Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought vintage motorcycle from Respondent through online / Applicant claims $8,200 refund due to significant poor condition of motorcycle / Held: motorcycle is not of acceptable quality and there has been a failure to meet the guarantee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,200 / Respondent ordered to collect motorcycle at his own expense / Claim allowed.

Insurance / Applicant and Respondent involved in motor vehicle collision / Settlement of costs delayed because of questions around ownership of Applicant's vehicle / Applicant proven as the owner / Vehicle went missing from Respondent's house / Applicant claims $4,990 which is the amount paid for the car as she suffered total loss / Held: applicant bears loss of ability to sell the wreck for $650 / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,350 / Claim partially allowed.

Contract / Consumers Guarantee Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondents to replace roof and install skylights / On-site related issues resulted from a storm which prompted inspection / As a result of the inspection findings Applicant held remaining payment to Respondent / Applicant claims $30,000 for replacement of skylights and flashings / Held: some elements of Respondent’s work not carried out with reasonable skill and care / Parts of roof not fit for purpose / Applicant’s entitled to some remedial costs / Counter claim is offset against Applicant’s costs of bringing claim to tribunal / Applicant to pay Respondent $9739.13.

Lack of jurisdiction / Applicant water blasting at third party’s property / Respondent called third party alleging unsafe work practice happening / Applicant claims losses resulting from actions taken by third party following call from Respondent / Held: Applicants have no legal basis for claim / Matter struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant carried out renovations for Respondent / Applicant and Respondent never had written contract / Renovations carried out / Respondent did not pay for renovations / Applicant claimed $1,769.40 for completed work / Respondent claimed Applicant’s representatives misrepresented contract / Held: Applicant misled Respondent about nature of contract / Not found to be intentional / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought television from Respondent and paid 50% deposit / Respondent failed to deliver within reasonable 14-16 weeks estimated delivery time / Applicant claims refund of $4,262 deposit / Held: applicant can reject unit and obtain refund as unit not delivered within reasonable time / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,262 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent was contracted to clean Applicants rental property / Applicant claims cleaning was not completed to an acceptable standard / Applicant claimed full refund / Held: reasonable care and skill must be taken when providing a service / Respondent has not cleaned with reasonable care and skill / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $128.50 / Filing fee claim dismissed.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant's car went into limp mode and was towed to Respondent for diagnosis and repair / Respondent ordered to replace all six fuel injectors / Vehicle went into limp mode again and was taken to a different repair shop where Applicant was advised that it is unusual for all six fuel injectors to be replaced / Applicant claims refund of four injectors / Held: no evidence given by Applicant that replacing all six fuel injectors was wrong / Claim dismissed.

Building Act 2004 / Applicant purchased property from Respondent to build new home / Applicant noticed defects in house prior to settlement and these were not remedied by Respondent to Applicant's satisfaction / Applicant claims $30,000 for the cost of repair / Held: Building contractor must remedy defects they are notified of within a reasonable time / Some defects claimed by Applicant were within acceptable tolerance within MBIE Guide / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $18,400 / Claim partially allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car in parts from Respondent / Applicant engaged Respondent to do chroming work on some parts and paid $3,925.10 / Applicant unhappy with work carried out and seeks refund / Respondent counterclaimed $2,860.55 for storage and freight / Held: expert evidence provides Respondent did carried out work with reasonable care and skill / Applicant not entitled to refund / Claim dismissed / Counterclaim withdrawn.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased HRV system and installation from Respondent / Applicant reported three different faults to Respondent  / Respondent remedied first two faults and booked technician to remedy third fault / Applicant subsequently cancelled appointment and requested Respondent to replace entire system or remove it and refund cost / Respondent offered to replace entire system but Applicant rejected offer and requested refund / Respondent rejected refund / Applicant claimed $4,800.00 from Respondent / Held: failure to comply with acceptable quality guarantee not substantial / Applicant not entitled to reject system and obtain refund / Claim dismissed.

Nuisance / Applicant engaged Respondent company to cut down trees at his holiday home / On returning to his property four months later he discovered damage to his water tank / Applicant claimed Respondent caused the damage / Failure to remedy damage in a reasonable time meant the tank suffered more damage and needed to be replaced / Applicant claimed $10,000.00 to replace the tank / Held: Applicant can provide no evidence that Respondent caused original damage / Respondent can therefore not be liable for the cost of replacing the tank / Claim dismissed.

Application for leave to appeal - s162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Issue was whether Applicant suffered medical misadventure. Insufficient grounds established to sustain application for leave to appeal. Not established judge had made error of law. Outcome: appeal dismissed.