Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Respondent collided with Applicant’s car / Applicant and insurer claimed Respondent was liable as they negligently pulled into turn-only lane without ensuring manoeuvre could be carried out safely / Respondent claimed they had right of way and Applicant was speeding / Held: Respondent was liable for collision as Applicant had right of way / Respondent failed to prove Applicant was speeding or driving unreasonably / Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $10,507.46 for damage / Applicant’s insurer to refund Applicant $400 insurance excess / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent undertook gas fitting and plumbing work at Applicant's premises / Applicant alleged work done by Respondent not done with reasonable care and skill and resulting in products not fit for purpose / Applicant alleged Respondent breached terms of contract causing its loss / Applicant claimed $1,999 / Held: Applicant not a consumer under the CGA / CGA does not apply / Applicant failed to prove it is more likely than not that the Respondent failed to provide services in a reasonable and tradesperson-like manner / Lack of evidence from Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant provided building services to Respondent / Quote was based on plans, which showed area of 90 square metres / Respondent made progress payments, but withheld final 20% / Respondent stated build area only 70 square metres, sought reduction of invoiced amount / Applicant claimed for outstanding invoice, agreed to offer credit of $6480 plus GST for some incomplete work / Held: Respondent failed to provide evidence that area shown in plan incorrect / No basis on which to reduce amount invoiced for reduced area / Credit offered by Applicant fair and reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $28,527.68 / Claim allowed.  

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent listed bike for sale / Bike described as in mint condition / After buying Applicant discovered issues with the bike's condition / Respondent originally agreed to take bike back but then stopped replying to the Applicant / Applicant claimed $951.13 for repair costs / Held: Applicant induced into contract by false statements regarding bike’s condition / Applicant liable for damages as if it were a term of contract that bike be in represented condition / Respondent ordered to pay $951.13 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant’s vehicle suffered water damage in engine / Applicant alleged damage result of excessive water entering air filter following storm / Applicant claimed $30,000 from Respondent insurance company / Held: engine damage was caused by gradual deformation, not one-off storm / Damage not covered by insurance contract / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $23,380.00 / Applicant claimed vehicle had ongoing problems, sought to reject it and obtain refund / Respondent had previously paid two invoices for repair work in accordance with Tribunal settlement between parties / Respondent claimed subsequent issues due to Applicant not having vehicle properly serviced / Held: Applicant had lost right to reject car, as they did not exercise right within reasonable time / Applicant unable to pursue afresh matters dealt with in previous settlement / Not proven that subsequent issues were attributable to car not being of acceptable quality / Respondent’s argument of inadequate servicing by Applicant was tenable, not disproven / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased bathroom vanity from First Respondent for $1,968, had Second Respondent install it / Within two months, vanity was delaminating / Applicant claimed $2,968 against both Respondents for cost of purchasing and installing replacement vanity / Held: Second Respondent’s inadequate installation was reason for vanity’s failure, breach of consumer guarantee that services will be carried out with reasonable care and skill / Vanity damaged by water ingress, re-installation or repair not reasonable options /  Applicant entitled to recover cost of purchasing and installing replacement / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,968 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 / Applicant supplied heritage services for a commercial property on behalf of then property owner / Archaeological remains discovered / Property then sold to Respondent / Applicant continued to work on property due to transfer of authority arrangement /  Number of Applicant’s invoices sent to Respondent were unpaid / Applicant sent interim report on findings / Respondent criticised report and contended work done was unnecessary and of limited value / Applicant claimed for unpaid invoices, $19,429.26 / Held: no evidence Respondent cancelled or purported to cancel the contract with Applicant / Respondent liable to pay Applicant’s charges for all work carried out / Applicant’s $1540.00 legal fees should be excluded from claim amount / Respondent ordered to pay $18,000.00 / Claim allowed.

Warranty / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Building Act 2004 / Applicants bought a retractable roof pergola from the Respondents / Applicants are concerned that the way the pergola has been attached to their home is structurally unsound / Applicants also concerned that the height of the pergola at one end does not meet their specifications / Applicants bring a claim against Respondents for a refund of their deposit, costs of removing the pergola and a declaration of non-liability for the balance owed / Held: Pergola not fit for purpose / Defect is of a substantial character / Applicants entitled to consequential losses / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $18,422.44.

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Respondent sold property to Applicant / Flood water runs off the property into the neighbouring property instead of the front of property / Applicant claimed $29,704.50 to remedy flooding / Held: work completed did not restore ground contour / Pooling not caused by lack of lawn maintenance / Top soil and hydroseeding and lawn maintenance alone could not fix problem / Approximate cost to remedy could be the done with three catchpits connected to the stormwater connection / Cost could be in or around the suggestion made by Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,000 / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a sewing machine / Sewing machine was damaged when received by Applicant / Respondent admitted liability for damage / Respondent slow to respond but provided replacement value / Applicant claimed $532.30, $468.90 for replacement cost of sewing machine and $63.40 Tribunal filing claim and preparation cost / Held: Respondent liable for replacement value of sewing machine /  Respondent’s response was slow but by a narrow margin did not meet definition of costs for unnecessarily prolonged delays in proceedings / Claim for costs dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay $468.90 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant contracted Respondent to supply aluminium joinery for the conversion of building structures / Applicant requested an electronic lock on one of the doors / Electronic lock was installed onto wrong door / Respondent offered to install lock on correct door / Applicant rejected this and seeks $2500 for third party to remove and correctly install lock / Respondent claims unpaid $649.37 / Held: Applicant had read and accepted quotation / Applicant has not been able to prove Respondent was responsible to double check quotation / Applicant ordered to pay $649.37 to Respondent.

Consumer law / Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant engaged Respondent moving company to move household to new town / Respondent’s website promised same-day or next-day delivery / On week of move, Respondent advised delivery would be 2 days after pick up / Applicant requested compensation for accommodation between pick up and delivery / Respondent offered $97 compensation / Applicant cancelled contract / Applicant claimed $997 deposit, $2,065.87 cost of alternative moving arrangements, $300 cost of storage, and $285 for fuel / Held: Applicant was not entitled to cancel contract, as Respondent had not cancelled or threatened to cancel service / Respondent did misrepresent its services, liable for some compensation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $300 / Claim allowed in part.