Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Property / Respondent lived as a boarder in the Applicant’s house / Respondent was required to move out after damage by carpet moths was found in his room / Applicant sought recovery of costs associated with the infestation / Held:  evidence indicated that the carpet moth damage was the result of the Respondent’s lack of care / Respondent failed to keep his room in a condition that prevented or limited the moths’ growth / Reasonable boarder would have noticed the carpet damage and the moths and would have brought that to the Applicant’s attention / Evidence indicated that the carpet was beyond repair / Costs cannot be awarded for printing photos for the Applicant’s claim / Respondent ordered to pay $1,597.50 for carpet damage and associated costs / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant entered into a sponsorship agreement with Respondent / Agreement meant Applicant would pay Respondent $335.42 per month / Total value of the sponsorship was $3,500.00, plus GST / Agreement also included provision for the Applicant to have vouchers for guests / Agreement mentioned “20 guest passes” / Respondent banned Applicant’s director from their club following an incident when the director was intoxicated / Applicant sought a refund of the value of these vouchers, together with 30% of the monthly payment of $335.00 / Held: nothing in the arrangement entitled the Applicant to compensation for the guest passes / As regards the claim for 30% of the monthly payment, that was, for the period from the disciplinary decision to the end of that month / Respondent appeared to have honoured the strictly commercial aspects of the agreement, until its expiry / No basis for any part of the Applicant’s claim / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent operate an online shop specialising in cashmere clothing / Applicant ordered a cashmere sweater from the Respondent for $284.00 / Once received the Applicant enquired whether the sweater was 100 percent cashmere as advertised / Later, Applicant stated that she wanted to return it / Respondent advised that as the item was a sale item it could not be returned / Applicant claimed the sweater was not fit for purpose / Applicant advised there were holes in the sweater, and she wished to return it for a full refund / Respondent refused to give a refund / Respondent suggested the holes were likely caused by incorrect storage or damage / Applicant sought $343.00, being the $248.00 refund price along with $59.00 filing fee / Held: no evidence provided to show the sweater was not 100 percent cashmere, apart from the Applicant’s own experience purchasing cashmere / Unclear whether holes were caused by machine washing or quality of sweater /…

Jurisdiction / Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Claim and Counterclaim related to fixed-term agreement for Respondents to live in guest wing of Applicants' house / Guest wing was separate unit with separate entrance with kitchen, living room, and two ensuites / Held: Disputes Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim / Section 77 RTA provides Tenancy Tribunal with jurisdiction over disputes between landlords and tenants in tenancies to which the RTA applies / Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that RTA does not apply where the premises are used "principally as a place of residence by landlord or owner of premises or any member of the landlord's or owner's family" / Issues around whether Respondents lived in same premises as Applicants or whether guest wing was separate from Applicants' premises / Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether RTA applies to a tenancy / Section 82 RTA provides Tenancy Tribunal's jurisdiction is excl…

Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Parties own neighbouring properties with hedge separating the properties / Respondents had planted hedge in 2015 / Parties believed hedge was on boundary but had discovered it was actually on Applicants' land / Applicants sought to replace hedge with fence as hedge not adequate / Respondents believed parties had agreed to hedge being planted in its position in 2015 / Applicants said their lack of knowledge where boundary was invalidated their consent to hedge being planted / Applicants claimed $11,290 for removal of fence and replacement of hedge / Held: hedge (as a live fence) was an adequate fence / Hedge did encroach on Applicants' land but did so because Applicants' consented to it being planted there / Parties more than likely believed at time hedge was planted that hedge was on boundary and so Applicants' consent was valid / Hedge was an adequate fence as it was healthy and attractive and provided adequate visual protection and was a non-invasive spec…

Negligence / Land Transport Act 1998 / Applicant and Respondent had a car accident / Applicant claimed the Respondent's car had crossed over the give way line which caused the Applicant to run into him as he turned in front / Respondent had insurance cover which had paid for their car repairs / Applicant did not have insurance cover / Applicant sought $6,200.00 for repair costs / Held: always for an Applicant to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities / Applicant needed to prove that the Respondent's was at fault / Photographs taken immediately after the collision suggested that the Respondent’s car was behind the give way line at the intersection at the time of the collision / Tribunal unable to find in favour of the Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant to do plastering work / Applicant sought payment of $18,268.00 / Respondent’s bank account frozen rendering Respondent unable to pay / Respondent acknowledged debt / Order made for payment of debt / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $18,268.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased van from Respondent / Applicant noticed odometer values did not match as advertised / Applicant sought third party assessment who indicated odometer difference valued at $3,000 / Applicant claimed $3,000 refund / Held: Respondent made a false representation of the van's travelled distance / Misrepresentation was actionable whether made innocently or fraudulently / Misrepresentation induced Applicant to purchase vehicle / Applicant entitled to refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,000 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Applicant purchased transportable dwelling from Respondents / Applicant found 30mm hole in bedroom wall which Respondents covered with plastic plate / Respondents gave Applicant $200 credit to account for hole / Applicant requested laundry customisation but was unhappy bench over washing machine would cover architrave and standard washing machine would not fit / Applicant claimed $10,000 to remedy problems / Held: Respondents fulfilled obligation in respect of laundry / $200 credit was not binding settlement of hole issue but Applicant did not suffer loss as hole was minor and plate was consistent with others in home / Applicant awarded $500 to reflect bench not received, incorrectly installed taps, associated costs and that Respondents did not consult Applicant on laundry space compromise / Respondent ordered to replace dented rangehood or pay Applicant $650 if not completed by set date / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant owned a car and allowed her daughter to use it, on the basis that she would pay $2,500.00 to Applicant in instalments / Applicant's daughter then passed the car onto the Respondent on the basis that Respondent would continue to repay any remaining debt / Respondent then sold the car / Applicant claimed Respondent owed $850.00 / Held: Respondent had not paid the full amount owing on the car and as such he was not entitled to sell it / Applicant entitled to $850.00 from Respondent / Claim allowed.  

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased a composting toilet system from Respondent / Applicants raised concerns about capacity issues / Respondents agreed to supply them with two additional composting bins / Applicants claimed new bins were different from original models and not fit for purpose / Applicants notified Respondent of defects and asked them to provide bins of acceptable quality, which they claimed Respondent failed to do so / Applicants sought compensation totalling $4,700 / Held: bins were found to be of acceptable quality / Respondent attempted to supply bins of the same model, but no stock was available / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased a car from the Respondent for $88,490 / Month later, Respondent reduced the price on the same model to $81,900 / Applicant claimed the salesperson told him the price would not drop, and that it could in fact increase / Applicant believed he was misled by the salesperson and sought compensation / Held:  no evidence that the Respondent engaged in conduct that may have misled or deceived the Applicant / Applicant may have misunderstood information provided to him / Claim dismissed.

Towing / Applicant had his car towed from the Respondent’s carpark / Applicant said he worked for a business in the building next to the carpark / Applicant also said there was no signage in his parking space indicating that it was not a public carpark nor any signage he would be towed / Respondent stated that a private carpark did not need signage but provided photos of the parking area showing no parking signs / No signage specifically painted in the space Applicant had parked in / Applicant sought a declaration that he was not liable for the towing fee of $396.55 / Held: carpark was not open and available to the public / Private carpark spaces do not require no parking signs / Clear that the parking spaces serviced a commercial buildings, so a reasonable person would be aware the spaces were not for the general public / $396.55 was a consistent rate compared to other towing companies / Applicant did not discharge the burden of proving his car should not have been towed or that the t…