Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant had insurance with his bank, underwritten by the Respondent / Applicant believed he had roadside assistance cover / Applicant called roadside assist when his campervan wouldn’t start / Applicant was advised that because the campervan was over 3000kg it would not be covered by the policy / Applicant arranged a tow at his own expense costing $700 / Applicant believed he had been sold a policy that was wrong for his vehicle and could not be used / Applicant claimed $700 / Held: No evidence was presented by Applicant to suggest he had been sold a policy that included Roadside Assist, or that he had been charged premiums that included Roadside Assist / As Applicant did not take out an insurance policy with Roadside Assist cover for this vehicle, and as he did not pay premiums for Roadside Assist, Respondent has no obligation under the contract of insurance to pay for the cost of the tow / Claim dismissed.

Disputes-Tribunal-Advertisement-Nelson.pdf

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to make dentures / Applicant was unhappy with the result / Applicant claimed $4000.00 as she believed the dentures were not fit for purpose / Applicant took her complaint to the Dental Council who concluded that the practitioner followed appropriate procedures and gave appropriate care / Applicant failed to engage with follow up care appointments / Respondent stated they should have been given the opportunity to try and alter the dentures to make them fit / Held: services provided by Respondent were carried out with reasonable care and skill / Dentures were reasonably fit for purpose / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant's employee drove car Applicant owned and had crash with Respondent / Applicant's employee turned left out of driveway and drove up street / Respondent stopped at stop sign on side road intersecting with road Applicant's employee was on / Respondent said Applicant's car was indicating left but she changed her mind halfway through turn causing crash / Respondent said he was stationary when collision occurred / Applicant's insurer held Respondent liable but Respondent refused to pay / Applicant's insurer claimed for damages of $18,119.50 for breach of driver's duty of care / Held: Respondent breached duty of care by failing to wait at stop sign until road was clear and not checking for other road users before entering intersection / Respondent should have been more careful even if Applicant's employee was indicating as she was entitled to right of way / Damage to Applicant's car not consistent with Respondent's version of events / Amount written off vehicle obtained…

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were drinking at a mutual friend’s house / Applicant went home and left his vehicle and its key at the friend’s house / Respondent later advised Applicant he had driven the vehicle and damaged it / Applicant claimed for repair costs / Held: evidence indicated Respondent damaged Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent breached his duty of care by causing the damage / Applicant entitled to compensation for the reasonably foreseeable loss incurred as a result of Respondent’s breach / Valuation showed vehicle was worth $7,000.00 before the damage occurred / Cost of repairs quoted as $5,539.78 / Applicant sold vehicle in its damaged state for $1,500 / Deducting the sale price from the vehicle’s valuation meant Applicant incurred a loss of $5,500.00 / Applicant claimed to be compensated $4,999.95, that amount was less than the reasonably foreseeable loss incurred / Respondent ordered to pay $4,999.95 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant contracted Respondent to move her household goods for $1,710.00 / On the day of the move, a dispute arose regarding the manner in which the Applicant’s goods were handled / Police attempted to mediate the situation, and it was suggested that the Applicant pay only half of the contract price as a settlement / Respondent subsequently invoiced the Applicant for $850.00, which the Applicant paid / Applicant sought $18,642.00 from the Respondent for damages caused to the goods / Held: Respondent complied with the requirements set out in the Act / Claim was threfore statutorily barred / Applicant failed to prove her claim / Matter was settled with accepted discount / Substantive evidence was not obtained until months after the removal / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car advertised for sale online at a car yard operated by Respondent / Second Respondent showed car to Applicant but car advertised under Respondent's name / Second Respondent believed sale was private sale as they owned car / Broken engine mount identified 2 weeks after purchase and faulty transmission identified 6 weeks later / Respondent offered to look at car but Applicant had transmission replaced by another mechanic / Applicant claimed $6106.21 for mechanic, towing and replacement transmission / Held: Sale was represented to Applicant as being a sale by Respondent and so was not private sale / Car not of acceptable quality as cost and nature of repairs required were more significant than reasonable consumer would expect within 8 weeks of purchase / Failure was of substantial character as repairs cost two-thirds of purchase price / Costs claimed by Applicant were reasonable and were reasonably foreseeable losses from…

Contract / Building / Respondents contracted Applicant to build to two houses on Respondent's property / Disagreements at completion of building led to settlement agreement which required Respondents to pay $17,000.00 to Applicant to settle all claims / Respondents refused to pay agreed sum / Applicant claimed $17,000.00 for breach of contract / Respondents counterclaimed $25,000.00 for disagreements with Applicant and building work, delays in build / Respondents said they were blackmailed by Applicant's lawyer to sign agreement and it was not legally binding / Held: agreement was legally binding and required Respondents to pay $17,000.00 to Applicant / Respondents breached contract by refusing to pay agreed sum / Respondents ordered to pay $17,000.00 to Applicants / Agreement was full and final settlement so Respondents cannot claim against Applicants / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.  

Contract / Loan / Applicant’ son was in a long-term relationship with Respondent  / Couple separated in 2022 / In 2020, Applicant spoke with her son about lending money for his family home / Applicant loaned $40,000 in total, first loan of $10,000 and second of $30,000 / Applicant’s son made regular repayments to the Applicant until September 2022, when he left the family home and could no longer afford repayments / $7920 had been repaid, and since the separation, Applicant’s son had repaid a further $16,040.00 / Applicant sought remaining balance from Respondent, $16,040.00 / Held: Tribunal can only consider family loans in the context of contract law and not relationship property issues / Available facts point to Respondent not being a party to the agreement /  Respondent was not involved in any conversations with the Applicant about the loan / Loan amounts were paid by bank transfer to the Applicant’s son account /  Insufficient evidence to support Respondent being party to loan agr…

Consumer / Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicant bought a headstone from company formerly operated by Respondent and now operated by 2nd respondent / Issues with plaque quality following delivery delays / Applicant raised issues with company who made attempts to remedy the plaque / Applicant claimed refund of plaque cost and costs associated with Applicant's attempts to remediate plaque themselves / Held - Respondent not liable as contract formed after headstone business had been sold to 2nd Respondent and plaque not reasonably fit for purpose due to lopsided writing and grave bed not stablised / Also failure by 2nd respondent to ensure work done in agreed timeframe / 2nd respondent's actions amounted to failure of substantial character for purpose of remedies under Consumer Guarantees Act / Claim allowed.   

Consumer law / Transport / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased number plate from Respondent / Plate did not meet New Zealand Transport Agency acceptability criteria nor Respondents own criteria / Applicant sought refund from Respondent / Applicant refused to provide information in form requested by Respondent to process refund / Respondents provided refund after some delay / Applicant claimed $586.65 for fees, time spent resolving matter, and emotional distress / Held: Respondent did not breach legislation as they refunded Applicant in reasonable time / Respondent required information from Applicant in certain form to comply with anti-money laundering law / Applicant caused delay by refusing to provide requested information in correct form / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant signed commercial lease for premises to run her business / Building applicant leased a room which was sold to 3rd Respondents / 3rd Respondents did not renew lease when it ended / Applicant said electricity was not provided to the leased room and that she had not been able to run a business as intended / Applicant said she had oral agreement with previous landlord that she could renew lease / Applicant claimed for lost visitor admissions to her business, some equipment, and time invested in setting business up / Held: 3rd Respondents had not terminated lease unfairly as they did so in line with lease agreement / Verbal agreement with old landlord was unenforceable against 3rd Respondents, but as electricity bond was required prior to lease commencing, 3rd Respondents had breached lease by not providing electricity supply to leased premises / Applicant could not show Respondents had not allowed her to run business so Respondents did not breach lease in this regard /…

Contract / Property / Property Law Act 2007 / Applicants paid Respondent $10,000 for Respondent's restaurant / Applicant did not proceed purchase after discovering the restaurant was leasehold property / Applicant claimed return of deposit / Held: no enforceable contract for disposition of land / Contract was not in writing and was not signed / No binding contract and failure of consideration / Applicants entitled to refund of deposit / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $10,000 / Claim allowed.