Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased candles online from Respondent / Applicant stated candles were smudged and flattened near the bottom and not of the quality she expected / Applicant sought to return the candles and receive compensation of $127.00 / Respondent stood by the quality of the candles saying they were produced in beeswax and were formed within a mold / Respondent said she offered to exchange the candles but the offer was not accepted / Held: candles were of acceptable quality and fit for purpose / Clear to any buyer that that the candles were not hand-carved / No breach of guarantee / No right to refund / Claim dismissed.

Tort / Applicant alleged Respondent damaged Applicant's car while it was parked / Applicant and Respondent were colleagues who did not get on well / Applicant viewed security camera footage overlooking car from neighbouring business immediately after discovering damage and saw Respondent walking around car / Respondent said they were walking around car to inspect and feel scratches already on car / Applicant and insurer claim for costs of repairs / Held: Respondent caused damage to Applicant's car as Respondent was only person around car on relevant day, Respondent's behaviour inconsistent with just looking at car, behaviour consistent with damage caused, clearly carrying something more than just items Respondent said in evidence they were carrying / Damage to car repaired for cost of $4684 / Applicant liable to pay full cost / Claim allowed.

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.

Towing / Applicants parked their car in a GP practice parking area / After the appointment the car failed to start / No mechanic was able to attend to the car until later that evening / Car was towed that evening by the Respondent / Applicants paid $420.00 to release the car from the tow yard /  Applicant sought a refund of $420.00 towing fee / Applicants also claimed $580.00 for inconvenience and trauma as they believed the Respondent dealt with the situation unreasonably /  Held: Applicants were clearly in breach of the parking timeframes notified, albeit not intentionally / There were extenuating circumstances for the Applicants, but there were none from the Respondent’s point of view / Respondent was entitled to tow and acted both within their authority and reasonably in the circumstances known to them / Respondent not liable to either refund or compensate the Applicants for their misfortune in breaking down / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Building / Local Government Act 2002 / Applicant entered real estate sale and purchase agreement with Respondent / Agreement conditional upon title and the Applicant entered into an unconditional building contract with Respondent / Applicant received invoice from Council regarding Development Contribution / Applicant claimed Respondent liable for invoice / Held: Respondent liable to pay for Development Contribution / Intention of the parties for Respondent to provide Applicant with a fixed price contract / Delays put forward by Respondent reasonable / Compensation claim for delays dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $19,355.88 / Claim allowed.

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 / 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…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased an inflatable dinghy from the Respondent / Purchase was made via the Respondent’s website / Dinghy was advertised with a photo showing a dinghy with rowlocks / Dinghy was delivered but was not used straight-away due to weather issues / When the dinghy was first used it was discovered it had straps not rowlocks / Straps were not useable as rowlocks / Applicants contacted Respondent and were offered a $200 refund / Applicants sought a refund for the dinghy as they said without rowlocks it is not fit for purpose / Applicants also claimed that the dingy was sold to them under a mis-statement / Held: photo from the Respondent’s website clearly showed rowlocks which were not present on the purchased dinghy / Difference between the dinghy as depicted and the dinghy as delivered, was  a significance deviation from the description represented by the website photo / Respondent breached the guarantee under the legislation / Accept…

Property / Applicants and Respondents were friends and agreed to rent a house together / Friendship became strained / Parties agreed Applicants would leave and Respondents would stay on in the tenancy / Applicant said he paid the bond and was due to be refunded the full amount of $2,720.00 / Applicant also claimed for one week rent paid in advance, and to be refunded half share of a jointly purchased vacuum cleaner and a table / Held: Respondent agreed to pay Applicant half of what they paid for vacuum cleaner, being $118.73 / Respondent was happy for Applicant to collect table, but Applicant chose not to, therefore no award made for table / During hearing Applicant agreed no rent was due to him / Absent any written agreement that Applicant paid the full bond, Applicant failed to prove he was entitled to a greater share than half the bond / Applicants entitled to be refunded $1,360.00 for their portion of the bond and $118.73 for their share of the vacuum cleaner / Respondents ordered …

Contract / Applicant and her husband were unable to board an international flight with the Respondent airline / Applicant had checked in online and had no luggage to check in / Upon arrival at the airport, Applicant and her husband were advised that they had to print their boarding passes before proceeding beyond the security checks / They were advised that their boarding passes could not be printed and they would not be able to board the flight / Applicant was advised that they would need to rebook their flights / Applicant and her husband booked international flights for the following day / Applicant sought $1237.90 from for two one-way international flights ($834.90), one night’s accommodation ($295) and meals ($108) / Held: terms and conditions on the ticket and boarding passes were not sufficiently clear / Information provided by the Respondent was open to interpretation and not fit for purpose for customers like the Applicant / Respondent breached the contract by not allowing the…

Contract / Quasi contract / Property / Applicant and Respondent were flatmates / Applicant moved out of flat / Applicant refused to pay rent further than five weeks until Respondent found a new flatmate / Respondent reduced Applicant's bond / Applicant claimed rent and debt collector costs / Held: agreed in the flat that a flatmate remained liable to pay rent until a new flatmate was found / Therefore, Applicant obliged to pay all the rent until a new flatmate was found / Applicant's flatmates not liable to pay debt collection costs / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Unknown person set up accounts with the Respondent in the Applicant’s name / Person created the accounts using the Applicant’s passport details / Applicant was not aware of the accounts until he was contacted by a debt collection agency / Applicant disputed the debt on the grounds that he did not establish the accounts and did not receive any services from the Respondent / Respondent ultimately cancelled the invoice and the debt recovery action / Applicant sought compensation for travel and inconvenience relating to disputing the debt / Held: accepted that the Respondent owed the Applicant indirectly a duty of reasonable care and skill / However, Applicant failed to prove that the Respondent’s processes were inadequate or outside of the industry norms / Consumer law claim unsuccessful / Tribunal only had the jurisdiction to consider the claim on the consumer law basis / Claim dismissed.