Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant engaged Respondents’ plumbing services for renovation / Parties agreed work would be overseen by LPB plumber / During renovation, bathroom failed two council inspections, was flooded due to incorrect pipe connections, and there were issues with trench / Respondent’s LPB supervisor was only notified of job after issues arose, advised Applicant not to allow Respondents back on site / Applicant claimed $10,800 for remedial costs and reduction in value / Held: Respondents did not provide services with reasonable care and skill / Respondents’ failure to put LPB supervision in place, after saying they would, was substantial failure under CGA, and misleading conduct / Applicant entitled to remedial costs offset by additional contract costs / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $5850 / Claim allowed.    

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondents engaged Applicant for tiling work / No prior quote was supplied to or sought by Respondents / Applicant invoiced Respondents $2,471.35 for work / Respondents disputed price, Applicant reduced invoice to $2,050.45, crediting for unused tiles / Respondents still disputed invoice, paid $1,150 which they believed was fair price / Applicant claimed $900.45 for balance of outstanding invoice / Held: Applicant’s charge was reasonable, in line with requirements of CGA / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $900.45 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant accepted quote from Respondent for materials and labour for interior painting / Whether Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care and skill / Applicant claimed $12,660.35 to remedy painting and associate damage caused by Respondent / Held: Respondent's painting work fell short of the standard of reasonable care and skill / Overall outcome was not reasonably fit for purpose / Failure of substantial character and entitled Applicant to cancel contract / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $6941.29 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased motorhome from Respondent for $83,000 / Pre-purchase inspection identified issue with heating system / Respondent advised issue would be resolved by replacing stepper motor, offered replacement / Heating issues continued after replacement / Applicant claimed $3,120.99 cost of repairs to resolve problem / Held: Respondent’s claim that replacement stepper motor would remedy issue was misrepresentation, but ‘innocent’ / Respondent still liable to compensate Applicant for costs incurred rectifying problem / Costs claimed included normal maintenance costs, not Respondent’s responsibility / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,504.59 / Claim allowed.

Rehearing / Applicant had been unable to enforce previous order against Respondent / Applicant applied for rehearing / Held: Applicant has an enforceable order against Respondent / Applicant cannot obtain an order against another company when the company he contracted with has been identified and ordered to pay / Rehearing refused / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent’s concreting services for driveway / Delays in construction resulted in compromised finish / Shared driveway cracked by concrete truck / Applicants claimed $5,000 compensation for compromised finish, $2500 for damage to shared driveway, $1000 for mental damage and $512 for lost income, time spent preparing for hearing / Held: Respondent did not provide service with reasonable care and skill, resulting product not fit for purpose / Applicants entitled to compensation / Respondent liable for broken shared driveway / Claims for mental damage and lost income not available / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $7,500 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought vehicle from Respondent / Vehicle had various faults / Applicant claimed $4,740.37 / Held: Applicant cannot rely on CGA to seek remedy against Respondent / Misrepresentation not made by First Respondent that induced Applicant to enter into contract / No contract between Applicant and Second Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent wrongly cancelled the Applicants’ return international flights / Applicants purchased return business class tickets / Applicants sought compensation from Respondent for purchase price of new tickets / New tickets costs over $25,0000 / Held: Respondent breached contract with the Applicants / Applicants entitled to some compensation / Applicants not entitled to full cost of business class tickets / Applicants could have avoided high costs of business class tickets as likely economy tickets were available / Applicants only entitled to compensation for extra cost of economy tickets / Respondent ordered to pay $969,74 / Claim allowed in part.

Property / Applicant moved into a flat where Respondent was the head tenant / Parties signed a one year fixed contract / Applicant gave notice to move out after 2 weeks / Applicant claimed for bond refund, $1350.00 / Respondent counter-claimed for $608.00, cost of a new mattress / Held: Applicant breached agreement by giving notice weeks after signing fixed agreement / Applicant legally liable to pay rent for fixed term / Respondent had a duty to mitigate any losses suffered by finding a new flatmate / Only losses Applicant liable to pay were directly resulted from him ending the agreement early / Cost of a new mattress not Applicant’s cost to cover / Applicant allowed to retain equivalent of one week’s rent ($450.00) as compensation / Respondent ordered to pay $900, for rent compensation and part of bond / Claim allowed in part.

Jurisdiction / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Parties were directors and equal shareholders of company / Respondent withdrew $9,587.17 from company account / Applicant claimed $11,447.14 in damages for withdrawal and further $5,000.00 for time and stress / Held: Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear claims related to breach of duties as shareholder or director / No evidence that withdrawal amounted to breach of contract or conversion that could be heard by Tribunal, s 10(1) DTA / Claim struck out.

Contract / Applicant paid $3,800.00 for a 16-week nutrition and exercise programme with Respondent in August / In September, Applicant requested to be released from the programme after suffering a back injury / Respondent refunded $2,850.00 / Applicant sought further $407.14, together with compensation for “time, hassle and inconvenience” / In total, Applicant claimed $1,000.00 for refund and compensation / Held: Respondent’s contractual discretion not unreasonable / Respondent retained 25 percent of total fee, based on Applicant having had access to Phase One of four during her two weeks on the programme as well as receiving online programme support / Applicant not contractually entitled to any further refund / Claim dismissed.

Animal ownership / Applicant owned a dog and a cat / Applicant admitted to hospital and pets were cared for Respondents / Applicant requested return of the dog from Respondents / Applicant relinquished ownership of the cat / Applicant sought $2,000.00 but clarified that the dog was priceless / Respondent counterclaimed for $1,999.00 and to confirm their ownership of the dog / Held: confirmed that Applicant owned the dog /  Noted Respondents motivated about concern about the dog’s future / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $2,000.00 if the dog was not returned / Claim allowed.  

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted Respondent to install solar power system / Moisture entered inverter at base / Electrician believed water overflowed onto unit / Respondent offered replacement under warranty but does not accept unit or its placement to be faulty / Applicant declined offer and claimed unit to be moved into detached garage / Held: on balance of probabilities, gutter overflowing caused moisture ingress / Installation not fit for purpose of being a durable installation in the location in which it was positioned / Respondent ordered to replace inverter in higher location, and to clear guttering / Respondent ordered to pay $164.37 for increased power costs / Claim allowed.