Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Procedure / Applicant claimed $4,500 to be paid / Respondent avoided communication with Tribunal / Held: Respondent had opportunity to attend hearing and provide his side of story / Respondent agreed to pay Applicant and adjournment was to give Respondent 2 weeks to arrange a loan to pay Applicant in full / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,500 / Applicant will make vehicle available for Respondent to uplift when full sum $4,500 has been paid / Claim allowed.

Contract / Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 / Applicant supplied heritage services for a commercial property on behalf of then property owner / Archaeological remains discovered / Property then sold to Respondent / Applicant continued to work on property due to transfer of authority arrangement /  Number of Applicant’s invoices sent to Respondent were unpaid / Applicant sent interim report on findings / Respondent criticised report and contended work done was unnecessary and of limited value / Applicant claimed for unpaid invoices, $19,429.26 / Held: no evidence Respondent cancelled or purported to cancel the contract with Applicant / Respondent liable to pay Applicant’s charges for all work carried out / Applicant’s $1540.00 legal fees should be excluded from claim amount / Respondent ordered to pay $18,000.00 / Claim allowed.

Warranty / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Building Act 2004 / Applicants bought a retractable roof pergola from the Respondents / Applicants are concerned that the way the pergola has been attached to their home is structurally unsound / Applicants also concerned that the height of the pergola at one end does not meet their specifications / Applicants bring a claim against Respondents for a refund of their deposit, costs of removing the pergola and a declaration of non-liability for the balance owed / Held: Pergola not fit for purpose / Defect is of a substantial character / Applicants entitled to consequential losses / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $18,422.44.

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Respondent sold property to Applicant / Flood water runs off the property into the neighbouring property instead of the front of property / Applicant claimed $29,704.50 to remedy flooding / Held: work completed did not restore ground contour / Pooling not caused by lack of lawn maintenance / Top soil and hydroseeding and lawn maintenance alone could not fix problem / Approximate cost to remedy could be the done with three catchpits connected to the stormwater connection / Cost could be in or around the suggestion made by Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,000 / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a sewing machine / Sewing machine was damaged when received by Applicant / Respondent admitted liability for damage / Respondent slow to respond but provided replacement value / Applicant claimed $532.30, $468.90 for replacement cost of sewing machine and $63.40 Tribunal filing claim and preparation cost / Held: Respondent liable for replacement value of sewing machine /  Respondent’s response was slow but by a narrow margin did not meet definition of costs for unnecessarily prolonged delays in proceedings / Claim for costs dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay $468.90 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant contracted Respondent to supply aluminium joinery for the conversion of building structures / Applicant requested an electronic lock on one of the doors / Electronic lock was installed onto wrong door / Respondent offered to install lock on correct door / Applicant rejected this and seeks $2500 for third party to remove and correctly install lock / Respondent claims unpaid $649.37 / Held: Applicant had read and accepted quotation / Applicant has not been able to prove Respondent was responsible to double check quotation / Applicant ordered to pay $649.37 to Respondent.

Consumer law / Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant engaged Respondent moving company to move household to new town / Respondent’s website promised same-day or next-day delivery / On week of move, Respondent advised delivery would be 2 days after pick up / Applicant requested compensation for accommodation between pick up and delivery / Respondent offered $97 compensation / Applicant cancelled contract / Applicant claimed $997 deposit, $2,065.87 cost of alternative moving arrangements, $300 cost of storage, and $285 for fuel / Held: Applicant was not entitled to cancel contract, as Respondent had not cancelled or threatened to cancel service / Respondent did misrepresent its services, liable for some compensation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $300 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased saddle from Respondent / Respondent had not received payment from Applicant / Respondent redirected postage to a friend's address instead of Applicant's address / Applicant successfully claimed saddle after paying Respondent / Applicant claimed for refund of $61.50 courier fee / Held: expressed term of contract conducted through online platform for purchaser to pay for goods before they are delivered / Applicant breached fundamental term of agreement by failing to pay / Respondent entitled to direct courier to a different address / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants purchased house from Respondent / Applicants identified leak in kitchen roof / Respondent undertook to use ‘reasonable endeavours’ to repair leak prior to settlement, arranged plumber / Agreement went unconditional on basis of Respondent’s undertakings / Leaks continued, Respondent’s plumber did further repairs / Applicants requested $5000 price reduction / Respondent refused, claiming issue had been remedied / Water ingress issues continued, Applicants ultimately replaced roof at cost of $35,960.50 / Applicants claimed $30,000 towards cost of new roof / Held: Respondent’s undertaking was to take reasonable steps to fix leak in kitchen, not warranty that roof in good state of repair overall / Undertaking not broad enough to cover cost of replacing whole roof / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to replace concrete on shared neighbour driveway and carport areas / Contract price of $36,267.10 was agreed and 50% payment of $18,133.55 made / Respondent alleged Applicant caused several issues including inconsistent site attendance, use of residents’ tools, mess and holes, damaging internet fibre cable and poor levelling / Additionally, failure to lay steel reinforcing mesh in parts of driveway, contrary to contract / Applicant credited $2500.00 for absence of steel mesh and claimed balance of concrete price, $15,636.55 / Respondent claimed set-off to Applicant’s amount, based on breach of contract and failure of Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 guarantees for services / Held: Applicant breached contract and failed to provide driveway fit for Respondent’s purpose / Respondent’s entitlement to damages greater than outstanding invoice / Claim dismissed.

Contract law / Applicant engaged Respondent to maintain pool and put in new pool liner / Respondent delayed start of work / Pool damage discovered whilst Respondent worked on pool / Applicant claimed $30,000 for cost of a new pool due to Respondent’s actions / Respondent counterclaimed $2,217.80 for items ordered for cancelled pool job / Held: insufficient evidence to prove Respondent did not provide its services with reasonable care and skill / Pool likely to have been leaking before Respondent became involved with pool / Services by Respondent were not provided within a reasonable time but that failure would not have affected the outcome of the pool damage / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,100 / Applicant to return pump, lay flat hose and camlocks upon payment by Respondent / Claim dismissed / Counter-claimed dismissed.

Contract / Applicant arranged for Respondent to provide a quotation for house painting / Respondent sent a quote of $21,084.10 / Respondent requested a 50 percent deposit of quoted price to secure booking / Applicant paid deposit / Later, Applicant cancelled contract as she was concerned the Respondent was going to breach the contract and keep deposit / Applicant claimed refund of deposit / Held: no discussion or agreement regarding what would happen to deposit if contract was cancelled / Applicant pre-empted a potential breach of contract by Respondent / No clear evidence Respondent was going to breach the contract / Applicant not entitled to cancel contract or claim deposit refund / Outside hearing process, Applicant refunded Respondent $5,000.00, almost 50 percent of deposit / Claim resolved.