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.

Contract law / Applicants engaged Respondent to install concrete pool surround and patio for $34,348.49 / Applicants paid $17,174.25 but dispute outstanding balance of $16,481.02 / Applicants claim alleged work not completed with reasonable care and skill and sought declaration of non-liability for outstanding invoices from Respondent / Respondent sought payment of outstanding invoices / Held: work on pool was completed with reasonable care and skill / Product recommended was appropriate for pool condition and budget but Respondent failed to clearly communicate its likely aesthetic limitations / Referee accepted Applicants were inadequately warned about visual risks of cutting coping edge / No structural defect and cost of a full redo of the pool was disproportionate to loss Applicant’s suffered / Applicants awarded 20% discount for loss of amenity plus prior credit of $602.80 / Applicants ordered to pay Respondent $9,008.52 / Claim accepted in part.

Contract Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant and family booked flights with two separate airlines  / First set of tickets from Respondent with international stopovers and second set of tickets with another airline / Respondent initially refused to check them in because Applicant’s passport expired in less than six months / They missed connecting flights and Applicant had to book alternative flights / Applicant claimed Respondent wrongly denied them boarding and sought $30,000 / Held: Respondent acted correctly by denying Applicant to board but incorrectly by not boarding his family / Applicant’s flights with Respondent ended at country which required passports to be valid for minimum six months / Applicant did not meet legal conditions for entry so Respondent not liable for his costs / Respondent failed to act with reasonable skill and care by not boarding family / No issues with family's passports so should have so should have boarded them / Respondent liable to pay replace…

Consumer law / Applicant bought two appliances from Respondent but only received one / Appliance delivered to gate was missing / Applicant claimed $518.96 for non-delivery of washing machine / Held: door to door delivery means delivery to property not delivery to doorstep / Respondent provided photo which showed appliance on property and shadow of person who occupied premise / Driver was unable to enter due to dogs on premise but was instructed by occupant to leave at gate / Delivery was accepted by occupant and left within the property boundaries / Respondent not responsible that item later stolen / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 993 / Applicant's solar power system's inverter failed due to electrical fault / System was supplied and installed by another company / Applicant claimed system underperformed and she experienced sudden battery drain and inverter shutdown / Applicant claimed $29,500 refund for various costs and compensation for stress / Held: Respondent only provided inverter and cable box as instructed by Applicant's insurer and was not responsible for overall performance of the system / Respondent had no legal responsibility for the cable failure / Respondent not contracted to supply and did not supply a solar power system to Applicant / Respondent did not breach any legal duty owed to Applicant / Respondent not liable to pay any costs or losses / Claim dismissed.

Transport / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA) / Applicant parked in a parking space at a shopping centre / Applicant returned to a $65 parking fee from the Respondent parking company / Applicant disputed the fee / Applicant sought a declaration of non-liability for the $65 parking fee and $1000 damages / Respondent reversed parking fee but Applicant continued in his claim for damages / Held: LTA was not relevant to the issuing of the parking enforcement notice / Parking notice unlikely to lead a reasonable person to conclude the Respondent was attempting to portray itself as having legal status it did not possess / Difficult to see how the Respondent’s parking notice, which was later waiver, amounted to recognised loss or harm to Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Lack of jurisdiction / Contract / Insurance / Applicant has health insurance policy with Respondent / Applicant sought medical advice for skin condition with a doctor who is not an affiliated provider with Respondent / Applicant claimed reimbursement under insurance policy / Held: beyond power of Disputes Tribunal to consider or make orders in respect of business practices or policies / Respondent consistently communicated that cover was not available for any visit to a doctor who was not an affiliated provider / Claim dismissed.

Property / Applicant was in relationship with Respondent / Applicant moved into Respondent’s home and with permission placed shed on land / Relationship subsequently ended and dispute arose over shed ownership / Applicant claimed return of shed or payment of $10,000 / Held: Applicant owned the shed which was not gifted to Respondent or abandoned / Applicant was sole financial contributor to purchase of shed / Respondent had some involvement but insufficient to establish ownership rights / Shed not gifted to Respondent as Applicant retained set of keys / Five months not enough to establish abandonment / Respondent’s contributions to building and upkeeping shed recognised as $1,000 / Applicant to collect shed and pay Respondent $1000 / If not collected, shed deemed abandoned and ownership passes to Respondent / If Respondent does not allow Applicant to collect shed, payment of $7,885.99 required / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant booked Respondent's Hotel / Due to heavy rain, severe landslips closed road enroute to Respondent's Hotel / Applicant sought alternative accommodation and was advised by Respondent that the night's stay would be credited / Applicant received partial refund of $122 / Applicant claimed full refund / Held: policy was that refunds would be made where cancellations were made more than 24 hours before check in / Applicant cancelled more that 24 hours before check in / Applicant entitled to full refund / Respondent ordered to refund remaining $122 to Applicant / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to refurbish vehicle’s engine and to replace cylinder / Vehicle travelled less than 3,000km and engine failed / Applicant claimed refund of repair costs of $4,241.20 / Held: Applicant unable to prove Respondent breached reasonable care and skill obligations / Applicant failed to prove cylinder was not replaced / Respondent’s evidence of parts invoice which contained new cylinder head preferred over Respondent’s mechanic who only had cursory inspection of engine / Engine failure may be due to faulty radiator which Applicant refused to replace / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants ordered furniture after viewing them at Respondent’s showroom / Upon delivery Applicants noticed furniture branded with manufacturer’s logo and name / Applicants claimed branding not on furniture they viewed and Respondent did not advise branding will be on them / Applicants claimed return of furniture and refund of $2,261 / Held: Respondent breached the CGA as furniture delivered to Applicants did not match sample they saw in showroom / As it was failure of substantial character Applicants entitled to refund / Respondent to pay Applicants $2,261 and uplift furniture at its own cost / Claim allowed.   

Contract /Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent engaged Applicant to design structural engineering requirements for extension to home / Applicant provided written agreement with estimated prices to Respondent which later increased due to design changes / Applicant issued two invoices which Respondent disputed as they were only willing to pay for work originally quoted / Applicant claimed payment of invoices plus interest / Held: Respondent changed scope of work which increased structural design work / The initial estimate was not fixed price contract until project requirements were more firmly established / Insufficient evidence Applicant breached contract by failing to provide services within reasonable time / Respondent never raised delay concerns with Applicant / CGA not breached as Applicant never briefed to design most cost effective solution but to incorporate Respondent’s preferences / Applicant did not breach agreement so Respond…

Tort / Trespass / Applicant and Respondent own neighbouring properties / Respondent wanted to remove large hedge growing between properties / Applicant claimed that Respondent scraped topsoil from Applicant's land in the process of removing the hedge / Applicant claimed compensation of $879.75 for cost to replace topsoil and remediate strip of land behind garage / Held: Respondents unintentionally damaged Applicants' property when they removed the topsoil / Respondent aware of their obligation to remediate damage / Applicant entitled to have their land reinstated to same condition it was before Respondents removed the hedge / Respondents ordered to pay Applicants $879.75 / Claim allowed.