Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Trespass / Contract / Land Transport Act 1998 / Vehicle registered in Applicant's name parked in private carpark without authority / Respondent sent Applicant a breach notice which Applicant disputed and asked for evidence proving breach / Respondent said registered owner of vehicle liable per New Zealand Transport Authority and provided one photo that did not evidence illegal parking / Applicant said lack of contract with Respondent meant Applicant had no liability / Respondent lodged debt for collection with debt collection agency and Applicant filed claim with Tribunal / Applicant claimed for order that she is not liable to pay Respondent for breach notice, collection costs and sought reimbursement of filing fee / Respondent counterclaimed for payment of breach notice, collection costs and interest / Held: Applicant is not liable for breach fee as she was not driving vehicle at the time / No provisions applicable in tort that mean a registered owner can be liable for another's tresp…

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.

Contract / Bailment / Applicant loaned First Respondent his car while overseas / Both the Applicant and First Respondent were on learner licenses / Second Respondent, First Respondent’s father, disabled the car out of concern that First Respondent was driving illegally / Applicant instructed First Respondent to return the car / After returning from overseas, Applicant discovered damage to the car and sought $11,098.75 from the Respondents’ for repairs and loss of wages / Held: front bumper and radiator support were damaged while the car was in First Respondent’s care / First Respondent must pay Applicant $2,120.25 for repairs and $400, agreed price for loan of the car / Applicant’s claim for loss of wages denied as he could have found an alternative way to get to work / Second Respondent not liable for any of the damage / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a spa from Respondent for $11,995 / Four years later, a fault occurred with the spa and it stopped heating the water / Applicant contacted Respondent for repairs and was advised the spa was no longer under warranty and a $150 charge would apply for a technician inspection / Technician advised that the circulation pump needed to be replaced and would not be covered under warranty / Applicant paid $189 for the circulation pump and a further $149.99 for installation / Applicant claimed for the technician’s inspection fee, circulation pump and the installation cost amounting to $488.99 / Held: evidence suggested fault with spa may have been caused by improper water management by the Applicant / Spa found to be of acceptable quality / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Applicant a former member of Respondent Incorporated Association / Applicant dissatisfied with Association and was expelled after a series of complaints / Applicant claimed recovery of membership and other costs / Held: not misleading to claim Respondent is New Zealand's leading professional association for practitioners / Professional not an adjective to describe how association will conduct itself / Applicant unsuccessful in claiming Respondent's services were not of proper quality / Applicant not entitled to refund of membership fees / Applicant used a number of services whilst a member / Applicant not entitled to refund of conference fee / Applicant had programme prior to attending so he was aware of the conference content / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Dog Control Act 1996 / Applicant and Respondent were neighbours / Applicant’s dog was attacked by a dog that came onto Applicant’s property / Dog belonged to the Respondent’s grandson / Applicant’s dog was injured in the attack and required vet treatment / Respondent’s grandson paid vet costs / Afterwards, Respondent installed a electric dog containment system / Applicant’s dog was attacked again by the same canine on the Applicant’s property / Attack dog was not wearing the containment collar / Applicant’s dog required vet treatment / Applicant sought $832.30 vet costs from Respondent / Held: Respondent was the registered owner of the dog when the second attack occurred / Attack dog did not have the containment collar on when the incident happened / Reasonable to infer lack of reasonable care by Respondent when the incident occurred/ Respondent legally liable for the Applicant’s dog’s injuries / Respondent ordered to pay $832.30 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased spa pool from Applicant in 2017 / In December 2023 a technician came to look at a fault with the spa heater and discovered the frame of the spa was entirely rotten / Applicant claimed $10,463.00 being the cost to replace the spa / Respondent stated the rot was caused by flooding in the area / Held: no evidence of flooding that would cause that kind of damage / Failure was of substantial character as the pool should be able to withstand exposure to rain and splashes / Spa pool was halfway through its expected lifespan / Compensation should take into consideration depreciation / Respondent ordered to pay $5,000.00 / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Applicant and Respondent had arrangement where Respondent would subcontract Applicant to do work on its behalf / Parties had established payment arrangements where Respondent would make payment upon receipt of invoice from Applicant / Applicant issued invoice to Respondent which Applicant said Respondent had not paid / Respondent said they were not liable as they paid business belonging to Applicant's former employee who had directed them to do so / Applicant claimed for payment of invoice worth $19, 875.67 / Held: Respondent breached obligation to pay Applicant / Respondent deviated from payment arrangements in place between parties without notice to Applicant and Applicant did not receive payment / Respondents failed to exercise sufficient commercial caution or care in accepting instructions from Applicant's former employee about invoicing matters / Respondents did pay money but it has not paid Applicant's invoice in line with contractual arrangements and did not question …

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to attend to faulty hot water cylinder / Applicant attended site and conducted tests / Applicant requested invoice payment before carrying out further work / Respondent declined payment and found another electrician / Applicant claimed payment of invoice / Held: Applicant engaged to address hot water issues / Applicant obligated to pay particular attention to safety and diagnose issue accurately / Applicant carried work with reasonable care and skill even if it did not fix the problem / Respondent liable to pay Applicant $308.04 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Vehicle collision / Applicant claimed Respondent came into her lane and collided with Applicant / Respondent stated he was not the driver of the vehicle at time of collision / Respondent provided evidence that he was on other side of town when collision occurred / Respondent stated he was not person in photo that Applicant took / Applicant claimed vehicle repair costs / Held: cannot be determined whether Respondent was the driver involved in the collision / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant changed booked flights with Respondent airline and had to pay a change fee / Applicant sought a refund of the amount paid for the change being the difference between what he paid and what he thought he was going to pay / Held: change fee was clearly indicated / Number of steps had to be taken before a customer committed to paying for the flight /  When customer paid for the cost of change, the customer was in fact accepting the change fee being paid / Applicant did not pay sufficient attention to the costs for the change when he was making it / Applicant not entitled to a refund / Claim dismissed.

Property law / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondents owned adjoining rural properties / Boundary fence between properties had sustained damage and required repairs / Parties agreed Applicant would provide materials for repair and Respondents would undertake the repairs / Due to delays, Applicant felt it was necessary to hire a contractor to complete the work / Applicant claimed $3,783.48 for half the cost of the contractor  / Held: agreement between parties ended when Applicant engaged a contractor without proper notice to the Respondents / Proper notice under the Fencing Act 1978 was not given therefore Respondent had no obligation to contribute towards costs / Claim dismissed.

Building contracts / Negligence / Building Act 2004 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants entered residential building contract with Respondent for construction of a house / First Respondent subcontracted driveway and path construction to Second Respondent / Applicants noticed issues with concrete upon moving in / Independent report commissioned by First Respondent found issues with driveway and path / Applicants claimed $30,000 for cost of replacing driveway and path / First Respondent counterclaimed a contribution of $20,000 from Second Respondent / Held: driveway, path and slab did not meet statutory warrants implied in residential building contracts / Respondents accepted  that statutory warranties not met and replacements for driveway, path and slab required / Respondents not liable for replacement cost of vehicle crossing as issues were largely aesthetic but liable for cost of lost amenity in respect of the crossing / Second Respondent liable to Applicants in negligence for…