Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Applicant's driver and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant claimed damages / Held: Respondent failed to give way, attempting to overtake Applicant's vehicle rather than slowing / Respondent's failure to follow road rules caused accident / Respondent liable for the damage to Applicant's vehicle / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted Respondent’s memorial company to supply two engraved headstones / Respondent’s Memorial company was sold to Second Respondent / Applicant was not given the opportunity to view headstones until day before unveiling / Name and family relationship were incorrect on headstones / Applicant complained but Second Respondent was not receptive to her concerns / Applicant arranged another stonemason and unveiling was postponed / Applicant sought cost of remedial work, travel costs associated with the cancellation of the unveiling, and compensation for hurt and humiliation / Held: unveiling was an important and emotionally difficult event for Applicant and her whanau / Applicant relied on the Second Respondent to do her job so the unveiling could be successful / Basic and inexcusable errors on the headstones showed a lack of care that was disrespectful and hurtful for Applicant / Second Respondent liable for $2,340.00 for remedial wor…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant entered into contract with Respondent for concept plans, development design, detailed design and managing building consents for extensions to their existing house / Respondent identified errors in Applicant's concept plan and did not accept other options given by Applicant / Respondent claimed for $3,771.54 unpaid invoice in carrying out concept plans / Held: standard of service and goods supplied by Respondent failed below that any reasonable person would believe was reasonably acceptable / Respondents entitled to cancel contract / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant’s boatshed slipaway damaged in a storm / Applicant lodged claim with Respondent / Applicant claimed Respondent breached policy by incorrectly interpreting terms / Respondent stated boat ramp falls within exclusion and is not covered by policy / Held: Respondent correctly decided that slipway damage is not covered under Applicant’s policy / No breach of contract / Applicant not entitled to compensation / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants engaged Respondents to provide housekeeping for their apartment which was rented out for short stays / Applicants claimed $963.98 in damages for poor quality of service, replacement bedding and breaches of contract / Held: Respondents contracted to provide cleaning service to hotel standard / Respondents accepted some of the cleaning was substandard / Evidence accepted that six of eleven cleans were substandard / Deduction of $240 for cleans ordered / Bedding likely inadvertently removed, $64.98 reasonable claim to replace them /  Respondents accepted a booking at lower rate without authority / Proven that Applicants lost revenue as result of lower rate / Applicants entitled to $350.00 / Applicants booked seven cleans which were all accepted and later cancelled by Respondents / Applicants unable to get cleans at same price elsewhere / Respondents must pay Applicants $864.98 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased tickets to an outdoor concert / Concert was postponed to a later date due to weather / Applicant unable to attend new concert date / Respondent declined to refund as contingency rain date had been included in the terms and conditions / Applicant claimed $1,528.70 for tickets and time spent trying to resolve matter / Held: decision to postpone was reasonable due to forecast / Not been a failure to meet guarantee under the legislation / Applicant not entitled to a refund / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant claimed cost of repair work it carried out for a client insured by Respondent / Respondent claimed it had paid sum owing / Respondent paid money to a different bank account not owned by Applicant / Applicant claimed email account hacked / Held: evidence provided does not establish who committed fraud / Not established that Applicant's conduct disentitled it to payment due by Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $9,402.77 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicants booked holiday accommodation with Respondents / Applicants believed property would be studio room with TV and oven but on arrival discovered property was stand-alone cabin, had no TV, only a hob and was very cold / Applicants declined to stay at property / Applicants sought full refund but offered to pay for one night’s accommodation only / Applicant sought $588.00 / Respondent denied property was misrepresented and referred to terms and conditions regarding cancellations / Held: insufficient evidence to establish that accommodation was misrepresented / Applicants not entitled to refund having cancelled accommodation contract less than 15 days before booking date / Applicants entitled to refund of cleaning fee paid in advance given Respondent’s admission that no cleaning costs were incurred / Respondent ordered to pay $50.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a rug for her living room / Few months later Applicant noticed rug was fading badly / Respondent inspected rug / Respondent concluded rug was not faulty and fading was due to strong UV light from windows / Applicant sought a refund of $3,718.61 / Held: common use for a rug to be placed in a living room / Nothing indicated rug was exposed to excessive UV light / Rug was not of acceptable quality / Respondent ordered to pay $3,718.61 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Large tree fell from Respondents’' property into Applicant's property / Applicant's insurance policy paid out on the damage and removal of tree from damaged property / Applicant claims cost of remainder being removed, repairs to uninsured car, and kauri tree replacement / Whether Respondents negligent in the care of the tree / Insufficient evidence that Respondents' were negligent in the care of the tree / Claims fail as a result / Claim dismissed

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought electric scooter from Second Respondent / Applicant brought electric scooter to First Respondent for repairs / First Respondent seized scooter as it said it were the lawful owner / Scooter had been fraudulently bought before reselling it to Applicant / Applicant claimed for refund of purchase price / Held: Second Respondent not the lawful owner of scooter and had no right to sell it / Second Respondent breached implied condition of sale and Applicant unable to enjoy quiet possession / Claim against First Respondent withdrawn / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,000 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant moved into flat and signed flat sharing agreement / Respondent was head tenant / When Applicant moved out, there was a dispute about what he owed for bills / Applicant claimed Respondent initially offered to refund $764.90 from $1000.00 bond, retaining the rest to cover bills / Applicant claimed after he disputed bill calculation, Respondent additionally claimed half of rent for empty room for six weeks, $810.00 / None of the bond was refunded due to dispute / Respondent counter-claimed $251.52 as per the flat sharing agreement /  Held: Applicant not entitled to pay additional rent as it was claimed retrospectively  / Respondent entitled to $363.56 for shared flat bills / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant remaining $636.44 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased second-hand digger from Respondent for $6,500.00 / Respondent claimed it had been serviced regularly / After purchase, Applicant arranged for mechanic to inspect / Several defects found and costs for servicing came to $6354.30 / Applicant claimed $5,000.00 towards repair costs as digger was not in reasonable working order and Respondent misrepresented it at time of sale / Applicant claimed digger’s value should have been $1,500.00 / Respondent claimed his comments about condition of digger were made honestly / Held: Applicant entitled to some compensation as digger not as described by Respondent / Work done by mechanic was extensive and considerably improved digger, which was old when Applicant brought it / Applicant’s decision to spend $6,534.30 on repairing machine, known to be old and well used, that was purchased for $6,500.00 questionable / Applicant has not provided any objective evidence th…