Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant parked vehicle in carpark to attend gym / Applicant parked in neighbouring business carpark rather than gym carpark / Respondent provided parking enforcement services / Respondent sent Applicant notice for $95.00, for parking in business carpark / Applicant contacted Respondent, appealed fee, claimed it was honest mistake / Respondent declined appeal saying vehicle was parked in front of sign identifying carpark owner, which was not gym / Subsequently, Respondent advised Applicant of additional costs, bringing total owing to $320.00 / Later Applicant received email from credit agency seeking $416.71 / Applicant disputed liability / Applicant sought declaration of non-liability for $416.71 / Respondent counterclaimed for $425.35 at hearing / Held: sign in business carpark indicated it was not gym’s carpark / Sign did not constitute offer / Sign indicated unauthorised drivers could incur a fine for parking there / Respondent not providing parking, not offering anythi…

Contract / Resource consent / Applicant, Respondent and third party hold resource consent for proposed driveway / Applicant claims cost of surveying, plumbing, and engineering design work for proposed driveway / Respondent denies liability for these sums on basis she has repeatedly informed Applicant she did not wish to proceed with construction of driveway / Held: signing resource consent application form and paying costs of application did not amount to entering contract to build shared driveway / expenses incurred by Applicant were incurred in situation where there was no reasonable expectation for Respondent to contribute / claim dismissed.

Contract / Limitation / Building Act 2004 / Limitation Act 1950 / Limitation Act 2010 / Applicants entered into a building contract with a previous iteration of the Respondent / Dispute over work done / Applicants ordered to pay $15,723.99 in a previous decision / Applicants claimed they should not have had to pay / Applicants claimed for money paid as well as interest, $30,000.00) / Held: Respondent did not assume any of the liabilities of previous company / Previous company had been removed from the Companies Register / Respondent not a party to the original contract / Claim was out of time under relevant legislation / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to auction her painting / Applicant believed painting was an original / Respondent believed it was a copy / Reserve price of $100.00 was set / Applicant observed the auction online / Respondent appeared to be shaking his head at one of the bidders / Painting sold for $250.00 / Applicant believed Respondent told the buyer not to bid as it was not an original / Applicant believed the painting should have fetched $2000.00 / Applicant claimed $1750.00 from Respondent / Whether Respondent failed to provide service with reasonable skill and care / Whether Respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct / Held: Applicant agreed to the reserve price / Respondent confirmed with the bidder that the painting had not been authenticated / Respondent acted with reasonable skill and care / No evidence of misleading or deceptive conduct by the Respondent / Applicant not proved any wrongdoing by the Respondent / Claim dismisse…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant booked international travel with the Respondent / First flight into their transition city arrived late / Outbound flight was overbooked and the Applicant's family were unable to board / No further flights for a few days so the Applicant's family opted to return home / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to carry out their job with reasonable care and skill / Applicant claimed communication was poor with the Respondent / Applicant claimed $18,000.00 in compensation / Held: Respondent was not responsible for the loss the Applicant suffered / Loss was caused by the airlines / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent was walking her dog down a street opposite the Applicant’s property / Applicant came out of her house with a larger dog than Respondent’s / Applicant leaned into her car to clear some items / Applicant heard someone shouting and saw Respondent’s dog lying on the footpath / Later the Applicant received a phone call from the Respondent saying her dog was at the vet and needed a MRI scan costing $5,000 / Respondent refused to pay for the dog's treatment / Applicant paid for the MRI / MRI revealed there was no sign of a dog bite and that condition could have been caused by other factors / Respondent paid for additional vet bills when informed the dog would otherwise be put down / Applicant claimed $6,000 for cost of vet bill / Held: parties came to an agreement to share vet costs before coming to the Tribunal / Agreement should not be disturbed / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant was parked in his car on the side of the road when he was hit by another car / Respondent then drove past and parked ahead of the Applicant / Applicant took a video of the damage to his own vehicle and noted damage on the Respondent's car / Respondent denied he hit the Applicant's car / Respondent also heard a crash and saw a white car speed past / Respondent stated there was no damage to his vehicle / Respondent claimed he pulled over as a witness, not because he was liable / Held: onus was on the Applicant to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused in the manner he described / Claim not proven to the required standard / Claim dismissed.

Bankruptcy / Applicant was declared bankrupt / Respondent kept charging Applicant accounting software fees despite Applicant ending her bankruptcy  / Applicant claimed being discharged of accounting fees after the end of her bankruptcy / Held : Applicant does not have to pay accounting software fees as Respondent had confirmed with Applicant that she did not have to pay accounting software fees at the end of her bankruptcy / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1990 / Civil Aviation Act 1990 / Applicant booked flights with the Respondent which connected with another flight onto their final destination / First flight delayed due to mechanical issues which meant they missed their connecting flight /  Applicant booked a new flight with Respondent / Upon arriving at the airport, Applicant advised their flight was cancelled and a new departure time was issued / Applicant claimed damages of $877.20 for the cost of rescheduled flights / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to provide services within a reasonable time / Held: delay was due to force majeure / Respondent could not have reasonably foreseen propeller system failure / No entitlement to damages due to delay / Claim dismissed.

Fraud / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent sent a quote email to Applicant for flooring with bank account for payment / Applicant replied and asked for a requote / Applicant received an email from a hacker impersonating the Respondent who provided her with an alternative bank account for payment / Applicant then paid $5,007.83 into the hacker account / Payment was discovered by the bank but could not be recovered / Applicant paid $5,007.84 to the flooring company and verified the bank account over the phone / Respondent installed the flooring but took the position that the Applicant still needed to pay the full amount / Applicant sought a declaration that she was not liable to pay the sum she paid to the hacker account / Held: Respondent should bear the risk of what happened / Businesses are in a better position than consumers to insure against the risk of hacker fraud / Applicant not liable to pay $5,007.83 / Claim granted.

Contract / Specific performance / Applicant won online auction to purchase sports car and several car parts from Respondent / Respondent believed there had been manipulation of auction process and did not release car or parts to Applicant / Applicant claims Respondent repudiated contract / Applicant claims for specific performance of contract / Held: Respondent repudiated contract / Applicant was willing buyer and Respondent did not make goods available to them / Held: Applicant entitled to car and parts / Held: in lieu of specific performance, Respondent to pay Applicant $30,000 / Claim upheld.

Contract/ Enforceability / Vexatious claim / Applicant parked their vehicle in car park owned by the respondent / Applicant was unable to get a ticket to authorise their parking / Applicant stayed in their car for 54 minutes / Applicant was issued with a parking ticket of $65.00, “plus further administration costs” / Applicant claimed there was no contract / Applicant claimed that the penalty was unenforceable / Respondent claimed that the claims of the applicant were vexatious or frivolous / Held: there was a contract between the applicant and the respondent as the applicant knew that there were conditions for parking in this location / Held: The penalty of the $65.00 “plus further administration costs” is enforceable to protect the respondents reasonable interests / Held: the applicant’s claim is not vexatious or frivolous as they genuinely believed they were being treated unfairly / Applicant to pay respondent a total of $127.50 / Claim dismissed