account was nominated by the respondents / First respondent denied requesting a loan or nominating the account / Applicant could not provide documentary proof of nomination / Applicant claimed repayment of $20,000, claiming it was a loan, or alternatively a quasi-contractual claim for money / Held: no written contract or clear evidence of a legally binding loan agreement / Not a quasi-contractual claim for money as there was no mistake of fact in the payment / Claim dismissed.

Contract Law / Respondent sought advice from Applicant regarding potential purchase of a petrol station / Applicant prepared preliminary questions and assumptions, then paused work when Respondent was informed another buyer was interested / Respondent later resumed the process, provided further information, and received a Profit & Loss forecast from Applicant / Two invoices were issued: one for $506 (undisputed) and another for $1,564 (disputed) / Respondent did not pay either invoice, claiming unclear instructions and lack of pricing discussion / Applicant claims $2,070 for unpaid invoices / Held: Tribunal found that Respondent had conditionally instructed Applicant to carry out the analysis and had acted in a manner consistent with requesting the service / Tribunal also found the charges fair and reasonable despite Applicant's failure to provide upfront pricing / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,070 / Claim granted.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant met Respondent at an open home / Respondent offered Applicant designing services and later attended a meeting with Applicant, her partner and a builder / Respondent believed they had been retained and subsequently invoiced Applicant for $3450 / Respondent claims this amount for architectural services allegedly provided under an oral contract / Applicant disputes this and counterclaims $1999 alleging a breach of the FTA / Held: no oral contract was found to exist / Applicant did not intend to enter a legally binding contract / Services provided by Respondent were unsolicited / Claim dismissed / Respondents conduct was not unconscionable under the FTA / Counterclaim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant was engaged by Respondent to complete jobs at different addresses / First job was leak detection and second job was pipe repair / Applicant unable to complete leak detection but completed pipe repair / Respondent disputed payment amount and claimed skills and prices charged were unreasonable / Applicant claimed outstanding payment of $1,372.64 / Held: Applicant performed services with reasonable care and skill in leak detection job / Applicant followed best practice to not dig underground until location of electrical cables were identified / Respondent did not provide the information so Applicant unable to proceed / However time spent determining cable location was required was excessive / Labour costs for leak detection reduced / Costs unreasonable for pipe repair / Plumber made unauthorised stop at private address, both jobs were 100m away and were attended to on same day which led to uncertainty around duplication of travel tim…

Consumer law  / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent was engaged by Applicants to complete painting work / Applicants were unsatisfied with the quality of job / Applicants claimed $28,317.31, comprised of refund of monies paid $8,700, costs of remedial work $12,164.49 and other additional costs / Held: painting was not completed with reasonable skill and care / Evidence showed poor workmanship and three independent report supported that / Respondent sent subcontractor to attempt remedy work but was unable due to communication barrier / Failure was of substantial character that Applicants were justified in cancelling agreement / Applicants entitled to claim $12,164.49 for remedial work costs / Applicants not entitled to refund and other additional costs / Claim allowed in part.

Contract law / Applicant parked in a parking spot managed by respondents at a shopping centre / Terms and condition included a 90-minute time limit / Applicant parked longer than allowed and received a $60 parking breach notice / Applicant accepted breaching time limit, but claimed $60 fee was punitive and unenforceable as a penalty under contract law / Held: Tribunal found the $60 fee was enforceable / Consistent with industry standards and reflected the costs of enforcement and the legitimate interest of respondents in managing parking / Applicant ordered to pay respondent $60 by 15 August 2025, Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchase a tablet from Respondent / Subsequently, Applicant noticed a black spot on the screen / Respondent did not deny screen issue but denied liability / Respondent argued fault occurred outside its one-year warranty period / Applicant argued tablet was a premium product and should last longer than three years / Applicant claimed a refund of $1,689 as it was not of acceptable quality / Held: tablet was not of acceptable quality / Fault was diagnosed with no user error / Tablet should have lasted longer given its premium nature / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $1,689 within 7 days of returning tablet / Claim allowed.