Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Banking / Jurisdiction / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant was scammed by person who purported to be from investment bank / Applicant transferred money from her account to Respondent as she believed it was investment bank’s account / After scam, her bank recovered part of transfer / Applicant awarded compensation after Banking Ombudsman found her bank breached banking standards / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care and skill and sought to recover balance of loss / Held: Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear claim / Tribunal’s jurisdiction limited to contractual and property matters / Applicant did not have account or contract with Respondent / CGA applied to consumers who acquired goods or services from suppliers / Applicant did not acquire services or goods from Respondent / Claim struck out.    

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.

Negligence / Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA) / Applicant’s dog was running to toilet / Dog collided with Respondent’s ute on Applicant's driveway / Applicant’s claim Respondent was going too fast / Applicant claims $12,000 in vet bills / Held: drivers owe duty to drive with reasonable care and skill for the conditions / DCA states owner must keep dog under control at all times / Applicant’s dog was not under control at the time of collision / Not enough evidence to conclude that Respondent was going too fast / 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.

Civil / Vehicle collision / Insurance claim / Applicants through their insurance company sought compensation for vehicle repairs / Respondent claimed no collision occurred with their vehicle and that the Applicant’s van had pre-existing damage / Respondent submitted the van was improperly parked which impeded the Respondents view / Held: Respondent’s vehicle collided with the Applicant’s van causing damage to the van / Applicant’s employee parked the van in a way which amounted to contributory negligence / The cost of repairs is attributed 40% to the Applicant and 60% to the Respondent / Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $5,863.50 / Claim allowed in part. 

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $11,000 / Vehicle was collected from Respondent’s home and driven to Applicant / Vehicle blowing smoke 30 minutes after drive began / Applicant claimed refund of $11,000 / Held: it was private sale so implied guarantees under CGA did not apply / Applicant did not meet definition of consumer and Respondent did not meet definition of trader / In private sale buyer is responsible for checking quality and suitability of goods before purchase / Compensation available under CCLA if Respondent misrepresented vehicle’s condition / Respondent produced CCTV evidence vehicle was not blowing smoke when it left his home and when he drove to and returned from work / No misrepresentation as vehicle was functioning at time contract was formed / More likely that vehicle developed problem on way to Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract law / Applicant engaged by Respondent to report on water supply / Business relationship later expanded to water plant being installed, maintained and serviced by Applicant / Latest agreement not signed by parties / Applicant continued to service Respondent but Respondent refused to pay / Applicant claimed $30,000 / Held: contract was for ongoing service with opportunity for review not tender / No evidence Respondent re-negotiated terms or cancelled contract / Absent of variation or cancellation reasonable for Applicant to continue service per previous arrangement until different arrangement made / Applicant’s belief reinforced by Respondent’s continued jobs requests and invoices issued never queried / Interest clause became penalty if unconscionable or extravagant or detrimental on contract-breaker out of proportion to innocent party’s interest / Applicant’s interest rate of 10% would have been unconscionable but for Tribunal’s jurisdictional limit / Applicant’s interest claim…

Negligence / Dog Control Act 1996 / Applicant was driving in a 100km/h speed zone when two dogs owned by Respondent ran onto the road and collided with Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent admitted responsibility explaining he did not close his gate properly / Applicant’s insurer repaired Applicant’s vehicle and claimed compensation for the repair costs from Respondent / Held: Respondent breached his duty of care by failing to keep his dogs under control / Damage to Applicant’s vehicle was consistent with the collision / Repair costs were reasonable and properly evidenced / Respondent ordered to pay $7,175.40 to Applicant’s insurer / Claim allowed.

Contract / Settlement / Limitation Act 2010 / Applicant bought a house / Finance arranged by Respondent who was a mortgage broker / There were previous claims which had been settled / Applicant alleged that without authority, Respondent incorrectly fixed the mortgage on a 5-year rate amongst other concerns / Held: Applicant's husband had previously settled claim against Respondent's employer on a full and final basis / Previous settlement captures Applicant's claim / Reopening dispute was an abuse of process / Claim also time-barred / Claim dismissed.

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 ‘CGA’ / Applicant’s order groceries from Respondent / Contractor employed by Respondent delivered groceries / Contractor broke branch from a tree reversing out of Applicant’s driveway / Applicant’s stated that branch created unique arch effect over driveway / Applicant’s claim that property has lost value / Applicant claims $20,000 / Held: Contractor did not provide delivery service with reasonable skill and care / CGA states where there is failure to provide service with reasonable skill and care which cannot be remedied, consumer is entitled to damages for reduction in value of service and damages for any other losses that were reasonably foreseeable / Claim allowed / Respondent liable to pay Applicant $1,200. 

Contract law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA 2017) / Applicants purchased a vehicle from respondent / Six months later, police informed applicants the car was stolen and it was returned to its owners / Applicants contacted respondent for a refund, but did not receive a refund / Applicants claimed the purchase price of $17,800 from respondent / Held: Tribunal found respondent breached an implied condition under s 135(1)(a) of the CCLA 2017 / Respondent did not have the right to sell the stolen vehicle / Applicants entitled to rescind the contract and receive a full refund with interest on purchase price from date of sale / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $19,005.30 by 29 July 2025, Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant spoke to Respondent about landscape work / Applicant and Respondent agreed for work to be completed at $3,000 / Applicant claimed Respondent began work but never completed it / Applicant claimed refund of money paid / Held: Applicant entitled to cancel contract as Respondent repudiated contract / Applicant entitled to receive paid amount less total amount spent on work and materials / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $978.75 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants purchased a property after engaging respondent to conduct a pre-purchase inspection / Inspection was visual and non-invasive / Report noted the roof was “lasting well” and showed some signs of rust / After tenants vacated, Applicants discovered the roof was in state of disrepair and had to be replaced / Applicants claimed the inspection failed to adequately alert them to the roof’s poor condition and sought $29,440 for replacement costs / Held: inspection was carried out with reasonable care and skill, consistent with the limitations of a visual and non-invasive inspection / The report clearly stated its limitations and did not guarantee to identify all defects / No breach of the CGA by respondents / Claim dismissed.