Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took campervan to Respondents for WOF / Respondents issued WOF / Applicant sold campervan for $19,800 / Purchaser took campervan for further WOF, extensive problems discovered, WOF not issued / Purchaser took action against Applicant in separate Disputes Tribunal claim, Applicant ordered to pay $17,066 in damages for repairs / Applicant now claimed $17,286 from Respondents, being reimbursement of damages order, $40 WOF fee, and $180 filing fee / Respondents acknowledged WOF should not have been issued / Held: insufficient evidence that WOF issued by Respondents directly resulted in campervan’s reduced value / Applicant’s loss not result of Respondent’s error, therefore not entitled to reimbursement of damages order / Costs award not available / Applicant entitled to reimbursement of WOF fee / Respondent ordered to pay $40 to Applicant / Claim granted in part.

Negligence / Respondent’s vehicle collided with Applicant, damaging his e-Scooter / Applicant claimed $430 for repairs, $240 for temporary transport costs, $955.50 for filing fee and hearing attendance costs, and $69.50 for medical costs / Held: Respondent failed to give way, was negligent / Applicant entitled to repair costs and some costs for alternate transport while waiting for repairs / Circumstances not met for costs award relating to filing fee or time spent attending hearing / Personal injury outside Tribunal’s jurisdiction, claim for medical costs struck out / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $510 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant engaged Respondent to send a package of meat / When meat arrived at its destination it had spoilt / Applicant seeks damages of $220.00, which is the value of the meat and the filing fee for this claim / Held: the contract of carriage was at owners' risk / The contract was not for cold chain delivery service / Damage was not intentional / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant booked two tickets on a fishing charter run by Respondent / Tickets indicated departure time was 9am / Departure time was actually 7am / Morning of the booking, Respondent phoned Applicant to ask whether they going on charter / Applicant was unable to get to departure point promptly so did not go on trip / Respondent later provided a partial refund, retaining $60 per ticket to cover costs /  Applicant claimed $160, for ticket price and filing fee / Held: departure time on ticket was a misprint but the time formed part of terms and conditions of contract / Respondent did not provide the trip as contracted and Applicant received no part of what he paid for / Applicant entitled to a full refund / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award costs, including the filing fee, in these circumstances / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $120 / Claim granted.

Contract / Negligence / Vehicles driven by Applicant and Respondent involved in a collision on a race track / Applicant alleged Respondent was driving negligently / Applicant claimed $5,230.00 for repairs and filing costs / Held: race entry form precluded Applicant from pursuing a negligence claim against Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCF) / Applicant entered into a secured credit agreement with Respondent for the purchase of a car / Applicant defaulted and believes the loan was oppressive (as defined by s118 CCCF) and in breach of s9(c) CCCF / Applicant is a solo mother on the benefit / Applicant claims Respondent failed to do appropriate credit checks / Respondent should have realised Applicant was not in a position to repay such a loan / Respondent counter claims $14,342.40 being the amount owing plus interest (which at the time of filing was not yet charged) / Held: Respondent carried out necessary credit checks / Applicant was unable to prove that the loan was oppressive and the extra charges were unreasonable / Applicant must pay Respondent $14,145.16 (being the account balance presented as evidence) / Claim dismissed / Counterclaim partially granted.

Contract / Applicant parked car in Respondent’s carpark / Sign indicated that a ticket was required to be on display / Applicant failed to display ticket and received breach notice of $65 / Applicant unsuccessfully disputed notice / Further $20 added for late payment, which Applicant paid / Applicant parked in another one of the Respondent’s carparks / Applicant did not activate carpark payment app properly / Applicant received $60 breach notice, which she disputed / Respondent advised Applicant they would waive this notice and pay Applicant $45 for filing fee to the Tribunal / Applicant did not accept offer in full as she wanted the initial breach notice considered / Held: No suggestion that full terms and conditions not visible / Applicant breached agreement by failing to obtain and display ticket / No evidence that $85 fee was unreasonable / Claim for refund dismissed / Respondent to pay $45 for filing in accordance with their offer / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Applicant’s interested in Respondent’s truck / Applicant’s cousin viewed truck / Applicant paid deposit / Applicant viewed truck but decided on a different truck / Applicant later decided he didn’t want the truck / Respondent refunded Applicant some of deposit / Applicant claims $1,500 as refund of balance of deposit plus filing fee / Held: there was a contract for sale and purchase of the truck / Contract included binding term that Respondent able to retain deposit if sale did not proceed / Contract and exercise contractual term not harsh and unconscionable, claim dismissed

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / School ordered 11 books from the Applicant at a cost of $575.50 / Books were self-published by the Applicant as a limited edition of 100 copies / Applicant sent the books by courier through the Respondent / Books never reached the school / Applicant claimed $931.20 for full print run and the filing fee /  Respondent admitted liability for loss of books but disputed their value / Held: books should be valued at market price /  Market for such books is limited and largely local / Loss of the books meant that the Applicant suffered the loss of full contract price / Respondent ordered to pay $575.50 to the Applicant / Claim granted.

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Applicant entered contract with Respondent to purchase house and land package / Shortly after settlement Respondent noticed cracks appearing on front path and driveway  / The cracks expanded / Respondent assured Applicant this was normal, recommended applying glue to the cracks / Applicant engaged specialist assessment / Applicant claims $4312.50 for remedial repairs and $90.00 for the Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent is in breach of sections 362I and 362Q of the Act / Respondent liable to pay claimed remedial costs / Claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $4312.50. Tribunal fee not able to be awarded.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to perform pre-purchase inspection report on a property / Applicants became aware of issues with windows and water egress after purchasing property / Applicants claim cost to replace windows, less deduction for double glazing benefit and including filing fee / What are the relevant terms of contract / Held: contract states report is visual inspection, to be used as guide, and a reasonable attempt to identify faults on the day of the inspection / Applicants informed inspection limited to visual inspection / Whether inspection been carried out with reasonable care and skill, if not what is remedy / Held: insufficient evidence to establish Respondnt failed to use reasonable care and skill in producing report or conductin the inspection / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants entered into a contract with the Respondent to hire a caravan / Applicants paid $2,100.12 for hire / Respondent emailed customers stating that all of their customers over the age of 12 would need to have Covid-19 vaccinations to use their caravans / Applicants emailed the Respondent stating that their 12 year old child was not vaccinated / Respondent said the Applicants could keep their booking as their child was on the edge of the limit / Respondent also asked whether the Applicants wished to keep the booking / Applicants sent an email indicating they would be cancelling their booking and seeking a refund / Respondent confirmed that the booking has been cancelled / Responded refunded the Applicants $1,890.12 / Respondents did not refund the reservation charge / Applicants claim the sum of $255 for the reservation charge and the Tribunal application fee / Whether the Applicants unconditionally accepted the offer to cancel the booking and receive a full refund / Wh…