Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Property / Applicant and Respondent lived in different flats on same cross-lease development / Applicant claimed Respondent breached cross-lease by locking gate and restricting access to common path / Respondent claimed Applicant breached cross-lease by obstructing common driveway and behaving in threatening manner / Applicant claimed $100.00 being cost of filing fee and missing work to attend hearing / Held: both parties had some misunderstanding about their legal rights and obligations under the cross-lease / Tribunal does not have power to order a party do or not to a specific act / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant operated an art gallery / One of Respondent’s artworks was in Applicant's gallery / Respondent withdrew artwork and subsequently sold it / Applicant claimed $546.66 commission from sold artwork / Held: agreement was Applicant would receive 33% of commission if artwork was sold in gallery / No exhibition and artwork had been promoted by gallery / Respondent could remove artwork from the gallery and sell it / Respondent did not breach contract / Respondent not required to pay compensation / Applicant owed $520.00 from another commission / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $520.00 / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant's insurer claimed $13,614.39 / Held: Respondent responsible for collision / Costs claimed by Applicant were reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $13,614.39 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant contracted Respondent to provide property management services / Applicant alleged Respondent breached contract, claimed compensation for 28 days of lost rent plus repair costs / Held: Respondent was Applicant’s agent and allowed to make decisions about tenancy on Applicant’s behalf / Respondent did not sign up six occupants for new tenancy, error regarding number of occupants had been brought to Applicant’s attention / Respondent did not breach contract by increasing rent or signing tenants onto periodic tenancy / Respondent did allow departing tenants to leave without serving out notice, but Applicant would not have suffered loss if she did not cancel prospective tenants / Respondent not entitled to retain $549.98 in rent paid by previous tenant to cover advertising and letting fee, as they had told Applicant they would waive right to those amounts / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $549.98 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant entered into flatmate agreement with Respondent / Applicant paid $500 bond / Respondent repeatedly queried Applicant’s financial circumstances prior to offering him the room / Once Respondent was satisfied with Applicant as a suitable flatmate, she sent the agreement to Applicant / Applicant signed agreement and paid $500 bond /  Parties agreed that Applicant would pay $750.00 for rent in advance / Later, Respondent further enquired about Applicant’s financial circumstances / Parties argued and Respondent cancelled contract / Respondent refunded Applicant’s $750.00 but refused to refund bond / Held: Respondent entitled to decide who may share her home with her / Unreasonable for Respondent to enter into contract with Applicant, receive payments and then cancel the contract on previously known information / Respondent ordered to pay $510.22, $500 refund and statutory interest / Claim allowed.

Contract / Parties were flatmates / Respondent as head tenant asked Applicant to leave the flat and have room professionally cleaned due to drug use / Applicant vacated property but failed to have room cleaned / Applicant claimed for return of $721 bond / Respondent counterclaimed for costs of having Applicant’s room cleaned and for security cameras purchased in response to threats allegedly made by Applicant / Held: implied agreement between parties that if Applicant used drugs inside the property, they were required to pay for professional cleaning to remove drug residue / Applicant not liable for cost of security cameras / Applicant required to pay $531.30 for cleaning, entitled to remaining $189.70 of bond / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $189.70 / Claim and counterclaim partially allowed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were driving in same direction towards a roundabout / Applicant claimed Respondent crossed into her lane and hit her car, causing damage / Respondent recalled incident differently, and did not think cars collided / Applicant did not pull over after incident, so Respondent was unable to verify if Applicant’s car was damaged / Respondent’s car was not damaged / Applicant and her insurer claimed $2,081.50 to repair damage to Applicant’s car / Held: impossible to know what version of events was correct / Insufficient evidence to prove Respondent crossed into Applicant’s lane and damaged Applicant’s car / Respondent was having a driving lesson under guidance of experienced driver at the time / Unlikely this type of mistake would have been made in such circumstance / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant owned grocery shop / Respondent provided merchant card services to Applicant which allowed Applicant's customers to pay for goods using credit cards / Person using Applicant's click and collect service fraudulently and bought groceries using a credit card and  picked up groceries from Applicant / Customer whose card was used notified Respondent / Respondent reversed transaction from Applicant's account back to customer / Applicant claimed $691.29 to be returned to their account / Held: Applicant not entitled to compensation / Terms and conditions required Applicant to bear cost / Respondent not liable to refund money as it was in accordance with contract with Applicant / Terms of contract not harsh or unconscionable / Claim dismissed.

Tort / Duty of care / Respondent lost control of his vehicle causing damage to Applicant's fence / Applicant claimed $7,832.96 for replacement / Respondent disputed that his vehicle caused the damage / Held: more likely than not that the Respondent caused damage to the fence / Respondent cannot be liable for whole replacement cost as the fence was 30 years old and had a noticeable lean before the accident / Respondent ordered to pay reasonable costs of repair $1968.16 / Claim granted in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants booked a ferry trip with Respondent’s company / The ferry had technical issues and a rescheduled trip was booked with another ferry / Applicants sought compensation from Respondents for the rebooking fees of $660 / Held: first booking cancelled was not a result of Respondent providing services without reasonable care and skill / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Contributory Negligence Act 1947 / Applicant rented a container in Respondent's storage yard / Respondent disposed Applicant's poles and other items / Applicant claimed $7,788.00 from Respondent / Held: cost to replace poles was $5,288.00 / Applicant unable to prove Respondent failed to take reasonable care resulting in damage to Applicant's vehicle / Not considered whether Applicant's actions contributed to vehicle damage / Applicant's actions contributed to loss of poles / Damages reduced by 75 percent / Respondent entitled to set-off outstanding rent arrears but not damage to locks / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,172.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant parked in a carpark monitored by the Respondent / Applicant received $160 parking ticket for unauthorised parking / Applicant sought declaration of non-liability for amount of parking ticket and Tribunal filing fee / Held: Applicant breached terms and conditions of car park / Signage of terms of conditions were clear and visible to users of carpark / Applicant accepted Respondent’s terms when she decided to park in the Respondent’s carpark / Applicant ordered to pay $160 parking ticket / Applicant cannot claim filing fee / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant booked rental car with First Respondent using Second Respondent’s website, paid $18.02 deposit / When collecting car, Applicant was advised by First Respondent of $150 surcharge due to Applicant’s age / Applicant refused to pay surcharge as it had not been advised at time of booking, sought refund of deposit / Refund initially refused, but later paid after claim filed / Applicant sought $90 for Tribunal filing fee and $2500 damages for stress and inconvenience / Held: Second Respondent misled Applicant as to price of rental car, breaching FTA / First Respondent was not responsible for content on website, so had not breached FTA / First Respondent failed to provide customer service with reasonable care and skill, breaching CGA / Immediate loss suffered by Applicant was $18.02, which had been refunded / No further compensation payable / Claim dismissed.