2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

LETTER TO THE MINISTERHonorable Aiyaz Sayed- KhaiyumAttorney General and Minister for Justice, Anti-Corruption,Public Enterprises, Communications, Civil Aviation, Tourism, Industry and Trade7 th Floor, Suvavou HouseP.O Box 2213Government BuildingsSuvaDear Honorable MinisterRe: Annual Audited Report 2011Greetings from Fiji Commerce Commission!I have much pleasure in submitting the Annual Report of the Fiji Commerce Commission for the year ending December2011. This report incorporates the activities undertaken by the Commission throughout the year.On behalf of the members of the Fiji Commerce Commission, I take this opportunity to thank the Government for itscontinuing support to the Commission.Yours Sincerely,Dr Mahendra ReddyChairmanFiji Commerce Commission

CommissionersDr Mahendra Reddy-ChairmanDr Reddy is the Dean of Collegee of Business, Hospitality& Tourism Studies, Fiji National UniversityMrs. Leba MataitiniMr. Sepeti TagilalaMrs. Mataitinii is the President of the YWCA.Mrs. Mataitinii is the former Laboratory Manager andPurchasing Manager at USPMr. Tagilala has established his ownconsultancy firm by the name of GaunavouInvestment

5. Legal DepartmentThe department’s role is to provide legal advice to the Commission in relation to the provisions under the CommerceCommission Decree 2010 and any other applicable laws. The Legal Department consists of the Legal Officers and theProsecutors and is also responsible for the prosecution of traders for breaches of the Commerce Commission Decree2010.The Legal Department monitors the activities of players in the market, undertakes litigation work for the Commission andprovides opinions on issues before the Commission and all other related activities. In addition, this department alsoensures the effective and efficient implementation of the Decree and assists the Commission in the mediation of disputesbetween parties in their cases with the Commission.In what follows, the Commission’s major activities organized by department for 2011 are summarized andpresented. Also the Commission’s organizational structure is provided.

Organizational StructureCommerce Commission of FijiCommissionersCEOAssistant to CEOSenior Research Fellow – CompetitionLaw and Head of SectionBusiness Competition- Fair Trading and Anti CompetitiveBehavior- Mergers and AcquisitionsSenior Research Fellow –Regulation & Head of SectionIndustry Regulation- Electricity, Steel, etcSenior Research Fellow – Price Control &Head of SectionPrice Control and MonitoringLegal Counsel & Head ofSectionResearch Fellow Research Fellow Research FellowPrinciple Legal OfficerSenior Prices and Incomes OfficerSenior Research Officer Senior Research Officer Senior Research OfficerSenior Legal OfficerPrices and Incomes OfficerSenior AccountantResearch Officer Research Officer Price InspectorPrice Inspector – ResearchResearch OfficerLegal OfficerAccountantHuman Resource OfficerResearch Interns Research Interns Research InternsAssistant Research OfficerAssistant Prices and Incomes InspectorClerical OfficerAccounts and Admin OfficerClerk TypistDriver/ Messenger/Tea Lady/Cleaner

1.0 FAIR TRADING DEPARTMENT1.1 Overview of the DepartmentThe Fair Trading Department (“FTD”) of the Commission is tasked with handling issues such as Rents, Unfair Trading Practices (“UTP”), RestrictiveTrade Practices (“RTP”), and other issues necessary to safeguard and protect the interests of consumers as per its obligation under the CommerceCommission Decree 2010.The Fair Trading Department comprises of four (4) staff members. The breakdown of the staff members is as follows: One Senior Research Officer; One Fair Trading Officer; and Two Research Assistants.1.2 Department Activities for 2011- CENTRAL/EASTERN DIVISIONTable 1 summarizes the number of cases received as per each provision of the Commerce Commission Decree 2010. Please note, for brevity reasons,provisions under which no cases were received have been excluded from the table below.Table 1: Cases and Relevant ProvisionsCases under each provision of the Commerce Commission Decree 2010Provisions Breached Section Number of Cases under each ProvisionContracts arrangements or understandings restricting dealings orcompetitionMisuse of market power 66 20Anti-competitive conduct 67 1Exclusive dealing 69 2Misleading and deceptive conduct 75 81Unconscionable conduct 76 99603Page10of236

Table 1: Cases and Relevant Provisions (cont…)Cases under each provision of Commerce Commission Decree 2010Provisions Breached Section Number of Cases under each ProvisionFalse or misleading representations 77 19False or misleading advertisement 78 8Certain Misleading Conduct In Relation To Goods. 83 19Certain misleading conduct in relation to services. 84 32Offering Gifts and Prizes. 85 1Referral Selling 87 1Limited Offers and Failing to Supply as Demanded 87I 1Statement of Price or Condition and Pull Date 87J 1Mandatory Trade is prohibited 87K 1Accepting payment without being able to supply as ordered 88 5Action in Respect of Goods of Unmerchantable Quality 114 14Action in Respect of Non-Compliance with Express Warranty 116 20Note: In some cases, more than one section of the CCD 2010 was breached and as such, the numbers in the table are higher than the actual number ofcases received.Highlights of 2011The total number of Cases completed/solved in the year 2011 was - 304 Cases. The breakdown of the cases received and completed/solved by theCommission in 2011 is recapped using the graphs below.Page11of236

Figure 1: FTD Cases – Breakdown in Numbers Figure 2: FTD Cases- Breakdown as a Percentage180160140120100806040200BreakdownofcasesinNumbers11ConsumerProtection &UnfairPractices andRestrictiveTradePractices54No Breach ofthe CCD 201017RestrictiveTradePractices154ConsumerProtection &UnfairPractices27OthersBreakDownoftheCasesin%Others10%ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices59%ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practicesand RestrictiveTrade Practices4%No Breach ofthe CCD 201021%RestrictiveTrade Practices6%Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/01/04/BC-FTD/1Consumer AagainstOrganisation BThe Commission received a Complaint from Consumer A againstOrganisation B. The Complainant’s main concern was that Organisation Bhad decreased the price of the lottery ticket prior to its drawing. TheComplainant felt that his chances of winning had decreased and that otherbuyers had been unfairly treated, having bought their tickets at $20.Similar complaints were also received from other consumers. The matter isbefore the Court.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections – 75, 76,77, 83, 85Page12of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/01/04/BC-FTD/022011/01/04/BC-FTD/032011/01/04/BC-FTD/04ComplaintagainstProduct AConsumer Bvs. Company DConsumer Cvs. Company EOn 04-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Organisation X,regarding the misleading labeling of Product A, imported by Company C.Once the complaint was received, the Commission wrote to Company Cinforming them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived, informing FCC that, the product used artificial flavoring which wasclearly stated in the ingredients list and there was no beef or chickenpresent in the product. The same was verified by the Commission. Theabove was relayed to Organisation X and the case was closed by FCC.On 04-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Bagainst Company D. In the complaint, the customer alleged that CompanyD was selling substandard quality footwear. The Commission made itsassessment on the issue and with a letter informed the complainant thatthe footwear did not have any express warranty and the durability of it wasbased on the nature and manner of usage. Based on the above, the casewas closed.On 04-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer C,regarding the increase of uniform prices, due to the increase in VAT from12.5 % to 15 %. Upon the receipt of the complaint, the Commissioninspectors carried out field inspections and monitoring of all the uniformand book shops, which were exempted from VAT till 28-02-11 to ensurethat fair prices were charged to the consumers. The complainant wasinformed of the same and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesProvisionsBreachedSections – 75 & 76Sections 77 &114Section 76Page13of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/01/06/BC-FTD/062011/01/07/BC-FTD/07Consumer Dvs. Company FConsumer Evs. Company GOn 6-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Dagainst Company F. The Complainant informed FCC that he bought a pairof shock absorbers from the respondent company and after installing theparts and using the vehicle for almost two weeks; one of the shockabsorbers broke. FCC conducted mediation where both the parties came toan agreement and the respondent offered to give a replacement shockabsorber at a subsidized cost of $35. The transaction was completed and asettlement agreement was signed.On 07-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Eagainst Company G. The Complainant informed FCC that on 22-12-10, hewent to Company G’s shop in Suva and requested to the salesperson thathe wanted to purchase a mobile phone which supports MP3 playback. Afterpurchasing an Alcatel 305, he was advised by the same salesperson topurchase a memory card from Company H in order to upload and playsongs. After purchasing the memory card from Company H, he was advisedby a Company H staff member that the said phone could not support MP3or be used as a music player. Once the complaint was received, FCC wroteto Company G, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, requesting the complainant to see the retailManager to get a redress. FCC followed-up with the complainant and wasinformed that the memory card was formatted and it was functioningproperly. The matter was closed after the successful mediation.No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 77Page14of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/01/12/BC-FTD/112011/01/12/BC-FTD/12Consumer IagainstInstitute AComplainant Jvs.Respondent AOn 12-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Iagainst Institute A regarding their Home Loan Conditions. Once thecomplaint was lodged, FCC made its assessment and analysis andinformed the complainant that the issue did not fall within the jurisdiction ofFCC and the complaint was referred to another statutory body for furtherinvestigation. Based on the above, the case was closed.On 12-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Complainant Jagainst Respondent A. The complainant informed FCC that he bought atractor (Reg. CN worth $19,000) from the respondent on 27-02-08. On thefirst day after using the tractor, he found out that the fuel tank was leaking.He referred the matter to his mechanic and he was advised that the tractorwas not in a good working condition (ploughing problems, fuel leaks, wheelalignment problems) from the day he bought it from the respondent. InDecember 2009, the complainant was given a new tractor (Reg. FQ worth$17,000) through a third party and the Respondent did not do anything withthe old Tractor (Reg. CN) and it was still in the custody of the complainant.The complainant requested the Commission to make a recommendation tothe Respondent to refund him $2,000 for the difference between the twotractors. The matter was mediated by FCC and both parties informed FCCthat they would take the matter to court to claim damages sustained againsteach other. A settlement was signed by both parties in this regard and thecase was closed.ProvisionsBreachedNo Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 75Page16of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/01/17/BC-FTD/132011/01/18/BC-FTD/142011/01/18/BC-FTD/15Consumer Kvs. Company LConsumer Lvs. Company MComplaintagainstServices ofCompany NOn 17-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Kagainst Company L, regarding the supply of a faulty printer toner. Once thecomplaint was lodged, FCC wrote to Company L, informing them of theissue and seeking a response. A response was received from Company Linforming FCC that the toner was not faulty but the printer was havingproblems and they were willing to help the complainant, but the complainantwas not willing to bring the printer to Company L. The complainant wasinformed to take the printer to Company L for servicing, the problem wasfixed and the case was closed.On 18-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Lagainst Company M alleging that due to the negligence of Company M, abatch of Tobacco leaf was damaged. The Commission was informed thatonce the harvest was done and the leaves were taken by Company M, thefarmer was informed that the leaves were bad and the farmer was asked topay Company M $300.00 in return. While FCC was mediating the matter thecomplainant informed FCC that he was withdrawing the complaint fromFCC and would be engaging his private lawyers to take the matter to Court.On 18-01-11, the Commission received two complaints from members ofthe public. Mr. X and Mr. Y, complained against Company N in relation tocredit deductions for unsubscribed weather messages. They informed theCommission that they never subscribed for this service but Company Nstarted deducting money from their credit without informing them. After theissue was raised with Company N by the Commission, Company N creditedthe complainants’ accounts appropriately and provided an undertaking thatsuch conduct would not be repeated in the future and the matter wasclosed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesRestrictive TradePractices &ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 77 & 114Sections 66 & 76Sections 75 & 76Page17of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/01/18/BC-FTD/162011/01/18/BC-FTD/17Company O vs.Company PConsumer Mvs. Company QOn 18-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Company Oagainst Company P. The Complainant stated that a customer from his shopbought a $5 Company P recharge card and was not able to use it as it wasinvalid. The Complainant compensated the customer and queried withCompany P’s customer care. He was informed that the card had been usedup. Once the complaint was lodged, FCC formally wrote to Company P,informing them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived, informing FCC that on 08-02-11, Company P had reimbursed thecomplainant with $5 cash.On 18-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Magainst Company Q. The main issue of the Complainant was that CompanyQ was offering three channels for $40 a month and in November 2010 oneof the channels which televised Sports was blocked by Company Q. Hestated that even those who have subscribed for the service were not able towatch this particular channel. Once the complaint was lodged, FCC wrote toCompany Q, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, informing FCC that the complainant was not acustomer of Company Q. The above was conveyed to the complainant andthe case was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 76Section 75Page18of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/01/18/BC-FTD182011/01/20/BC-FTD/192011/01/21/BC-FTD/20Company R vs.FinancialInstitution SConsumer Nvs. Company TConsumer Ovs. Company UOn 18-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Company R,alleging that Financial Institution S was charging exorbitant interest ratesand administrative charges. The Complainant also alleged that he was notgiven time to go over the contract before signing. Once the complaint waslodged, FCC made its assessment and came to know that the matter wasbefore the court. FCC formally wrote to the complainant informing him that,as the matter is currently before the Court, FCC is not in a position toinvestigate the matter.On 20-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Nagainst Company T for not showing the prize for any bets placed byconsumers. FCC followed-up with the complainant to furnish additionalinformation and the complainant informed FCC that he wanted to withdrawthe complaint as he overlooked the above. The case was closed by FCC.On 21-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Oagainst Company U for failing to provide warranty services during thewarranty period. Consumer O informed the Commission of the following:-1. That he purchased a Computer from Company U in Suva.2. After using the computer for about 4 months, the computer stoppedworking.3. He tried to contact Company U but his complaint was not addressed.Once the complaint was received, the Commission formally wrote to therespondent, informing them of the issue and seeking a response on thematter. The matter was mediated by FCC. After 1 week, Consumer Uvisited FCC and informed FCC that the computer had been repaired.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesDivision 1 -WarrantyProvisionsBreachedSection 76Sections 55, &76Section 116Page19of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/01/28/BC-FTD/212011/01/25/BC-FTD/222011/02/02/BC-FTD/23Consumer Pvs. Company VConsumer Qvs. CompanyW,X and YConsumer Rvs. Company ZOn 28-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Pagainst Company V. Consumer P informed the Commission of thefollowing:-1. He purchased 6 inch blocks from the above company on 30-11-2010.2. After one week he followed up with the company on the delivery of theblocks and he was informed by the company that the machines werenot working due to some mechanical problem and once the machineswere operational, they would supply the blocks.Once the complaint was lodged, FCC formally wrote to the respondent,informing him of the issue and seeking a response on the matter. Aresponse was received, informing FCC that the company was willing torefund the full amount of $840.00. A Total of $840.00 was refunded and thesettlement was signed by both parties.On 25-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Qagainst Company W, X and Y, for selling footwear, Men’s vests andUmbrellas at very high prices but of poor quality. The Commission aftermaking its assessments on the matter informed the complainant that theseproducts did not have an express warranty and consumers did have a widerange of other traders to choose from.On 02-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Ragainst Company Z. The Complainant bought 1 LX 90 suspension plate on21-10-10 but he was advised that the Diff Bushing was not available instock and would be supplied after a week from the date of purchase. TheComplainant called the respondent on 31-01-11 and he was informed thatthe shipment had arrived but the parts were not available. FCC followed upwith the respondent and was informed that they would be giving a fullrefund. FCC followed up with the complainant and was informed thatCompany Z collected their product and provided the full refund.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 88Sections 83 &114Section 88Page20of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/02/02/BC-FTD/242011/02/02/BC-FTD/252011/02/04/BC-FTD/26ComplaintagainstCompany AConsumer Tvs. Company BConsumer Uvs. Company COn 02-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer S,against Company A in regards to the selling of sweets which did not clearlyshow the expiry date. Once the complaint was lodged, FCC tried to contactthe managing director of the company and FCC came to know that thematter was before the Fiji Police Force and they were investigating. Theabove was conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.On 02-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Tagainst Company B. The complainant alleged that his name was forwardedto the Data Bureau by Company T claiming default of payment. TheComplainant bought a brush cutter from Company B Nausori on hirepurchase for his brother. Payments went well but slowed down in the lastfew months and the brush cutter was repossessed with arrears amountingto $588.36. Upon receipt of the complaint, FCC mediated the matter andthe complainant’s name was cleared from the Data Bureau.On 04-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Uagainst Company C based in Nausori, regarding the sale of expiredproducts (Mayonnaise 375g). The complaint was lodged with anotherorganisation but no further action was taken and the complaint was referredto the Director of the Central Board of Health. On 12-12-11, theCommission followed up with Ministry of Health and was informed that thematter had been referred to them and they had investigated the matter. TheComplainant was informed on the above and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 87Section 76Section 87 JPage21of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/02/09/BC-FTD/282011/02/08/BC-FTD/29Consumer Vvs. Company CConsumer Wvs. Company DOn 09-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Vagainst Company C for an unjustified charge of $50 for returning an enginewhich he bought but did not use. Consumer V bought an engine fromCompany C. However, when he fitted the engine, it was not functioning. Hecomplained to the company and requested for a refund but they chargedhim $50 for freight. Once the complaint was lodged, FCC formally wrote toCompany C, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received; informing FCC that the $50 was deducted as afreight cost and it was advised to the complainant before the sale wasmade. The above was conveyed to complainant and the case was closed.The Commission received a complaint from Consumer W against CompanyD. Consumer W engaged Company D to have some electrical workcompleted at the directors residence including the installation of an electricgate but the job was not completed. Once the complaint was lodged, FCCformally wrote to the respondent informing him of the issue and seeking aresponse. A response was received; informing FCC that Company D wouldcomplete the work within the next 2 weeks. After 2 weeks, FCC made anofficial visit to inspect the work and found out that the work was notcompleted. FCC then invited both parties to the Commission for mediation.During the mediation, the respondent informed the Commission that thecomplainant had not paid any labour costs to him, to which FCC requestedthe complainant to deposit a sum of $1500.00 with FCC. The respondentalso agreed to complete the work within next 2 weeks. Later thecomplainant informed FCC that the respondent had failed to complete thework as was agreed. On 11-08-11, the total sum of $1,500.00 was returnedto the complainant and was informed that he may lodge a claim with SCTas they did not have any written agreement to substantiate their claims.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 75Section 84Page22of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/02/04/BC-FTD/302011/02/08/BC-FTD/312011/02/09/BC-FTD/32Complaint by UagainstIndividuals V &WCompany E vs.Company FCompany G vs.Company HOn 04-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from U againstIndividuals V & W, regarding the use of Mr. X’s name to run a business ofspare parts and sale of laptops. Once the complaint was lodged, FCCcontacted Mr. U and requested for a meeting to discuss the issue. TheCommission was informed that the complaint was lodged by his wife andthat he owns the spare parts business and does not want to proceed anyfurther. The Business and TIN registration of the company was provided bythe complainant on 15-02-11 as evidence and the complaint was withdrawn.On 08-02-10, the Commission received a complaint from Company E,regarding the misuse of market power by Company F. The respondentinformed the Complainant to close their coffee shop as it was in directcompetition with the respondent’s business and failure to do so wouldrender the respondent to cease its dealings with Company E. TheCommission after its investigation discovered that the respondent did notbreach the provisions of CCD 2010. The above was conveyed tocomplainant and the case was closed.On 09-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from Company Gagainst Company H in regards to the refusal of Company H to supplybatteries directly to Company G for retailing in the market. The Commissionwas informed that Company H directed Company G to buy batteries fromtheir specific agent who sells the batteries at a very high price. Once thecomplaint was lodged, FCC formally wrote to Company H informing them ofthe issue and seeking a response. A response was received; informing FCCthat Company H is willing to consider a business relationship with CompanyG and invited Company G to submit a submission. The above wasconveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.ProvisionsBreachedNo Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Restrictive TradePracticesRestrictive TradePracticesSections 66Sections 66Page23of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/02/15/BC-FTD/332011/02/16/BC-FTD/34Organisation Avs. Company ICompany J vs.Company KOn 09-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from Organisation Aagainst Company I, regarding the 12.5% VAT. Organisation A informedFCC that an advertisement was placed in the Fiji Sun in January 2011stating that the rental charges for a post box had increased due to theincrease in VAT from 12.5% to 15%. Once the complaint was lodged, FCCformally wrote to Company I, informing them of the issue and seeking aresponse on the matter. A response was received, informing FCC thatprotective measures were being taken by Company I to address the matter.The above was conveyed to Organisation A and the case was closed.On 16-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from Company Jagainst Company K, regarding the swollen phone battery of his Alcaberrymobile which caused the back case to break. The Complainant purchasedthe phone on 02-09-10 and was given a 6 months warranty. Once thecomplaint was lodged, FCC formally wrote to Company K, informing them ofthe issue and seeking a response on the matter. A response was received,asking FCC if the complainant could take the phone to Company K for adiagnosis and for replacement of the battery. The above was conveyed tothe complainant and after two days FCC followed-up with the complainantand was informed that the battery was replaced.No Breach of theCommerceCommissionDecree 2010Division 1 -WarrantySection 116Page24of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/02/16/BC-FTD/352011/02/21/BC-FTD/36Company L vs.M/Company N(Text Voting)Consumer Fvs. Company OOn 28-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Company Lagainst Company N in regards to Company N making a contract for theexclusive rights over a voting Competition for the 2010 Sports Personality ofthe Year Award. Company L stated that it was a national Competitionthrough which people could vote for their favorite sports personalities;however, as per the advertisements, voting could only be done by CompanyN and O subscribers. FCC formally wrote to M and Company N, informingthem of the issue and seeking a response on the matter. A response wasreceived from M, informing FCC that they would agree to open the platformfor Company L and other voters through all forms of communication. Theabove was conveyed to Company L and the case was closed.On 21-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Fagainst Company O, regarding an irregularity in its Billing system. FCCformally wrote to Company O, informing them of the issue and seeking aresponse on the matter. A response was received from Company O,informing FCC that the issue was caused by an irregularity in Company O’sbilling system which had been successfully resolved. Company O alsocredited the customer’s account with a credit of $59.49 and an undertakingwas given by Company O that such conduct would not be repeated in thefuture. The above was conveyed to the complainant and the case wasclosed.Restrictive TradePracticesRestrictive TradePractices &ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSections 60 & 69Sections 66 & 76Page25of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/02/22/BC-FTD/372011/02/23/BC-FTD/38Consumer Gvs. Company PConsumer Hvs. Company QOn 22-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Gagainst Company P for unfairly deducting a sum of $200 from a refund of$500. Consumer G bought a PTO pump from the respondent Company inSeptember 2010. He returned the product and was issued with a credit notefor $500 which he could use to purchase parts. On 21-02-11, he requestedfor a cash refund but was only given 60% of the total amount owed to him.FCC mediated the matter and the respondent company refunded another$200 to the complainant and a settlement was signed and the matter wasclosed.On 23-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Hagainst Company Q. The Commission was informed that the Complainanttopped up his flash net for $4 and after only 4 minutes the credit was usedup. FCC formally wrote to Company Q, informing them of the issue andseeking a response on the matter. A response was received, informing FCCthat; (1) Prepay Flash net charging was not based on how much time wasspent browsing, rather it was based on the Data Quota allocated to theaccount based on the recharge value, (2) Any recharge done via top up ofless than $5 would result in a much lesser data quota, i.e. at the rate of1MB for $1, but had the complainant done a normal recharge of $5, hewould have received 100 MB of data quota. The above was conveyed tothe complainant and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 75Section 84Page26of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/01/28/BC-FTD/402011/01/19/BC-FTD/41ComplaintAgainstCompany RConsumer I Vs.Company SOn 28-01-11, the Commission received a complaint against Company R.The Complainant alleged that Company R had been misleading consumersby not properly disclosing the hire purchase options, whereby theconsumers were not able to make informed decisions and they ended uppaying a higher interest rate, as high as 20.9%. FCC formally wrote toCompany R, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, informing FCC that they would provide fullinformation to their customers and an undertaking was also given that theywould fully disclose the same to the customers. After a week, FCCinspected the outlets to verify the matter and was satisfied. The complainantwas informed of the above and the case was closed.On 19-01-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Iagainst Company S. The Complainant bought a sub-woofer – (Sound stormE12D 12 inch sub-woofer) worth $129.00 from the Respondent. After aweek, the sub-woofer got damaged (“bent-out”).FCC formally wrote toCompany S, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, informing FCC that the sub-woofer did not have anexpress warranty and Company S could repair the sub-woofer at a cost tothe customer as the damage was done due to improper customer handling.The above was conveyed to the complainant and he informed FCC that hewould be buying a new sub-woofer.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSections 75 & 76Sections 75 &114Page27of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreachedCases Closed in 20112011/03/01/BC-FTD/422011/02/28/BC-FTD/43Consumer Jvs. Company TConsumer Kvs. Company UOn 01-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Jagainst Company T for sending them a letter stating that their name wouldbe added to the Data Bureau if they did not clear the sum of $49.95. TheComplainant informed FCC that they had terminated their services afterpaying their final bill on 06-01-11. FCC mediated the matter and Company Tinformed them that they have since closed the customer’s account and thecustomer has no further obligations to meet.On 28-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Kagainst Company U. Consumer K alleged that he was charged anexcessive amount of water bills for the billing period of 2 June to 22 June2010. FCC mediated the matter and Company U credited the customer’saccount with $338.25.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSections 75 & 76ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices Sections 75 & 762011/03/02/BC-FTD/44Consumer Lvs. Company VOn 02-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Lagainst Company V. Consumer L informed FCC that he had bought amodem from Company V and after two weeks he noticed that the receptionfor the internet was not good at his residence. He later informed CompanyV to take back their modem as he no longer wanted to use their service. Healleged that Company V sent bills asking him to make payments forservices that he did not use and later when he went to get a housing loanfrom the Bank, he was informed that his name was listedConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 76Page28of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/03/04/BC-FTD/472011/03/07/BC-FTD/48Company Y vs.Company ZConsumer Ovs. Company AFCC mediated the matter and the complainant paid a total amount of$4165.00 for the vehicle and the vehicle was released. A term of settlementwas signed and the case was closed.On 04-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Company Yagainst Company Z. The allegation by Company Y was that the pricedisplayed by Company Z on its website was VEP when the VAT Decreerequired that all retail prices were to be displayed as VIP. FCC investigatedthe matter and compared the products of the two companies. TheCommission noted that at the retail end, all the prices of the products wereVIP. FCC conveyed the above outcome to both parties and the case wasclosed.On 07-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from a law firm, whowas representing Consumer O against Company A, regarding thedisconnection of water supply. The FCC was informed that Mr. X wronglyinformed Company A officers that he held a Court Order over the propertyand he had gotten Company A to disconnect the water supply of one of thetenants. The Complainant was not consulted on the issue and his watersupply was disconnected despite being up to date with his bill payments.FCC invited the complainant for a meeting where he informed FCC thatCompany A had connected the water supply but it was again disconnectedby Mr. X and the Complainant was now handling the issue with his lawyersand informed FCC to close the case.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesProvisionsBreachedSections 75 & 76,66Sections 66 & 76Page30of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/03/08/BC-FTD/492011/03/09/BC-FTD/50Consumer Pvs. Company BConsumer Qvs. Company COn 08-03-11, the Commission received a complaint by Consumer P againstCompany B, seeking clarification on his billing. In Consumer P’s CompanyB bill, the usage for the months of January and February was 0 KWH,however, he was billed $8 for each month. FCC formally wrote to CompanyB informing them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived, informing FCC that Company B levied a minimum charge of $8VIP for post pay meters that were on “ON” status and were notdisconnected and showed a consumption of 0 to 20 units per month. Theabove was conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.On 09-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Q ofVolivoli Rakiraki against Company C. The main issue raised by ConsumerQ was that he had been receiving different amounts of electricity units for$5 tokens. Once the complaint was lodged, FCC formally wrote to CompanyC informing them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived, informing FCC that due to changes in the Tariff Rates, customersmay be receiving different amounts of units. Company C also informed FCCthat this could have happened as Company C was making a debt recoveryfor the month due to the new tariff rates and the system would automaticallyreimburse the units deducted once the transactions were reconciled. Theabove was conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.Restrictive TradePracticeConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 66Sections 75 & 76Page31of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/03/10/BC-FTD/512011/03/11/BC-FTD/52Consumer Rvs. Company DConsumer Svs. Company EOn 10-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Ragainst Company D, regarding different charges in his water bill. Heinformed the Commission that the two accounts showed that different unitswere consumed with a difference in the bill of $19.35. FCC formally wrote toCompany D informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received; informing FCC that one account was billed ondomestic rates while the second account was billed on commercial rates.Company D further requested that the complainant produce the buildingcompletion certificate so that the rate could be changed to domestic. Theabove was conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.On 11-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Sagainst Company E. Consumer S bought a ½’’ Dr. Ratchet Handle fromCompany E on 10-03-11 and after using it for a short while (15 minutes orless), the tool did not function as per the description. The Complainantapproached the Company for a replacement and his request was declinedwith the reason that it was a non genuine product and they did not havewarranties on such products. FCC investigated the matter and found thatthe item bought by the complainant was a non-genuine brand which costhim $15 and a genuine brand was available at a cost of around $103 andthe non-genuine brand not come with a warranty. The Complainant wasinformed of the above and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSections 75 & 76Section 75Page32of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/03/14/BC-FTD/532011/03/18/BC-FTD/54Consumer Tvs. Company FConsumer Uvs. Company GOn 14-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Tagainst Company F, regarding prices charged for the FOG lamp, which hebought from the firm’s Suva outlet. The Complainant was given a quotationon 26-02-11 for the FOG lamp of $20.50 each but later, when he went topurchase the lamp with the quotation, he was charged $35.00. FCC invitedthe parties for mediation and during the mediation; the respondent informedFCC that there was an error in the quotation as it was done manually. Theunit price was right but the total was wrong. FCC also explained the sameto the complainant and the case was closed.On 18-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Uagainst Company G. Consumer U informed FCC that Company G wasgoing to repossess his vehicle since they have not paid the policy excess of$750 to Company X. Consumer U claimed that the policy excess shouldonly be $250 and not $750. FCC formally wrote to Company G, informingthem of the issue and seeking a response. A response was received,informing FCC that during the inspection of the vehicle, the complainantconfirmed that certain damages to the vehicle happened before the incidentand the complainant asked the assessor to include the cost of the repair inthe same quotation. Company G also informed FCC that $750 was chargedfor 3 different excesses. The above was conveyed to the complainant andthe case was closed.ConsumerProtection&Unfair PracticesSections 75No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page33of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/03/21/BC-FTD/552011/03/21/BC-FTD/562011/03/21/BC-FTD/57Consumer Vvs. Company HConsumer Wvs. Institute IConsumer Xvs. Company HOn 21-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Vagainst Company H based in Labasa and his main issue was that he hadbought roofing hurricane screws from the Company and within two months,the screws had started to rust. FCC mediated the matter and therespondent replaced all the screws and gave $500 for the labour cost to thecomplainant.On 21-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Wagainst Institute I. Consumer W’s son was a student at Institute I. ConsumerW’s son had to withdraw from the Course because the family was migratingto Australia. After withdrawing from the course, Consumer W was onlyrefunded 50% of the total tuition fees paid. FCC formally wrote to Institute I,informing them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived informing FCC that it was a University policy and the Complainantwas informed that only 50% of the tuition fees were refundable when heenrolled in the course. The above was conveyed to the complainant and thecase was closed.On 21-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer X.Consumer X bought two pairs of shock absorbers from Company H andupon fitting the shock absorbers, the rear shock absorbers were still makingthe same sound as the ones fitted previously. He took his car to CompanyH to raise the issue but he was advised that it was the wearied bushingsthat were causing the sound. The Complainant also changed the bushingsbutConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSections 75 & 114Section 76Sections 75 & 114Page34of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreachedthe noisy sound still continued to come from the rear shock absorbers.Once the complaint was lodged, FCC mediated the matter and one of theshock absorbers was replaced.2011/03/21/BC-FTD/582011/03/22/BC-FTD/59Consumer Yvs. Company IConsumer Zvs. Company JOn 21-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Yagainst Company I. Consumer Y informed FCC that he bought a tyre fromthe respondent on 14-03-11 and the tyre lasted for only three days. The tyrewas torn out with the rubber and tube coming out. The Complainantapproached FCC and he lodged a complaint, requesting for a replacementfor the tyre. FCC after investigating the matter formally wrote to thecomplainant, informing him that the price of a second hand tyre was notcontrolled and it was likely that the vehicle had been driven with thepunctured tyre, which resulted in the torn tyre rubber and the case wasclosed.On 22-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Z.Consumer Z had given his furniture to Company J on 07-03-11, togetherwith leather materials for upholstery works. The main issue of theComplainant was that, the works had not been done in a satisfactory wayand a receipt was not issued even after a number of requests. FCCmediated the matter and a return job was done by the respondent on thefurniture at no cost to the customer.No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 84Page35of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/03/23/BC-FTD/602011/03/21/BC-FTD/61Consumer Avs. Company KConsumer Bvs. Company LOn 23-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Aagainst Company K, regarding the supply of a motor which was differentfrom the one requested for. The Complainant requested a motor for a Kavapounding machine which should have been 1400 rpm but he was suppliedwith a 2800 rpm motor. Once the complaint was lodged, FCC formally wroteto the respondent, informing him of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, informing FCC that the motor’s capacitor had beenburnt by the complainant and the respondent could not replace it. Theabove was conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.On 21-03-11, the Commission received a Complaint from Consumer Bagainst Company L for charging $3.00 for 100pcs/box of fishing hookswhen the price indicated on the box was $2.40. Once the complaint waslodged, FCC formally wrote to Company L informing them of the issue andseeking a response. A response was received, informing FCC that therewas a price increase for the fishing hooks and the new price was attachedto the shelf. The cashier also informed the complainant of the same beforethe item was cashed. The above was conveyed to the complainant and thecase was closed.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSections 75 & 83Sections 75, 76 (1)(c) & 76 (1) (d)Page36of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/03/24/BC-FTD/622011/03/18/BC-FTD/63Consumer Cvs. Company MSupplier D vs.Company N,O,P,Q & ROn 24-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer C. TheComplainant bought a 15hp Yamaha Outboard Engine from Company M on13-12-10 and after using it for approximately 2 hours, the Engine did notstart. On 29-12-10, the complainant took the Engine to have it replaced andhe was advised that a replacement would be made in two weeks, however,3 months went past but the replacement was not done. FCC mediated thematter and Company M agreed to repair the engine FOC and the same wascompleted and the matter resolved.On 17-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Supplier D againsta total of 5 supermarkets. FCC was informed that these supermarkets werenot allowing Supplier D to access their shelves in the supermarkets and thereason given by these supermarkets was that they had exclusive deals withCompany X. FCC formally wrote to all 5 supermarkets informing them of theissue and seeking a response. A response was received from the 5supermarkets, informing FCC that the company offered more than 500cartons of products which were not commercially viable, the price offeredwas not competitive compared to other competitors and there was nostandard pricing and Supplier D offered different prices to differentsupermarkets. That is, Supplier D was offering preferential pricing to sometraders and this distorted the market in terms of the final retail prices. The 5supermarkets informed the Commission that they were willing to trade withSupplier D provided that everyone was treated equally by the supplier. Theabove was conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed as nofurther correspondences were received.Division 1 -Warranty Section 116Restrictive TradePracticesSection 69Page37of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/03/25/BC-FTD/642011/03/25/BC-FTD/652011/03/29/BC-FTD/66Consumer Evs. Company SConsumer Fvs. Company TConsumer Gvs. Company UOn 25-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Eagainst Company S for charging incorrect, inaccurate and high bills to her.She also alleged that Company S charged her for a Company S meterwithout informing her and without any valid justification. After the new meterwas installed, the bill went up as high as $800 a month. Later her powersupply was disconnected without any notice. FCC mediated the matter andCompany S reconnected the electricity and the complainant made anarrangement with Company S to pay her bills via installments.On 25-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer F forthe supply of a faulty “thermo switch”. He went to have the product replacedbut he was advised that the Company could not replace nor refund themoney, since the product had been opened from the sealed packet. FCCmediated the matter and the respondent refunded the full amount of $38and a settlement was signed and the matter was resolved.On 29-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Gagainst Company U, regarding the memory card of his mobile. TheComplainant informed FCC that Company U had asked the Complainant topay $10 and leave the phone with them to be checked by their techniciansand they were to inform the Complainant of any actions to be taken.Company U charged $20 to release the phone, informing the complainantthat they had to open and clean the phone. FCC mediated the matter andthe respondent agreed not to charge anything.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 76Section 75Sections 75 & 76Page38of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/03/29/BC-FTD/672011/04/01/BC-FTD/682011/03/25/BC-FTD/71Consumer Hvs. Company VConsumer I vs.Institution AConsumer Jvs. Company XOn 29-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Hagainst Company V, regarding the services and charges of Company V.The Complainant highlighted issues such as poor service, the high price ofthe decoder and high rental charges, repeated programmes and programdisruptions. During the investigation, the Complainant withdrew hiscomplaint and informed FCC that the matter was attended to by Company Vand it has been resolved.On 01-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Iagainst Institution A, regarding a change in campus fees scheduled for afterorientation. The Complainant informed FCC that for the unit she took, thefee stated was $430 during orientation but the invoice she received inMarch stated $570 after which she came to know about the changes in thefees. Once the complaint was lodged, FCC formally wrote to Institution A,informing them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived, informing FCC that the fees for undergraduate programs wereproportioned to keep the total cost to students who were pursuing 8 units atpar, the same with the cost of pursuing 6 courses at the same level.Institution A also informed FCC about the fee structure and the reason forthe changes in fees. The above was conveyed to the complainant and thecase was closed.On 25-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Jagainst Company X, for unfair treatment towards him by the companydirector. The respondent demanded that the complainant pay extra feesand charges for the use of the base. FCC mediated the matter and therespondent agreed not to charge any extra fees and charges to thecomplainant.No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 76Page39of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/03/31/BC-FTD/722011/04/04/BC-FTD/73Consumer Kvs. Company YConsumer Lvs. Company ZThis case was referred to FCC by another Government Institution. Thecomplaint was regarding the sale of a vehicle which was half cut. Thevehicle was sold by Company Y to Consumer K. The Complainant boughtthe vehicle in 1997 and after using the vehicle for 8 years, lodged acomplaint to Company Y in 2005, that the vehicle was a half cut andCompany Y did not provide any redress. Once the complaint was received,FCC made its own assessment and analysis and informed the complainantthat under the Limitation Act [Cap 35], the law that deals with the initiation ofmatter before the court, all actions to be considered by the court must bebrought against any entity within 6 years and if the 6 years have lapsed,legal action cannot be brought against that entity.On 04-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer L. Thefollowing allegations were brought to FCC’s attention by Consumer Lagainst Company Z; (1) that he had bought 200 T-Shirts from theRespondent worth $1800.00 which turned out to be of poor quality since thewhole 200 were rejected by their clients and (2) The 200 t-shirts, uponwashing, also got torn. Once the complaint was lodged, FCC made its ownassessment and analysis and informed the complainant that the T-shirtswere in good quality before it got printed by the complainant’s corporationand there was a lack of evidence to show that the shirts got torn justbecause they were washed. The case was closed by FCC.No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page40of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/04/04/BC-FTD/742011/02/17/BC-FTD/752011/04/07/BC-FTD/76Consumer Mvs. Company AInstitution Evs. Company BConsumer Nvs. Company BOn 04-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Magainst Company A. The complainant informed FCC that Company A buyspaints in bulk and gets a discount and then retails at a lower price, whereas,Consumer M does not buy in bulk and does not receive any discount, sothey cannot sell at a lower price. FCC carried out its independent analysisand concluded that there was no merit in the case. The Complainant wasinformed of the above and the case was closed.On 17-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from Institution E,regarding unclear receipts from Company B’s supermarket. FCC formallywrote to the Respondent, informing them of the issue and seeking aresponse. A response was received, informing FCC that they hadapologized for the oversight and that they had changed all the printer headswhich were having problems and a copy of a proforma invoice from eachprinter was presented to FCC. The above was conveyed to Institution E andmonitored by FCC and the case was closed.On 07-04-11, the Commission received a complaint against Company B,regarding the increase in bus fares from $0.70 to $1.00 without any noticeby the bus company. The Complainant travels in the same company’s busand according to her, no notice had been issued concerning the increase inbus fare. FCC formally wrote to the transport sector regulator, informing it ofthe issue and seeking a response. A response was received informing FCCthat the actual fare was supposed to be $1.00 while Company B wascharging $0.70. The above was conveyed to the complainant and the casewas closed.No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 76No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page41of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/04/08/BC-FTD/782011/04/08/BC-FTD/792011/03/31/BC-FTD/80Consumer Ovs. Company CComplaint byInstitution EagainstCompany DConsumer Pvs. Company EOn 08-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Oagainst Company C, regarding the absence/incomplete details of CompanyC’s call charges on its invoice and Company C’s electronic billing system.FCC formally wrote to Company C informing them of the issue and seekinga response. A response was received informing FCC that if customerswanted itemised bills, they would have to pay and Company C wouldprovide them. The above was conveyed to the complainant and the matterwas referred to the Telecommunications Regulator for further investigation.On 08-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Institution Eagainst Company D, for misleading consumers by advertising in theNewspaper that their Garlic was a New Zealand product but the productpackaging clearly stated “Product of China”. FCC formally wrote toCompany D, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, informing FCC that it was a genuine error onCompany D’s part and an apology was given for the same. The above wasconveyed to Institution E and the case was closed.On 31-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Pagainst Company E. The Complainant alleged that Company E wascharging fees on a yearly flat rate and not as per unit which was normally apractice done by overseas and other local tertiary institutions. FCC formallywrote to Company E, informing them of the issue and seeking aConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 76Sections 75 & 76,78No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page42of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/04/12/BC-FTD/812011/04/12/BC-FTD/82Consumer Qvs. Company FConsumer Rvs. Company Gresponse. A response was received, informing FCC that the fees werecharged as per unit and not at a yearly flat rate which was determined bythe Fees Review Committee of Company E. The above was conveyed tothe complainant and the case was closed.On 12-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Qagainst Company F. The complainant informed FCC that Company Fimposed very high mark-ups on parts as they were the sole distributors ofLand Rovers in Fiji. FCC formally wrote to the Respondent, informing themof the issue and seeking a response. A response was received, informingFCC that all the pricing was done under the Counter Inflation Act [Cap 73]and the prices were regularly checked by FCC. The above was verified bythe Commission Staff and (also a verification of prices was carried out)conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.On 13-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Ragainst Company G, regarding incorrect electricity billing for the accountnumber – 2626280610. The Complainant informed the Commission thatCompany G’s bill was high despite electricity not being used for a period oftime. FCC formally wrote to Company G informing them of the issue andsought a response. A response was received, informing FCC that thecomplainant’s premises had 3 meters, 100 lights, a generator for cleaningthe swimming pool, 8 air conditioning units and an electric gate, whichresulted in the high bills. The above was conveyed to the complainant andthe case was closed.ProvisionsBreachedNo Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page43of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/04/08/BC-FTD/832011/04/15/BC-FTD/842011/04/19/BC-FTD/85Company S vs.Company HConsumer Tvs. Company IConsumer Uvs. Company JOn 08-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Company S,against Company H on an inaccurate and misleading advertisement,regarding 32% savings on mobile charges. FCC formally wrote to CompanyH informing them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived, informing FCC that the statement was made by a customer of thecompany and according to them; they had made 32% savings. Company Halso submitted the documents to defend the advertisement which statedthat the customer made 32% savings. After the analysis by FCC, CompanyS was informed that the advertisement did not breach CCD2010 and thecase was closed.On 15-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Tagainst Company I, regarding an incorrect water bill. The Complainantinformed the Commission that his March – June 2010 statement showed aclosing reading of 1698 and June – December 2010 statement showed anopening reading of 1582. FCC mediated the matter and Company I creditedthe customer’s account with a total of $163.44.On 19-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Uagainst Company J, regarding a damaged LCD TV. The Complainantinformed FCC that certain lines were appearing on the TV and theComplainant complained to Company J. Company J took the TV from theComplainant’s house when they were not at home and later told theComplainant to pay for the repairs as the TV was damaged prior to taking itfor repairs. FCC mediated the matter and Company J replaced the TV witha new model of the same value at no cost to the consumer.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 78Sections 75 & 76,78Sections 75 & 76,83Page44of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/04/26/BC-FTD/862011/04/27/BC-FTD/87Consumer Vvs. Company KCompany Wvs. Company LOn 26-04-11, FCC received a complaint from Consumer V againstCompany K. Consumer V informed FCC that his decoder was notfunctioning and he had taken it to Company K for repairs and Company Kadvised the complainant that the mother board was faulty and the decodercould not be repaired and the complainant would have to buy a newdecoder for $217. FCC formally wrote to Company K, informing them of theissue and seeking a response. A response was received, informing FCCthat the services were installed for the customer in 2007. The warranty forthe decoder was usually 6 months and the warranty for the decoder for thecustomer expired in 2007. Therefore, it cannot be repaired under warrantyand the customer should buy a new decoder. The above was conveyed tothe complainant and the case was closed.The Commission received a complaint from Company W against CompanyL for a misleading advertisement in a local daily on 27 April 2011.TheCommission was informed that there were many conditions attached to theUnlimited text promotion and that those conditions were not stated in theadvertisement. FCC formally wrote to Company L, informing them of theissue and allowing them two weeks to clear their act and informing them torefrain from engaging in such conduct which was misleading and a breachof CCD 2010.No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 76,78Page45of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/04/28/BC-FTD/892011/04/26/BC-FTD/902011/04/28/BC-FTD/91Consumer Xvs. Company MConsumer Yvs. Company NCompany Z vs.Company OOn 28-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Xagainst Company M. Consumer X alleged that the two water metersregistered under his name had overstated readings. FCC mediated thematter and Company M changed the water meter and credited thecustomer’s account with $134.24.On 26-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Yregarding the purchase of a vehicle that was for sale at Company N’s yard.Consumer Y had informed the Commission of the following: He enquiredabout a vehicle at Company N and the price was told to be $21000 to whichConsumer Y agreed but it was later increased to $23000. The Complainantwas claiming for income loss and a refund of $30. FCC mediated the matterand the respondent refunded a total of $30 and the complainant wasinformed that if he wanted to claim for a loss, he would have to lodge it withSCT.On 28-04-11, the Commission received a Complaint from Company Zagainst Company O for a number of print advertisements by Company Onamely the following: (1) 1 cents Video Calling, (2) 7 cents Overseas Callsand (3) Free Calls. Company Z alleged that there were a number of fineprint conditions attached to each of the promotions and it was alleged to beunfair and misleading to consumers. FCC carried out its assessment andanalysis on the matter and informed both parties of FCC’s outcome. Bothparties were also cautioned to improve their acts and ensure that theytraded and advertised within the requirements of the CCD 2010.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 76,Sections 75 & 76,78Sections 75 & 76,78Page46of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/05/02/BC-FTD/922011/05/04/BC-FTD/932011/05/05/BC-FTD/94Consumer Avs. Company PExclusiveLicense forwaste toenergy ventureConsumer Bvs. Company ROn 02-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Aregarding an Engine that he bought for $2000. Consumer A paid a depositof $1000 and the balance was payable in instalments. The Engine wastaken on 26-03-11. On 02-05-11, Consumer A complained to theCommission that the Engine that he bought was not able to perform thetask of operating a saw mill to rip logs. FCC mediated the matter and thecomplainant came to an agreement that he would make the payment on amonthly basis for the workable machine and both parties signed asettlement before the Commission.On 04-05-11, FCC received a submission from Company Q, requesting foran exclusive license to produce energy from waste, for a period of 25 years.FCC had a meeting with the representatives of the company where thebusiness dynamic was explained to FCC. After the meeting, FCC requestedfor additional information and documents before FCC could make anydecision in this regards. After a week FCC was informed that the companywas putting on hold its project due to some internal problems and onceeverything was rectified, they would get back to FCC.On 05-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Bregarding the warranty condition on a damaged watch that she had boughtfrom Company R. FCC mediated the matter and the watch was replaced byCompany R and the matter was resolved.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 76,84------------- --------------Division 1 -Warranty Section 116Page47of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/05/09/BC-FTD/952011/05/04/BC-FTD/962011/04/27/BC-FTD/97Consumer Cvs. Company SComplaintagainstCompany TCompany D vs.Company UOn 09-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Cagainst Company S regarding the purchase of a DVD portable radio for thepurpose of audio recording. The first radio the complainant bought was notfit for the purpose intended and the complainant went to exchange the radioand was given a radio that was partially damaged. FCC mediated thematter and Company S replaced the radio with a new radio.On 04-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from the PCMdepartment through inspection, regarding the terms and conditions on theinvoice of Company T which did not fully comply with the CCD 2010.FCCformally wrote to Company T, informing them that the terms and conditionsprinted on the invoice were in breach of the CCD 2010 and Company Tshould re-phrase the terms and conditions. A response was received fromCompany T, informing FCC that they would certainly comply with thedirective of FCC. The same was done and the matter closed.On 27-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Company Dregarding the purchase of a flat bed truck. The Commission was informedthat Company D incurred a loss of $9000.00 as the vehicle was notdelivered to them as agreed and they had to hire another flat bed to cart themachinery. Company D requested a refund of the $40,000.00 they had paidas they had purchased another flat bed truck. FCC mediated the matter andthe respondent refunded the full sum of $40,000 to the complainant.Division 1 -Warranty Section 116ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 76Sections 75 & 76,77Page48of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/05/11/BC-FTD/992011/05/13/BC-FTD-1002011/03/29/BC-FTD/101Consumer Evs. Company VConsumer Fvs. CompanyWComplaintAgainst XOn 11-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Eagainst Company V. The Complainant requested the Commission to look intoissues whereby consumers should be able to see the cash register and seethe amount being entered into the cashier. The Complainant informed FCCthat when consumers cash their items, the cash register should face theconsumers. Once the complaint was lodged, FCC did its assessment andanalysis and informed the complainant that there was no breach of the CCD2010 and the case was closed.On 13-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer F ofMechanical Services against Company W, regarding the non refund ofmoney as stated in the invoice. Company W could not issue a sample cardand informed the Complainant that she had to pay $330.00 for 550 cards andone card as a sample was taken. Company W was not refunding the money,stating that it was not in their law. Once the complaint was lodged, FCCmediated the matter and the respondent refunded the full sum of $330 to thecomplainant.On 29-03-11, FCC was referred a complaint from Institution E against anewspaper article published by X in a Newspaper dated 21 December 2010.The following allegations were brought to the Commission’s attention byInstitution E; The Advertisement in the paper was misleading because itresulted in causing confusion to the “rate payers/readers” and Interest rateswhich were to be paid or not required to be paid by the rate payers was alsomisleading. FCC formally wrote to X, informing them of the issue and seekinga response. A response was received, informing FCC that X apologised forthe misunderstanding and for any inconvenience caused and an undertakingwas also provided that such conduct would not be repeated in the future. Theabove was conveyed to Institution E and the case was closed.ProvisionsBreachedNo Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticesSection 76 & 84Sections 75 & 76Page49of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/03/30/BC-FTD/1022011/04/08/BC-FTD/1032011/03/24/BC-FTD/104Consumer Gvs. Company YConsumer Hvs. Company ZConsumer I vs.Company AOn 30-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer G. TheComplainant alleged that Company Y was selling 10kg rice at a weight of9.89kg and was misleading the consumers. FCC after making itsassessment and analysis decided to refer the matter to Trades,Measurements and Standards. The above was conveyed to thecomplainant and the case was closed.On 08-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Hagainst Company Z. The complainant was concerned with an increase inthe bus fare for Company Z. The fare had increased from $0.70 cents to$1.00. Once the complaint was lodged, FCC formally wrote to the transportsector regulator informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received informing FCC that the actual fare was $1.00 andtherefore, passengers would have to pay this fare. The above wasconveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.On 24-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Iagainst Company A. The following allegations were brought to theCommission’s attention; The Complainant bought a Company A triple-uprecharge card for $11 but received only $22 free money instead of $33 asadvertised and Company A had wrongly interpreted the meaning of triple-upas this means three times above the value of the purchase. FCC formallywrote to Company A, informing them of the issue and seeking a response.A response was received; informing FCC that Company A had makeamendments to their advertisements in this regard. The above wasconveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 76 & 84Page50of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/05/13/BC-FTD/1052011/05/17/BC-FTD/106Consumer Jvs. Company BConsumer Kvs. InstitutionAOn 13-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Jagainst Company B, regarding the disconnection of his power supply,stating that the meter was directly connected to the main lead. Thecomplainant was renting the property and had a retail grocery shop on theproperty as well, so she suffered some loss to her frozen goods due to thedisconnection of the power supply. FCC formally wrote to Company B,informing them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived informing FCC that when Company B had inspected the shop,they came to know that the power point cut was connected directly to themain lead and a 6ft deep freezer and coke cooler were connected to thisswitch and Company B disconnected the power and asked the complainantto get an electrician to do the wiring. The above was conveyed to thecomplainant and the case was closed.On 17-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Kagainst Institution A, regarding his loan account with Institute A from early1980s. Consumer K requested that the Commission investigate his loanaccount with Institution A as he had paid a substantial amount of moneyand there were issues he wished to seek answers for from Institution A.FCC formally wrote to Institution A informing them of the issue and seekinga response. A response was received from Institution A, informing FCC thatthe complainant had been allowed various rehabilitation programs andInstitute A acted in utmost good faithNo Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 76 & 84Page51of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/05/18/BC-FTD/1072011/03/18/BC-FTD/108ComplaintagainstCompany CConsumer Lvs. Company Dto allow him reasonable time to secure a job and start paying, and even todate, repayments are not met on time. A copy of the account statement wasalso furnished to FCC. The above was conveyed to the complainant with acopy of his account statement and the case was closed.On 18-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from members of thepublic concerning the supply and servicing of solar power units in theoutskirts of Vanua Levu. The members of the community complained to theCommission against Company C whereby the following allegations weremade:1. Each household paid a deposit of $60 to Company C.2. The households were issued with a collective receipt and to date thesolar units have not been supplied.FCC had a meeting with the Department of Energy to discuss the responsefrom Company C and they informed FCC that the settlement concerned hasbeen earmarked for the installation of the solar units and the Department ofEnergy is waiting for the tender to be finalized. The above was conveyed tothe community spokes person and the case was closed.On 18-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Lagainst Company D, regarding the listing of his name with the Data Bureau.FCC mediated the matter and the respondent confirmed to FCC that thename of the complainant had been removed from the Data Bureau. Therespondent also provided evidence on the same and the complainant wasadvised and the matter was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesProvisionsBreachedSection 75Sections 75 & 76Page52of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/05/18/BC-FTD/1092011/05/18/BC-FTD/1112011/05/19/BC-FTD/112Consumer Mvs. CompanyEConsumer Nvs. Company FCompany G vs.Institute BOn 18-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Magainst Company E, regarding a significant increase in his water bill.Company E provided a response to the complainant that the previous twoquarter billings were estimated due to the gates being locked and thereading for the first quarter of 2011 was correct, thus, no adjustment couldbe made to the account. FCC mediated the matter and Company E creditedthe customer’s account with $81 and the case was closed.On 18-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Nagainst Company F. The Complainant informed FCC that he was told byCompany F that his shop would not be raided if he bought movies fromCompany F. On 11-03-11, two Company F employees came with fourpolice officers and the Complainant was told that they had a search warrantsince Company F has legal rights to the movies. The Company Femployees found 9 movies which amounted to 21 copies being taken. TheComplainant also informed the Commission that other shops who wereselling copies of the same movies were not raided. FCC after making itsanalysis referred the matter to the relevant authority for investigation. Theabove was conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.On 19-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Company Gregarding the loss to their business due to the breakdown of the lift. TheCommission was informed that the lift was made operational on 23-03-11but it broke down again on 29-04-11 and since then it has not beenoperating. The service provider had refused to attend to the lift informingCompany G that it was a matter between the landlord and Institute B .FCCmediated the matter and Institute B fixed the lift and the matter wasresolved.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 76 & 84No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page53of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/05/19/BC-FTD/1132011/05/01/BC-FTD/1142011/03/02/BC-FTD/116Consumer Ovs. Company HConsumer Pvs.Respondent ACompany I vs.Company JOn 19-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Oagainst Company H. The complainant informed FCC that he had traded hisvehicle for a new vehicle and after two years a vehicle was provided to him.The complainant was informed to pay an additional $4000 for the vehicle.After using the vehicle for 6 months, he noticed that the vehicle’s body hadbubbles and so he took the vehicle for inspection where he found that thevehicle body had rusted. The complainant requested Company H toexchange the vehicle but company H refused. FCC after making itsassessment and analysis on the complaint informed the complainant thatthe issue was in regards to the sale of a second hand good and as such, itwas not covered under the CCD 2010 and the case was closed.On 01-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Pagainst Respondent A. Consumer P informed FCC that he purchased avehicle from Respondent A which was advertised in the Newspaper in2007. The complainant informed FCC that the respondent had informed himthat the vehicle had a radio telephone. However, at the day of purchase, thecomplainant came to know there was no radio telephone. FCC mediatedthe matter and the respondent replaced the radio telephone and the matterwas resolved.On 01-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Company Jregarding the resolution of civil litigation process delay. The Complainantinformed the Commission that they wanted clarification from their solicitorsin numerical sequences during the litigation process from commencementto the current date, as well as, the documentations. FCC discussed thematter and referred the matter to the relevant authority for action. Theabove was conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection76 & 84No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page54of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/05/18/BC-FTD/1182011/05/23/BC-FTD/1192011/05/24/BC-FTD/120Consumer Qvs. Company KConsumer Rvs. Company LConsumer Svs. CompanyMOn 18-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Qregarding work permits for people to work in overseas as advertised in theNewspaper. The Complainant informed FCC that he had paid $3000 forhimself and for his wife to receive work permits to work in a farm in Australiaand the owner of Company K was planning to leave the country beforelodging their documents. Complainant also informed that the matter wasalso reported to the police and he could follow up with the police for anydevelopments and outcomes.On 23-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Rregarding the non supply of a hose and fittings by Company L with theequipment purchased. The complainant informed the Commission that hehad purchased an air compressor worth $1950 and was not supplied withthe hose and fittings and was told that it was not included in the purchaseprice of the air compressor. FCC mediated the matter and the respondentinformed FCC that he was willing to give a good deal to the complainant.The above was conveyed to the complainant and he accepted the deal andthe case was closed.On 24-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Sregarding the deduction of $10 from his salary and having noted on thesalary slip a rate of $2 but being paid at a rate of $1 per hour. TheComplainant informed that he had complained to the relevant authority on21-02-11 but no action was taken. FCC after making its assessment andanalysis referred the matter to the relevant authority for further investigation.The above was conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 76 & 84Section 83No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page55of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/05/23/BC-FTD/1212011/05/24/BC-FTD/1222011/05/25/BC-FTD/123Consumer Tvs. Company NConsumer Uvs. Institute CConsumer Vvs. Company OOn 23-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Tregarding an unfair trade practice for the sale of a printer ink. TheCommission was informed that normally ink is sold for $5.90 but when thereis a short supply of the item, the price is increased to $9.60 by Company N.FCC after making its assessment and analysis informed the complainantthat the price of Ink was not controlled by the Commission nor was there amark-up control on the item. The complainant was also advised thatconsumers were free to switch to other suppliers for a better deal.On 24-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Uregarding an increase in the taxi base renewal fees from $5.63 to $57.00.The complainant informed FCC that the increase was considered to beexorbitant and proprietors were finding difficulties in paying the increasedamount. FCC formally wrote to Institute C, informing them of the issue andseeking a response. A response was received, informing FCC that the feesand charges were a one off payment for 3 years compared to previousmonthly payments. The above was conveyed to complainant and the casewas closed.On 25-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Vregarding the repair services for his phone. The phone was repaired andthe complainant paid $160 for the change of screen and a verbal warrantyfor 3 months was given but the phone kept on experiencing problems. FCCmediated the matter and the respondent refunded $100 to the complainant.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 76 & 83Sections 76 & 89Sections 76 & 84Page56of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/05/25/BC-FTD/1242011/05/26/BC-FTD/1252011/04/14/BC-FTD/126Consumer Wvs.Respondent DConsumer Xvs. Company PConsumer Yvs. Company QOn 25-05-11, this complaint was referred to FCC by the Ministry of Industry& Trade. The complaint was regarding the joinery work which was done byRespondent D at the complainants place. The complainant was not satisfiedwith the work done. Once the complaint was lodged, FCC came to knowthat Consumer W had filed a criminal charge against the respondent andthe charge laid against the respondent was for obtaining money bydeception. The above was conveyed to the complainant and the case wasclosed.On 26-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Xagainst Company P. The Headboard and Sleep on It Deluxe set waspurchased from Company P in September 2009 and after 1 year 7 monthsin April 2011, the Headboard batten broke. The Headboard was given toCompany P for repair on 28-04-11 and the customer was informed that itwould be checked and repaired. Consumer X was again informed on 25-05-11 that the Headboard could not be repaired as it was not under thewarranty but only the bed was under the warranty and that the Headboardcould be repaired for $109.00. Once the complaint was lodged, FCCmediated the matter and Company P repaired the Headboard FOC and thematter was resolved.On 14-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Yagainst Company Q. The Complainant bought parts worth $4000 and afterfitting the parts, he identified a problem in the engine. He alleged that hewas given the wrong parts. Once the complaint was lodged, FCC visitedcompany Q, who fitted the engine and then FCC came to know that thevehicle was washed away in a flood. After the mediation, the case wasresolved.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesDivision 1 -WarrantyConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 76Section 116Sections 76 & 83Page57of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/05/26/BC-FTD/1272011/06/01/BC-FTD/128Consumer Zvs. Company RConsumer Avs. Company SOn 26-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Zregarding the purchase of a package tour to travel on the Seaspray. Thecomplainant informed that he paid a deposit of $115 and tried to pay therest to another shipping company but there was no booking for him andlater Ms. X of Company R informed him that the package should not havebeen sold to him in that manner and also informed him that no passage wasavailable on the booked date of 29-04-11. FCC mediated the matter and therespondent provided a refund of $115 to the complainant and the case wasclosed.On 01-06-11, this complaint was referred to the Commission from aGovernment Department. Consumer A lodged a complaint to claim $5000as damages from Company S. FCC formally wrote to both parties,informing them of the issue and seeking a response and documents todefend the claim made by the complainant. A response was received fromthe respondent informing FCC that he was willing to compensate thecomplainant, provided that the complainant produced documents to supporthis claims. After a month, FCC followed-up with the complainant to seeksaid documents and FCC came to know that the complainant did not haveany such documents to support his claims. Due to this the Commission hadno reasonable grounds to decide on the claim. FCC formally informed theparties of the outcome, advised them to make a case before the SCT andthe case was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75, 76 &84Sections 75, 76 &77Page58of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/06/01/BC-FTD/1292011/06/01/BC-FTD/1302011/05/31/BC-FTD/131Company Tvs. CompanyUConsumer Bvs. CompanyVConsumer Cvs. CompanyWOn 01-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Company T regardinga shopping guide titled ‘The Shopper’. The Commission was informed thatCompany T started promoting ‘The Shopper’ to its readers in its Saturday 7thMay edition and on 10th May. Company U began promoting its shopping guidewith a new name ‘The Shopper’, which was alleged to be misleading to thereaders. FCC after making its assessment and analysis informed thecomplainant that the matter did not fall within the jurisdiction of the FCC andthe companies could proceed with private litigation if they had grounds toestablish breaches of any other relevant laws. The case was closed.On 01-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Bregarding a payment of $1500 for damages to a rental vehicle. TheComplainant informed FCC that they were not aware as to how the vehicle washit as it was parked on the street. Company V told the Complainant to pay$5000 but they later ended up paying $1500 for actual damages and wereinformed that Company V would get a reimbursement from their insurancecompany. FCC after making its assessment and analysis informed thecomplainant that Company V was under self insurance and there was no claimfrom any other insurance company. The case was closed.On 31-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer C againstCompany W. The main issue raised by Consumer C was that he bought a30mm ply board for $70. The original cost for the board was $189. ConsumerC had chosen the particular board saying that he could have it polishedoutside. When he cut the timber, there were visible deteriorating signs. FCCmediated the matter and the respondent refunded the full amount of $70 to thecomplainant and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticesProvisionsBreachedSections 76 & 77,84Sections 76 & 77Sections 76 & 83Page59of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/05/27/BC-FTD/1322011/06/02/BC-FTD/133Consumer Dvs.Respondent CConsumer Evs. InstitutionFOn 27-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Dagainst Respondent C, regarding an agreement to purchase a car. TheComplainant bought a car from Respondent C but payments were not doneon time, so extra time was given by Respondent C but the complainant wasstill not able to make the payments and Respondent C demanded that thecomplainant give the car back to him but he refused to reimburse theamount already paid by the complainant. FCC mediated the matter and thecomplainant was informed that he could make claims to the Small ClaimsTribunal to recover his deposit and any payments from the Respondent.Based on the above, the case was closed.On 02-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer E,against Institution F. The complainant’s main issue was that he had taken aproperty loan from Institution F in 2002 with down payments from FNPF.According to him, a substantial amount had been paid over the years;however, the balance still remained at around $33,000. FCC formally wroteto Institution F, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received from Institution F, informing FCC that Institution Fhad been very considerate in accommodating Consumer E’s requests foradditional loans. According to Institution F, Consumer E had been allowedvarious rehabilitation programs during hard times when he was not in aposition to service the debt and the company acted in good faith to allowhim reasonable time to secure a job and start paying the loan. Institution Falso submitted the documents and account statements for Consumer E.The above was conveyed to Consumer E together with the documents toseek his response. FCC did not receive any feedback from the complainantdespite follow ups and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 75Sections 76 & 77Page60of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/06/06/BC-FTD/1342011/05/31/BC-FTD/135Consumer Evs. Company XComplainant Yvs.Respondent ZOn 06-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Eagainst Company X, for not refunding his money which was deposited for aD4 bulldozer. Consumer E had an agreement with Company X to purchasethe D4 bulldozer and several deposits were made but when the D4 arrivedin Fiji, it was different compared to what he had been shown. FCC mediatedthe matter and the respondent refunded a total of $25,000 to thecomplainant via a cheque, and a settlement was signed.On 31-05-11, the Commission received a complaint from Complainant Yregarding the storage costs charged by Respondent Z. Complainant Yinformed the Commission of the following: - Their 12 wheeler truck, FH, hadsome mechanical problems in Labasa and their mechanic approachedRespondent Z to have a look at their truck. The truck was towed to thegarage and it was dismantled for a diagnosis. Respondent Z demanded anexorbitant sum as storage charge. Complainant Y informed FCC that theywere willing to pay for the labour costs; however, they were NOT willing topay for the high storage charge of $7050. Once the complaint was lodged,FCC mediated the matter and the Respondent offered the complainant topay $5000 as storage cost. The above was conveyed to the complainantand the complainant informed FCC that they were withdrawing thecomplaint as the matter would now be given for private legal consideration.The case was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 77Section 75Page61of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Issues Issues Issues Part of CCD20102011/06/02/BC-FTD/1362011/06/09/BC-FTD/1372011/04/15/BC-FTD/138Consumer F vs.Company AConsumer Gvs. Company BConsumer Hvs. Company COn 02-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Fagainst Company A. The main issue highlighted by the Complainant wasthat Company A has repossessed the vehicle that was bought on creditfacility. Company A demanded that the Complainant clear all the balanceowed before they could release the vehicle. FCC mediated the matter andCompany A agreed to release the vehicle upon the payment of $7000. Acheque was issued to Company A and upon checking with the bank, theyfound out that there was no money in the bank. The complainant was takento the Police station for questioning. The case was closed by FCC.On 09-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Gagainst Company B, regarding the promotion prize of a two bedroom EziBuild house which he had won in March. Consumer G informed theCommission that after numerous correspondences by phone and emailwith Company B, there has been no legal documents’ stating ownership ofhis prize even though it has been 3 months since winning the prize. FCCformally wrote to Company B, informing them of the issue and seeking aresponse. A response was received, informing FCC that Company B hadorganized a house to be built but the complainant did not have any land.Company B further informed FCC that the complainant had applied for landthrough another institution. The above was conveyed to the complainantand the case was closed.On 15-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Hagainst Company C, regarding the repair of his car which was stolen anddamaged on 18-06-10. Company C had to repair the car and argued thatthe damage to the gear box was prior to the vehicle being brought forrepairs. FCC mediated the matter and Company C agreed to pay $1000 forthe damages which were not under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy.ProvisionsBreachedNo Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices2011/06/09/BC-FTD/137No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page62of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/06/03/BC-FTD/1392011/06/06/BC-FTD/140Consumer I vs.Company DComplaintagainstCompany E-MisleadingAdvertisementOn 03-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer I,against Company D The main issue highlighted by the Complainant wasthat he bought a second hand 2c complete engine set from Company D on15-04-11. Consumer I fitted the said engine to his vehicle and experiencedvarious problems and defects. He notified Company D and they providedhim with a replacement engine on 28 May 2011. According to thecomplainant the replacement engine also had heating problems. FCCmediated the matter and the respondent refunded the full Sum of $2400and the case was closed.On 06-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Institution Eregarding an advertisement, in the Newspaper dated 31 st May 2011 whichwas alleged to be misleading. The advertisement was regarding thepurchasing of items at a discounted price after spending $20.00 atCompany E. FCC formally wrote to Company E, informing them of theissue and seeking a response. A response was received, informing FCCthat the advertisement was not misleading as the quantity and prices wereclearly indicated. FCC after making its final analysis conveyed the above toInstitution E and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 76No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page63of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/06/14/BC-FTD/1412011/06/14/BC-FTD/142Complainant Jvs. DataBureau LtdComplainant Kvs. Company FOn 14-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Complainant J,regarding the registering of his company name as a defaulter, with the DataBureau, which caused irreparable harm to their company. According to thecomplainant, the company was not able to obtain loans from financialinstitutions and their contracts were withdrawn because the Complainant’sname was entered as a defaulter with the Data Bureau. FCC formally wroteto the Data Bureau, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, informing FCC that the Data Bureau had made anerror and overlooked the complainant’s business name. An undertaking wasalso provided by the Data Bureau. The above was conveyed to thecomplainant and the complainant advised the Commission that he would bepursuing legal action to claim for damages and the case was closed.On 14-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from the head of aTikina Council, regarding the rise in electricity costs. Complainant Kinformed the Commission that in their council meeting, the villagers wereprotesting against the rise in electricity costs as it was not affordable bythem and had raised several questions as they could not understand thereasons for the increase. FCC after making its assessment and analysisinformed the complainant that the billing was as per the determineddomestic Tariff rate for Fiji and to take advantage of the lower Tariff rates,the consumers should reduce their consumption.Restrictive TradePracticesSection 66No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page64of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/06/17/BC-FTD/1432011/06/16/BC-FTD/144Consumer Jvs. Company GConsumer Kvs. Company HOn 17-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Jregarding the purchase of a Super Voltage Pulse Self-Protection with Torchand Rechargeable Dry Battery Unit from Company G. Consumer J informedFCC that the device was bought from another company, by Company G forUS$2.25 per unit, with a total of 5000 pieces amounting to US$11250. Itwas sold to Company G for FJ$197.50 per unit, with a total of 5000 piecesamounting to FJ$987,500. FCC formally wrote to Company G, informingthem of the issue and seeking a response. A response was received,informing FCC that after due deliberation by the respondent on the priceand product, an agreement was made to procure and supply theequipments. FCC informed the Complainant about the matter and theyrequested for all the correspondences between FCC and Company G andinformed FCC that the appropriate authority would handle the matter. Basedon this, the case was closed.On 16-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Kagainst Company H. The Complainant bought an Alca-berry starter packfrom Company H on 31-08-09. A warranty period of 6 months was given forthe item, however, within the warranty period the phone batterycontinuously had problems. FCC mediated the matter and the respondentreplaced the mobile battery to the customer at no cost.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices Section 76Division 1 -Warranty Section 116Page65of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/06/22/BC-FTD/1452011/06/22/BC-FTD/146Consumer Lvs. Company IConsumer Mvs. Company JOn 22-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Lagainst Company I. The Complainant informed FCC that he had bought a10kg twin tub washer from Company I which experienced some problems.The Complainant took the machine down to Company I on 16/03/2011 andwas told to come back in two weeks time by which the repair will becompleted. After two weeks she returned to the respondent and was toldthat they could not find the part for the machine that needed repairing. FCCmediated the matter and Company I repaired the washing machine FOC.On 07-07-11, the complainant confirmed to FCC that she had received thewashing machine.On 22-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Magainst Company J. Consumer M was nominated as a winner for an IIFAtexting Competition. He had to get a Canadian visa and was informed thathe would have to travel through USA and he was not able to get the USAvisa due to financial problems. Consumer M requested for a direct flightfrom Nadi to Toronto but it was denied by Company J on the grounds that itwould cost them more. The Complainant requested that Company J payhim $1000. FCC mediated the matter and the respondent paid $1000 to thecomplainant and the case was closedDivision 1 -Warranty Section 116ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 76Page66of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/06/23/BC-FTD/1502011/06/23/BC-FTD/1512011/06/21/BC-FTD/153Consumer Pvs. Company MConsumer Qvs. Company NConsumer Rvs. CompanyOOn 23-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Pregarding the purchase of a car battery for his taxi from Company M whichwas not working properly. The complainant wanted the battery to bereplaced as the battery was for his taxi. FCC formally wrote to therespondent informing him of the issue and seeking a response. A responsewas received informing FCC that the battery could not be replaced as thewarranty period had elapsed. The Commission established that it was abattery that had gone beyond the warranty period and as such areplacement was not mandatory. The above was conveyed to complainantand the case was closed.On 23-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Qregarding the purchase of a phone from Company N. After a few weeks thespeaker of the phone stopped working and it was repaired. TheComplainant requested that the phone be replaced as it was under warrantyand the problem had occurred again. FCC mediated the matter and therespondent replaced the phone and the matter was closed.On 21-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Ragainst Company O. The following issues were brought to theCommission’s attention by Consumer R; She was a residential customer,however, Company O had been billing her at the commercial rate tariffs andher electricity was disconnected by Company O for delayed payment. FCCmediated the matter and Company O connected the power the next dayand her billing was changed to Domestic Tariff.Division 1 -Warranty Section 116Division 1 -Warranty Section 116ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 76 & 84Page68of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/06/27/BC-FTD/1542011/06/28/BC-FTD/155Consumer Svs. Company PConsumer Tvs. Company QOn 27-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Sregarding the repair of a “Skope” single door bottle cooler. The said repairsspecifically involved fitting a new 1/3 hp compressor and services totaling$1144.25. Consumer S informed FCC that the fridge was shipped fromSavusavu at a cost of $150.00 and on 09/03/11, the fridge was shippedback to Savusavu at an additional cost of $150.00. The fridge was runningwell for a week, after which it ceased to cool at all and a local refrigerationtechnician revealed after a visual inspection that the compressor had notbeen changed. An additional cost of $150.00 was incurred to ship the fridgeback to Suva. FCC formally wrote to the respondent informing them of theissue and seeking a response. A response was received, informing FCCthat Consumer S needed to give a written order for the mechanical fault tobe repaired; pay 50% upfront deposit on the quotation, a representative ofConsumer S to inspect the cooler and Consumer S to pay balance of 50%and then take the cooler. The above was conveyed to the complainant, andwith no further correspondence on the issue, the matter was closed.On 28-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Tagainst Company Q regarding a gear box problem. She informed FCC thatshe had bought a car from Company Q and after using it for one month sheexperienced a gear box problem. She approached Company Q asking themto replace the gear box and nothing was done. FCC formally wrote to therespondent, informing them of the issue and sought a response. A responsewas received informing FCC that the vehicle was given out as a privaterental for monetary gains and the complaint regarding the gear box waslodged to them and they could not replace the gear box since the warrantyhad expired. The above was conveyed to the complainant and the case wasclosed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices Section 75No Breach of theCommerceCommissionDecree 20102011/06/28/BC-FTD/155Page69of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreachedCases Closed in 20112011/06/28/BC-FTD/156Consumer Uvs. Company ROn 28-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Uregarding the quality of paint that he had bought from Company R.Consumer U informed FCC that he bought a 6 x 4 litre Berger Stop rustGalvanized iron Primer on 08-06-11 from Company R. The painting of theroof was completed by Consumer U on 10-06-11. On 11-06-11, heavy rainin the morning washed away 50% of the paint, despite the fact that it wasleft for more than 10 hours to dry. Upon lodging his concerns, Company R’sSales Officers conducted a site inspection with a Lab Technician andconcluded that there were no remedies or compensation available forConsumer U as the damage was done by the act of nature. FCC formallywrote to respondent, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received informing FCC that Consumer U had purchasedwater based paints, whereby the drying (curing) depended upon the loss ofwater (by evaporation) as a first process in curing the product. Theapplication of the product in the afternoon might have resulted incondensation (dew formation) on the paint film. The above was conveyed tothe complainant and the case was closedConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 75Page70of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/06/28/BC-FTD/1572011/05/30/BC-FTD/158Consumer Vvs. Company SConsumer Wvs. Company TOn 28-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Vagainst Company S. The complainant informed FCC that he had bought adual sim mobile phone model number ST - 97001 on 03-05-11 fromCompany S and on 04-06-11 he noticed some problems with the phone.The phone’s menu button and number 0 and 4 did not appear on the screenonce being pressed. Once the complaint was lodged, FCC mediated thematter and the respondent replaced the phone and the case was closed.On 30-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Wagainst Company T. The Complainant informed FCC that he had ordered avehicle, model # NZE121 from the respondent which was supposed to bedelivered within 1 month as it was coming from Singapore. However, it wasnot delivered as promised. According to the complainant, he waited for awhole year, but, there was no positive result. The Complainant requested tothe Commission to request Company T to refund his deposit. FCC mediatedthe matter and the respondent agreed to provide a credit note of $500.00on another vehicle purchase or alternatively refund $250.00. Before thecheque was delivered to the Commission’s office, the respondent informedFCC that he had received a summons from the Small Claims Tribunal forthe same issue and would be settling the issue with the tribunal. The abovewas conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.Division 1 -Warranty Section 116ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 88Page71of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/06/27/BC-FTD/1592011/07/04/BC-FTD/162Law Firm Vs aMinistryMember A vs.Credit UnionOn 30-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from a Law firmregarding charges for medical reports. The complainant informed FCC thatthe increase in charges for medical reports from $5.00 to $115.00 wasaddressed by the Ministry but the issue of different charges for medicalreports requested by individuals and solicitors were not addressed.Individuals were charged $115.00 and if solicitors requested on behalf oftheir clients, medical report cost $285.00. FCC formally wrote to therespondent, informing them of the issue. The Ministry informed FCC thatthe increase in fees was presented to Cabinet in 2010 and the increase wasendorsed which was officially gazette on 01-01-11. The above wasconveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.On 04-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Member A of theUnion regarding the forced sale of health insurance policy to Unionmembers by the Union. The complainant informed FCC that the Union hadintroduced an insurance policy and had made it compulsory for all membersand had started deducting $17.31 without approval and/or authority from itsmembers. The Complainant’s spouse is also a member of the Union andthis would mean that they would have two insurance deductions. Thecomplainant has been a member of the Union for almost 18 years. Healready holds a health insurance policy under a Group Health InsuranceScheme which covers his spouse and children. FCC formally wrote to therespondent informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, informing FCC that they were open for negotiationand arrangements with members for reimbursement. The above wasconveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Consumer Protection & UnfairPracticesPage72of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/06/29/BC-FTD/1632011/07/04//BC-FTD/165Consumer Xvs. CompanyUConsumer Yvs. Company VOn 29-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer X,regarding the repair of a Bosch drill which he bought from Company U for$541.00 with 3 months warranty. He informed FCC that the machinestopped working after a week and it was given for repair but it started toemit smoke when it was first used after repair. The machine was given forrepair again and after repairing, Company U asked the complainant to pay$65.00 for repairs but the complainant refused to take the machine back.Consumer X requested Company U to replace the Bosch drill or refund theamount paid for the machine but Company U refused to meet the requests.FCC formally wrote to the respondent informing them of the issue andseeking a response. A response was received informing FCC that thecomplainant was trying to get an old drill repaired under the warranty of anew drill and the complainant was informed about this. The respondent alsoprovided relevant documents to FCC to prove the same. The above wasconveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.On 04-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Yregarding the payments for a vehicle that he had bought from Company V.The complainant informed FCC that in 2009, he signed a Bill of Sale for aLPG vehicle from Company V to be used as a taxi. The cost of the vehiclewas $14,332.50 and the total interest was $4,299.75, amounting to$18,632.25 as the total value of the vehicle. In December 2010, ConsumerY was surprised, that without any notice or contact, Company V seized thevehicle. In May 2011, Consumer Y paid $1,700 to release the vehicle fromCompany V. However, in June 2011, theNo Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page73of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/07/04/BC-FTD/166Consumer Zvs. CompanyWvehicle was again seized by Company V and he was told to pay the balanceamount for the vehicle which was $6,600. FCC formally wrote to therespondent, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, informing FCC that under the Consumer Credit Act,Company V can demand for the full sum owed for failing to make payments.They also invited the complainant for further negotiations and proposal toresolve the matter. The above was conveyed to the complainant and thecase was closed.On 04-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Zregarding internet broadband pricing by Company W. The Complainantinformed FCC that after the Commission’s directive, Company W reducedthe broadband charges by $4.50 and increased the data cap by 2GB for128k which was not beneficial to all users, because if faster speed andupgrade was required, it would come with an increased cost. FCC after theinvestigation formally wrote to the Complainant, informing him that FCConly regulates the wholesale internet charges and not the retail internetcharges, as the Commission did not have the jurisdiction to control andregulate the retail internet prices at this point in time. The Complainant wasadvised that FCC was monitoring the market .Based on the above, the casewas closed.ProvisionsBreachedConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices Section 84Page74of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/07/05/BC-FTD/1672011/07/04/BC-FTD/168Consumer Avs. Company XTaxi OperatorsVs. Company ZOn 05-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Aagainst Company X, regarding services provided by Company X during apower outage and frequent electricity fluctuations in Natabua, Lautoka. Thecomplainant informed FCC that he lives in Lautoka, pretty close toCompany X’s headquarters and frequent electricity fluctuations were acommon problem in that area. This was becoming a common occurrence.On 04-07-11, there was a power outage in the area at about 4.00pm. TheComplainant did not know how long it lasted but when he reached homefrom work at about 6.00pm he was told by his family members that thepower had been out since 4.00pm. He contacted Company X several timesbut nothing was done by Company X. FCC contacted Company X and thepower was connected on the next day and a confirmation was receivedfrom the complainant on the same.On 04-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from a Group of TaxiOperators against Company Z, regarding high base fees. The Taxioperators informed FCC that previously they used to pay $30 per week andthe current owner has increased the same fee to $37.50 per week.FCCmediated the matter and Company Z agreed to a base fee of $34.50VIP perweek. FCC formally informed the complainant of the outcome and the casewas closedRestrictive TradePracticesSection 66ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices Section 76 & 84Page75of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/06/01//BC-FTD/1692011/07/05/BC-FTD/170Consumer Bvs. Company YConsumer Cvs. Company ZOn 01-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer B. Themain issue raised by the complainant was that Company Y had been billingthem daily for weather text messages. The complainant claimed that he didnot subscribe for the service. The complainant also mentioned that hereceived three text messages continuously. His bills also showed thesame. FCC mediated the matter and Company Y reimbursed $69.28 to thecomplainant and an undertaking was given that such conduct would notoccur in the future. The case was closed.On 05-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Cagainst Company Z regarding the delay in the installation of Company Z’sInfrastructure throughout an Estate & Resort for the availability ofconnection to 240VAC mains electricity. FCC formally wrote to Company Z,informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Company Z informedFCC that they would complete the work without any additional cost to thecomplainant. This was conveyed to the complainant. The Commission wasalso informed that the work for the development at the Estate wasscheduled for 24-11-2011. FCC notified this to Consumer C. Later FCCreceived an email from Company Z informing FCC that all the pending workhad been completed. On 07-12-2011, the Commission sent an email toConsumer C informing him that the issue had been resolved since allconstruction works were done correctly. Based on the above, the case wasclosed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices Section 75ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 76Page76of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/07/07/BC-FTD/1712011/07/11/BC-FTD/172Consumer Dvs. Company ATenant A vs.Landlord BOn 07-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Dregarding the capital cost charged by Company A for the development ofprojects. Consumer D had opted for 75% non-refundable in 2008. CompanyA provided a revised cost of the extension of power supply in stage 3 of thesame subdivision with an upfront payment, which was based on a 100%refundable contribution in 8 years. The Complainant requested if there wasa more conventional approach to address the issue which would be ofassistance to consumers. FCC after its assessment and final analysisformally informed the complainant that the FCC Determination on CompanyA Capital Costs still stands and it will be up to Consumer D and Company Ato negotiate for the payment method and arrangement of the capital cost tothe agreement and satisfaction of both the parties. The Commission wouldplay no part in the same as this was entirely between Company A andConsumer D. Based on the above, the case was closed.On 11-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Tenant Aregarding two weeks’ notice given by B, their landlord, to vacate thepremises by 11-07-11. FCC made an official visit to Landlord B to have ameeting with the Director. After a long discussion the Tenant was called tobe part of the mediation. After the discussion, both parties agreed to thefollowing:1. The tenant to pay a total sum of $1096.17 as a rent for 17 days;and2. The tenant to vacate the premises by or before 17 July 2011.Both parties signed an agreement and the case was closedRestrictive TradePracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 66Section 76Page77of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/06/20/BC-FTD/1732011/07/14/BC-FTD/174Consumer Evs. Company BConsumer Fvs. Company COn 20-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Eregarding the repair of a phone by Company B. The complainant informedthat after the phone was repaired, some of the buttons of the phone werenot working and $15.00 was paid for the service. The complainant wasseeking to get a refund. FCC mediated the matter and the respondentrefunded $15.00, which was charged as labour cost to the complainant. Thecase was closed.On 14-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Fagainst Company C, regarding nonpayment for the repairs of a damagedexcavator. Consumer F informed FCC that one of their excavators wasdamaged while working at one of the work sites at the Khalsa Road LowCost Housing Project on 11 May 2011. Company C had been arranging forthe repairs to be done by another company and the excavator was taken tothat Company after their advice as Consumer F paid a premium of$56000.00 for insurance to cater for plants and machinery at their site.However the Complainant was facing difficulties in getting the repair doneon a timely basis. FCC mediated the matter and Company C repaired theExcavator. A confirmation was given by the complainant and the case wasclosed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 84ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices Section 75Page78of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/07/06/BC-FTD/1752011/07/19/BC-FTD/1762011/07/19/BC-FTD/178Consumer Gvs. Company DConsumer Hvs. Company EConsumer Ivs. Company FOn 06-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Gagainst Company D regarding the land she had purchased at Nadi BackRoad Subdivision. The Complainant informed FCC that she was not willingto continue with the deal due to the incomplete status of the subdivision andrequested for the full refund of $10,000, which was paid as the deposit.FCC after making its assessment and analysis formally informed thecomplainant that the matter did not fall within the jurisdiction of FCC andthat she may have to engage her lawyers to recover the sum of $10,000.On 19-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Hagainst Company E, regarding the billing for the customer’s account withCompany E which was supposed to be closed in March 2011 after paymentof the arrears. An offer was made to Consumer H by Company E to waiveall remaining charges for the last four months and that no bills to bereceived from Company E. FCC mediated the matter and Company Ewaived all the charges and the account was closed.On 19-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Iagainst Company F. The complainant informed FCC that her internetconnection had been disconnected since May 2011. However, the internetusage bill continued to come in her mail with accumulated charges forinternet usage. The Complainant had paid $102.60 on 09-02-11 afterdisconnection. She informed that she did not use the internet for the monthof May and June 2011. However, bills for the two months amounting to$69.42 andNo Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 75Section 75 & 76Page79of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/07/19/BC-FTD/179Consumer Jvs. CompanyG$80.62 was charged to her account. FCC formally wrote to Company Finforming them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived, informing FCC that the total outstanding balance on the accountwas $80.62, which was for the month of April, May and June 2011 and thecomplainant would have to clear her account as it was an appropriate bill.The above was conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.On 19-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Jagainst Company G. The complainant informed FCC that he had bought adual sim mobile phone from Company G on 25-03-11, and was given a 3months warranty for the phone. On 21-06-11, the Complainant experiencedproblems with the phone speaker, which was not functioning properly. TheComplainant, therefore, lodged his concern at Company G, whereby, thephone was taken for inspection. The phone was repaired and returnedtwice; however, the problem was not solved. Once the complaint waslodged, FCC mediated the matter and the respondent replaced the phone.A confirmation was given by the complainant and the case was closed.ProvisionsBreachedDivision 1 -Warranty Section 116Page80of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/07/19/BC-FTD/1812011/07/20/BC-FTD/182Consumer Kvs. Company HConsumer Lvs. Company IOn 19-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Kagainst Company H. The complainant informed FCC that he had boughtmaterials worth $300 from Company H Nadi Branch. He lodged hisconcerns at the Nabua branch and nothing was done. FCC formally wroteto Company H, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, informing FCC that the issue in the complaint wasin regards to liability and the matter should be taken to court by thecomplainant. FCC after making its assessment and analysis formallyconveyed the above to the complainant and closed the case.On 20-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Lagainst Company I, regarding the non-payment of dalo supplied for exporton 5 May 2011. FCC formally wrote to the respondent, informing him of theissue and seeking a response. A response was received, informing FCCthat they would like to request for time to make the payments as they hadfaced problems in delivering the products to NZ and relevant authoritieswere handling the matter. According to the last email from the Respondent,the matter was with another investigating authority. The above was relayedto the complainant and the case was closed.No Breach of theCommerceCommissionDecree 2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices2011/07/19/BC-FTD/181Section 75 & 76Page81of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/07/14/BC-FTD/183Consumer Mvs.Respondent JOn 14-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Magainst Respondent J, regarding the sale of a vehicle. The complainantinformed FCC that:1. He had bought a car (Hyundai Tucson) from Respondent J ofLaucala Beach. Consumer M came to know that Respondent J wasselling this vehicle from Mr. X, who was a friend of Consumer Mand after enquiring about the vehicle, Respondent J stated that hewas selling the vehicle and that it was a new and accident freevehicle with minor scratches which he gotten repaired throughinsurance as his friend was working for an insurance company, andrecommended to Respondent J to use his insurance since it wasnot used.2. Consumer M continued to seek confirmation from Respondent J inregards to his statement that the vehicle was accident free.Respondent J always denied that the vehicle was involved in anymajor accident.3. On the day of sale, Respondent J mentioned that it was an accidentfree vehicle but if it gave any problems, he would assist in fixing thevehicle as they knew each other.4. After the transfer, Consumer M called the authorities asking fordetails about the vehicle as he was the new owner and theyresponded that the vehicle had been through a major accident andwas written off. This was verbally confirmed but they could notrelease it in writing, according to Consumer M.5. On 11 July 2011, Respondent J called Consumer M around 3 pmasking him to come to Sports City and handed him a letter whichwas from a Law firm which stated that Consumer M had purchaseda vehicle and after using it for a period of time, was trying to returnthe vehicle to the seller and also trying to threaten him.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 75 & 76Page82of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/07/22/BC-FTD/184Consumer Nvs. Company KFCC formally wrote to the respondent seeking a response on the complaint.FCC also wrote to the Insurance Company to seek additional informationfrom them as they were the previous owners of the vehicle. In addition, theCommission also wrote to the transport sector regulator seeking informationunder Respondent J’s license number. All the parties furnished therequested information to FCC. The complainant was seeking for refund, soafter FCC made its assessment and analysis, FCC formally informed thecomplainant that he may need to engage his private lawyer and take thematter to court for the refund and the case was closed.On 22-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Nagainst Company K, regarding high water bill charges from March 2011 toJune 2011 of $99.15 compared to previous bills. FCC mediated the matterand Company K credited the complainant’s account with $38.84.ConsumerProtection &Restrictive TradePracticesProvisionsBreachedSection 66 and 752011/08/01/BC-FTD/185Consumer Ovs. Company LOn 01-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Oregarding a sub-standard cooking pot that he purchased from Company L.Consumer O bought three large pots from Company L at a total price of$460. On 02-07-11, Consumer O’s wife used one of the pots for cooking.However, just a few minutes after pouring the cooking oil, the base of thepot melted in the fire/heat resulting in a hole at the base of the pot. Thecomplainant approached the company but was denied any redress. FCCmediated the matter and the respondent replaced the pot.Division 1 -Warranty Section 114Page83of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/08/03/BC-FTD/1862011/08/08/BC-FTD/1882011/08/08/BC-FTD/189Consumer Pvs. Company MConsumer Qvs.Respondent NConsumer Rvs. Company OOn 03-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Pagainst Company M’s Savusavu store. The complainant informed FCC thathe had bought a freezer from Company M based in Savusavu and it facedsome problems. The freezer was sent for repairs to Company M’s office inSuva after the complaint was made that the freezer was not workingproperly and when it was returned after repair, the freezer was still notworking properly and it had a dent outside. FCC mediated the matter andCompany M replaced the freezer with a new freezer. Confirmation wasreceived from the complainant and the case was closed.On 08-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Qagainst Respondent N. Consumer Q informed FCC that he had bought aVibrator and a poker unit from Respondent N for concrete mixing and fillingat a job site. When the machine was started it had some problems and wasnot fit to be used for mixing and filling the concrete. FCC mediated thematter and the machine was repaired and a 3 month warranty was alsogiven from the date of repair.On 08-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Ragainst Company O. The complainant informed FCC that he was workingfor the respondent company and the company had been deducting $10from every pay and they informed him that once he resigned, the companywould pay him all the money which was deducted. The complainant gotanother job and he approached Company O for the reimbursement and thecompany asked the complainant to work for two more weeks and then theywould reimburse him. FCC after making its assessment and analysisinformed the complainant that he may have to lodge this complaint with theMinistry of Labor as they were the right authority to look into the matterdealing with employment and the case was closed.Division 1 -Warranty Section 116Division 1 -Warranty Section 114No Breach of theCommerceCommissionDecree 20102011/08/08/BC-FTD/189Page84of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/08/08/BC-FTD/1902011/08/08/BC-FTD/191Consumer Svs. Company PConsumer Tvs. Company QOn 08-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Sregarding an unrecorded deduction made on her account, which wastransferred from her Bank account. The complainant informed FCC that shehad purchased building materials on Hire Purchase from Company P andher payments was made through a monthly bank deduction of $89.00 fromher Bank account. The bank deduction was transferred to Company P on27 June 2011. On 25 July 2011, the Bank deducted $89.00 from heraccount; unfortunately the transferred amount received on 28 July 2011 byCompany P was only $55.00. The $34.00 difference was not recorded byCompany P. FCC formally wrote to Company P informing them of the issueand seeking a response. A response was received informing FCC that itwas an error on Company P’s end and that the necessary adjustments hadbeen made to rectify the error. A confirmation was received from thecomplainant and the case was closed.On 08-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Company Tregarding deals which he made with Company Q for the purchase of a 40ftContainer. The complainant informed FCC that he bought the 40ft containercontaining tyres (1156 tyres) worth $38,000 from Company Q. AfterConsumer T paid the amount, Company Q failed to release the Container.Company Q stated that the reason why they were still holding on to theContainer was that the freight company that had shipped the Container fromoverseas had yet to pay them the sum of $14,881.01. The respondent wasrefunded $20,000 but was yet to receive the balance amount of $18,000.FCC mediated the matter and the respondent refunded $18,000 to thecomplainant and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices Section 75ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices Section 75 and 83Page85of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/08/08/BC-FTD/1922011/08/10/BC-FTD/193Consumer Svs. CompanyUConsumer Tvs. InstitutionVOn 08-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Sagainst Company U. The complainant informed FCC that she had bought aComputer box from the Respondent for $240.00. She fitted the part into thevehicle and used the vehicle for 3 months and after 3 months, the vehiclehad problems. The Complainant contacted 3 mechanics to inspect hervehicle. They advised her that there was a problem with the Computer Box.On that same day she contacted the Respondent for a replacement andwas told that they would not replace or repair the item since their receiptstated “No Returns, No Refund”. FCC mediated the matter and therespondent replaced the Computer Box at a price of $120.On 10-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Tagainst Institution V regarding the fee of $50.00 charged per transaction.The complainant informed FCC that he noticed in the Institution V’s loanstatement that previously the fee per transaction was $10.00 but it has nowincreased to $50.00. The complainant informed that there was also anincrease in the interest rate on the same housing loan from 7.25% to8.50%. The complainant also has a life insurance policy with Institution Vwhere the premium is increasing annually and it was not discussed by theagent while signing up the policy. FCC formally wrote to Institution Vinforming them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived, informing FCC that the new fee came into effect on 1 May 2011,after a full review of bank fees which was approved by the Reserve Bank ofFiji on 18 March 2011. Institution V complied by the RBF’s disclosurerequirement by advertising the new fee in the local dailies, all their bankbranches and also posted the change on their website to advise the public.Division 1 -Warranty Section 114No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Page86of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/08/11/BC-FTD/1942011/08/10/BC-FTD/195Consumer Uvs. CompanyWCompany V vs.Company X(Fiji’s only 3GNetwork)On 11-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Uagainst Company W, regarding the non-payment of dalo supplied for export.She also informed FCC that the respondent under weighed their dalo andpaid a lower amount based on the weight. FCC after making its assessmentand analysis formally informed the complainant that the weight issue did notfall within the ambit of FCC and she may have to lodge her complaint withthe Department of Weights & Measurements and she may also have tolodge her claim with the Small Claims Tribunal for non-payment of the dalosupplied.On 10-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Company Vagainst Company X. The main issue of Company V was the advertisementspublished by Company X that appeared in the press recently and on largesized billboards throughout the country that stated that Company X was“Fiji’s only 3G Network”. According to Company V, that was not correct andwas potentially misleading. Company V in their letter stated that Company Vhad a 3G network live and the network was accessible by all Company Vcustomers located in their 3G coverage area that had 3G enabledhandsets. FCC formally wrote to the respondent informing them of the issueand seeking a response. A response was received, informing FCC that therespondent had launched its 3G Network in 2008 and since then a numberof marketing Communication materials were put to inform the consumers onthe same. FCC after making its assessment on the issue and responsedirected the respondent to pull down all the related advertisements and thiswas done by the respondent.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 75 & 76ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices Section 78Page87of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/08/17/BC-FTD/1972011/08/17/BC-FTD/1982011/08/17/BC-FTD/199Consumer Wvs. InstitutionYConsumer Xvs. CompanyZConsumer Yvs. Company AOn 17-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Wagainst Institution Y. The complainant informed FCC that Institute Y hadcharged him a $15 fee for the encashment of a cheque drawn from InstituteY. FCC after its assessment and analysis formally referred the matter to thefinancial sector regulator for their investigation. FCC also informed thecomplainant that his complaint had been referred to the financial sectorregulator for further investigation.On 17-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Xagainst Company Z, regarding problems with a purchased MFC-7340 tonerthat resulted in the printer misprinting documents. FCC followed-up with therespondent on the matter and the next day an email was received from thecomplainant informing FCC that they were withdrawing the case as therespondent had replaced the toner.On 17-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Yagainst Company A, regarding a Galaxy Aluminium Ladder (4 steps 20-30)which was purchased from Company A at the cost of $52.00. Thecomplainant informed FCC that when the ladder was purchased, they wereinformed that it could hold the weight of 100kg. The complainant tried to testthe capacity of the ladder and found it dangerous and uncertain. FCCmediated the matter and the respondent refunded the amount of $52.00which was accepted by the complainant and the matter was closed.No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Consumer Protection & UnfairPracticesConsumer Protection & UnfairPracticesPage88of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/07/20/BC-FTD/2002011/07/20/BC-FTD/2012011/08/23/BC-FTD/202Consumer Zvs. Company BConsumer Avs. Company CConsumer Bvs. Company DOn 20-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Zagainst Company B, regarding the non refund of a deposit of $500.00 thatshe had paid to Company B for a vehicle worth $50,000.00. Thecomplainant informed FCC that she returned to Company B on 15-05-11,informing Company B that she would like a refund of the deposit as she hadfound another vehicle which was much cheaper at Company X but thecompany refused to provide the refund. FCC mediated the matter and therespondent offered to refund $250.00, 50% of the deposit. The complainantwas informed of the offer and she accepted the offer. The refund was doneand both parties signed the terms of settlement.On 20-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Aagainst Company C. The complainant informed FCC that he had bought aticket to travel to Koro Island from Nausori. Consumer A decided to go byboat and approached Company C for a refund and the company refused.FCC formally wrote to the respondent, informing them of the issue andseeking a response. A response was received informing FCC that agovernment department was handling the issue. The above was conveyedto the complainant and the case was closed.On 23-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer B,regarding the purchase of a clutch plate and a pressure plate fromCompany D. The complainant informed FCC that the item was purchasedand it was sent via Air Freight to Labasa where the customer received it.The customer later reverted, claiming that the parts supplied did not matchthe specifications. The respondent was informed about the issue and theywere asked to leave the parts at the premises as the respondent would lookinto the matter. The parts were left at the respondent’s premises and theConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 88No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Division 1 -Warranty Section 115Page89of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/07/07/BC-FTD/203Consumer Cvs. Company Esame afternoon after a follow up, they stated that a refund could not beprovided for the items. FCC mediated the matter and the respondentrefunded $400. Both parties signed the terms of settlement and the casewas closedOn 07-07-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Cagainst Company E, regarding a misrepresentation conduct with regards toCompany E’s $5 Starter Pack. The Complainant claimed that there was freetalk time provided .FCC formally wrote to Company E, informing them of theissue and seeking a response. A response was received informing FCCthat;1. Consumer C had purchased the starter pack from a X outlet at GangaStreet, in Ba.2. The SIM card did not have the $5.00 free talk time loaded on the SIMas per cover.3. The mobile number represented on the SIM was part of a batch ofinactive mobile numbers that was recycled for re-issue.4. Company E had contacted Consumer C and the matter was resolvedamicably, whereby Company E awarded a total of $10 worth of credit tothe complainant.The above was confirmed with the complainant and an undertaking wasprovided by the respondent, that such practices would not be repeated inthe future.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesProvisionsBreachedSection 75 & 76Page90of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/08/25/BC-FTD/2062011/08/26/BC-FTD/207Consumer Evs. Company GConsumer Fvs. Company HOn 25-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer E.Consumer E informed FCC that they had purchased a piece of land inOlosara Sigatoka in 2009 and started the construction of a house in 2010.During April 2011, the couple came to Fiji and gathered quotes foraluminum works for the house. The contract was given to Company G. Thetotal cost of the aluminum works was $23,800.00. An initial deposit of$11,900.00 was made via a cheque and they were assured that thealuminum works would be completed by the first week of June 2011. Uponreturn from Canada, the couple realized that the respondent had beenmisleading them, as there was no aluminum installed or any sign ofmaterials. The justifications provided by the respondent was that thewindow frames (plaster works) were not ready. A response was received,informing FCC that he would not be able to refund the deposit. FCCmediated the matter and he agreed to refund $2000.00 to the complainant.The above offer was discussed with the complainant and the complainantrefused to accept the offer. The complainant informed FCC that she wouldbe taking the matter to court through her lawyer. Based on the above, thecase was closed by FCC.On 26-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Fagainst Company H regarding Company H’s Broadband. The complainantinformed FCC that on the night of 4 August 2011, telephone cables werestolen from the Tavua area resulting in disruptions to internet services.Internet services were later restored on 23 August 2011 after telephonelines were repaired. Internet services were not available for 22 consecutivedays. The complainant requested for an adjustment to be made to thecurrent bill to reflect the internet usage and fairness. FCC formally wrote tothe respondent informing them of the issue and seeking a response.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 75 & 76 &77Section 75Page91of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreachedA response was received informing FCC that the cable theft was deemedan event beyond Company H’s control and as such, they would not be ableto refund for services not provided during the outage period. The above wasconveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.2011/08/29/BC-FTD/2092011/08/30/BC-FTD/210Consumer Gvs. Company IConsumer Hvs. Company JOn 29-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Gagainst Company I, regarding the billing of the complainant’s account. Thecomplainant informed FCC that he was billed by Company I on Commercialrates from 1999 till May 2011. The Company I bill received by Consumer Gin June 2011 showed the tariff description as Domestic while previously itwas stated as COM Step 1. Consumer G requested Company I for therefund of the sum overpaid. FCC formally wrote to Company I informingthem of the issue and Company I after making necessary adjustments,credited the complainant’s account with $745.60 as rebate. The above wasconveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.On 30-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Hregarding the repair of a vehicle by Company J. The complainant informedFCC that Consumer H purchased a Mitsubishi Pajero V78, from Company Jfor $57,875.00 in 2010. After 87 days from the date of purchase, thevehicles gauges (fuel, temperature, speed and mileage) were notfunctioning and the concern was lodged with Company J but the matter wasnot attended. FCC formally wrote to the respondent informing them of theissue and seeking a response on the matter. A response was received,informing FCC that the vehicle was in good running condition whenpurchased by the complainant in 2010 and the electrical related problemswere not covered under the warranty and as such, repairs could not bedone FOC. The above was conveyed to the complainant and the case wasclosed.Restrictive TradePracticesDivision 1 -WarrantySection 66Section116Page92of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/08/26/BC-FTD/2122011/09/05/BC-FTD/215Consumer I vs.Company KConsumer JVs. Company LOn 30-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Iagainst Company K, regarding the freezer motor rewinding andreplacement of a leaking seal that was carried out by the respondent. FCCformally wrote to the respondent informing them of the issue and seeking aresponse. A response was received informing FCC that they wouldrelinquish the existing amount owed by the complainant and close thematter. The Supplier of the mechanical seal confirmed that the seals weremade in Taiwan and were of high quality, for which the complainant wouldhave to pay. A copy of the letter from the manufacturer was also received.The above was conveyed to the complainant and he agreed to pay for themechanical seal. Based on the above, the case was closed.On 05-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Jregarding an Advertisement by Company L. The complainant informed FCCthat the advertisement by the respondent stated that for every purchaseworth $20.00 or more, a customer was eligible to buy 500 grams salt at aprice of $0.10. The complainant purchased groceries worth $39.70. Includedin his groceries list were ten packets of salt. Upon enquiry with the cashier,the complainant was charged 10 cents for the first packet, whereas, the restof the nine packets that he had in his trolley were charged at the normalretail price. FCC formally wrote to the respondent informing them of theissue. A response was received from Company L, informing FCC that the$20 purchase condition was imposed to ensure that people who ran smallshops in various communities did not take advantage of such specials anddid not buy in bulk only to resell at a higher price. FCC after making itsassessment and analysis notified the Company to not engage in suchconduct in the future and conveyed the same to the complainant and thecase was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 75 & 76Section 87IPage93of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/09/07/BC-FTD/217Consumer Kvs. Company MOn 07-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Kagainst Company M, regarding the repossession of his vehicle. Thecomplainant informed FCC that he had purchased the vehicle fromCompany M in August 2010 and was advised that any mechanical faults inthe first year of purchase would be repaired free of charge. In May 2011,the vehicle’s gear box experienced some problems and the complainantcontacted the respondent and informed them of his concerns. Therespondent informed the complainant that the gear box could not berepaired and he would have to purchase a new one. The complainantbought a new gear box for his vehicle and within a few days the vehiclestarted to experience the same problem. The vehicle was parked at thecomplainant’s premises from June 2011 to August 2011. On 23 August2011, the respondent towed the vehicle from the complainant’s premises asthe Company was not prepared to rectify the problem. FCC formally wroteto the respondent informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received informing FCC that the respondent had power underthe Bill of Sale Act to repossess/seize the vehicle upon the default ofpayments on any occasions and they could demand for the full sum owing.The respondent informed FCC that the complainant could seek furthernegotiations or a proposal to resolve the debt with them. FCC informed thecomplainant on the above and requested him to visit the office of therespondent, to have further negotiations and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 75 & 76Page94of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/09/07/BC-FTD/218Consumer Lvs. InstitutionNOn 07-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Lregarding interests and fees charged on their home loan account number6710492 by Institution N. The complainant informed FCC that they hadobtained a home loan from Institution N in 2008. Institution N’s initial offerletter stated that the monthly loan service fee would be $10, however, fromMay 2011; the complainant noted that they were charged $35 for the samefee. A Bank statement dated 07-08-2008 till date stated that there was agradual decrease in the interest charged but on many instances, the newinterest amount added at the beginning of the new month was greater thanthe interest amount added in the previous month. FCC formally wrote toInstitution N, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received from Institution N informing FCC that the new feecame into effect on 1 May 2011 following a full review of bank fees. InstituteN’s fee structure was approved by the Reserve Bank of Fiji on 18 March2011 after rigorous screening. The interest rate applicable was charged onthe reducing balance. This was confirmed by the gradual decrease noted inthe monthly interest incurred by the complainant. The amount of monthlyinterest is affected by the number of days in a month. Therefore, theamount charged for months with 31 days would be more than the othermonths by few dollars. FCC after making its assessment and analysisformally conveyed the above to the complainant and the case was closed.No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Page95of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/09/07/BC-FTD/2192011/09/07//BC-FTD/220Consumer Mvs. CompanyOConsumer Nvs. Company POn 07-09-2011, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Mregarding a misrepresented advertisement posted by Company O throughits affiliations with a Travel agent. The complainant arrived in Fiji on 31August 2011 for an 8 day visit. Prior to this, he had made online bookingsfor vehicle hire through the agent as he was a Velocity member with theagent. As a Velocity member of the agent, the complainant had earnedreward points while travelling domestically or overseas which could beredeemed at affiliated agencies of the agent. The Complainant obtainedbooking confirmation and instructions as to how to collect the vehicle andhow much to pay the respondent. Upon visiting the respondent’s office, thecomplainant was advised that the respondent’s business was notcomputerized and they had not received any information or bookings madeby the complainant. Once the complaint was received, FCC formally sent anemail to the complainant, requesting him to write to the agents as the HeadOffice was in Australia. On 25-9-11, Consumer M wrote back to FCCinforming that he had written to the agents at HQ and they had refunded hismoney. Base on the above, the case was closed.On 07-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Nregarding a drill purchased from Company P which did not work and wasdeclined an exchange. The complainant informed FCC that he hadpurchased a Black and Decker drill from the respondent and it had workedwhen it was tested. When the drill was used on 07-09-11, the chuck was notworking on load. The drill was taken to Company P but they declined toexchange it. Once the complaint was received, FCC mediated the matterand the respondent credited a sum of $142.00 to the complainant’s son’saccount through which he purchased a new drill worth $600.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 77Division 1 -Warranty Section 116Page96of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/09/09/BC-FTD/2212011/09/09/BC-FTD/222Consumer Ovs. Company QConsumer Pvs. CompanyROn 09-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Oregarding an increase in line rental charges on his account by Company Q.The complainant informed FCC that he has two phone numbers registeredunder his name. The two numbers are paid $15.00 and $19.91 respectivelyevery month but charges have increased recently. FCC formally wrote tothe respondent informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, informing FCC that according to Company Q’sdefinition and business rules, business customers were subject to thefollowing line rental permutations: Where a customer has 2 or lesser lines; the line rental shall be$15.00 per line per month, and Where a customer has more than 2 lines, the line rental shall be$35 per line per month.FCC after making its assessment and analysis formally conveyed the aboveto the complainant and the case was closed.On 09-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Pagainst Company R, regarding the sale of a Roofing Iron. The complainantinformed FCC that he had purchased the roofing iron worth $575.20 fromthe respondent. After receiving the payments, the respondent informed thecomplainant that they would deliver the roofing iron once the stock arrivesfrom Ba. A week after receiving the payment, the respondent informed thecomplainant that they would not be able to deliver the roofing iron at theprice of $575.20 as the price of roofing had increased and he would have topay an additional $84.00. FCC mediated the matter and the respondentagreed to supply the roofing iron at the price of $575.20.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 75.Section 88Page97of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/09/12/BC-FTD/2232011/09/07/BC-FTD/225Consumer Qvs. CompanySConsumer Rvs. InstitutionTOn 12-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Qregarding a faulty drill that he had purchased from Company S. Thecomplainant informed FCC that in September 2011, he bought the drillfrom Company S for $188.00. On 6 September 2011, he lodged acomplaint with the respondent stating that the drill was not operating onreversing mode. On 8 September 2011, the respondent informed thecomplainant that they could not repair the drill. FCC mediated the matterand the respondent replaced the drill at an additional cost of $20 as thedrill was not under warranty.On 07-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Ragainst Institution T, regarding a stale personal cheque which was clearedby the bank. The complainant informed FCC that the bank disregarded his‘Stop Payment Notice’ and also overlooked the date on the cheque whichwas stale and proceeded to clear the cheque. It was a mistake by the Bankstaff, which may have been due to negligence by not noticing the stale date,and thus, clearing the cheque. FCC formally wrote to Institution T informingthem of the issue and seeking a response. A response was received,informing FCC that Institution T had clarified with the tax authority that thepayment was used to settle a genuine tax liability and that the bank hadacted in good faith in the transaction. Institution T checked that the previouscheque was issued in the calendar year 2008 and it was unlikely that thecheque was issued in 2006 from the middle of the cheque book becauseother cheques were used two years later. The cheque was issued in 2008with a stale date to the tax authorities and it was not clarified by thecomplainant upon query, through a letter dated 17 July 2008 from InstitutionT. FCC after making its assessment and analysis formally conveyed theabove to complainant and the case was closed.Division 1 -Warranty Section 116No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Page98of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/09/19/BC-FTD/2262011/09/19/BC-FTD/2282011/09/20/BC-FTD/229Consumer Svs. CompanyUConsumer Tvs. Company VConsumer Uvs. CompanyWOn 19-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Sagainst Company U, concerning the credit of a payment to a wrong meternumber. FCC mediated the matter and the respondent transferred the totalpayments $171.72 from JB41 to JB43 and the case was closed.On 19-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Tregarding the installation of a power line to their farm property in Nadi. TheComplainant informed that they wanted to connect to Company V’s powerline and upon enquiring with Company V; they found out that they had asingle line, whereas, a double line was needed for the transmission ofelectricity to their property. Company V also informed the complainant thatthe cost for this would be around $11,000.00. The Commission was alsoinformed by the complainant that their property was less than 30 metersaway from the main Company V Grid line. FCC formally wrote to CompanyV, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived, informing FCC that according to the respondent, the extensionwas uneconomical and they would make a case to the Government for thesupport of the extension and they were seeking assistance from theDepartment of Energy for support so that the application can be consideredand Company V, can proceed with the extension. The above was relayed tothe complainant and the case was closed.On 20-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Uagainst Company W for refusing to honor his claims for a vehicle which wasinsured with Company W. The complainant informed FCC that he was outof the country on a business trip. While on the trip, his car was stolen fromhis office in Votualevu, Nadi and was involved in an accident.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesNo Breach ofCommerceCommissionDecree 2010Section 75Section 762011/09/20/BC-FTD/229Page99of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/09/20/BC-FTD/230Consumer Vvs. CompanyXThe two people who were alleged to have taken the car withoutauthorization have been charged by the police and sentenced accordinglyby the court. The complainant’s car was insured with Company W and hisclaim on the policy was declined by Company W. FCC after making itsassessment and analysis formally informed the complainant that he mayhave to seek legal advice on the issue and take the case to court andestablish the facts of the case and the claim against Company W.On 20-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Vregarding the sale of “X liquid milk” by Company X. The complainantinformed FCC that first priority was given to major supermarkets in relationto the supply of X liquid milk, whereas small outlets like X Agencies had towait until the full quotas of supplies for major supermarkets were fulfilled.FCC formally wrote to the respondent informing them of the issue andseeking a response. A response was received, informing FCC that therespondent served their customers on a “first come, first serve basis” andmost of the major supermarkets orders were received before the productionrun and X Agencies may have to apply for an account with Company X ifthey wished to trade. FCC after making its assessment and analysisformally conveyed the above to complainant and the case was closed.Restrictive TradePracticesProvisionsBreachedSection 66Page100of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/09/19/BC-FTD/2322011/09/20/BC-FTD/2332011/09/20/BC-FTD/234Consumer Wvs. Company YConsumer Xvs. Company ZConsumer Yvs. Company AOn 19-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Wregarding a Sharp brand washing machine purchased from Company Y.The complainant informed FCC that she had purchased the washingmachine in December 2008 and a 3 years ext-warranty was purchased forthe item. The washing machine had been giving problems and it wasrepaired several times. The last time the washing machine was given to therespondent for repair, the washing machine was not returned to thecomplainant. FCC mediated the matter and the respondent replaced thewashing machine.On 20-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Xagainst Company Z, regarding disruptive paid channel transmissions withthe constant “No Signal or Bad Channel” message on screens. Thecomplainant informed FCC that the disruption was on a daily basis for awhole month as customers fully paid monthly subscriptions without anyimprovements to the reception or rebate on the accounts. The Complainantrequested that the Commission t investigate into the matter. FCC enquiredwith the respondent, and the respondent informed that the problem wasrectified. A confirmation was received from the complainant and the casewas closed.On 20-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Yagainst Company A. The complainant informed FCC that she hadpurchased 20 x 20kg bags of potatoes from the respondent on and realizedthat the majority of the bags of potatoes were rotten and took it back to therespondent for replacement on 16 September 2011. The respondentreplaced the ten bags of potatoes but the problem persisted even thoughthey were cooked for a longer period. The complainant requested for thepotatoes to be replaced with better quality potatoes. FCC mediated thematter and the respondent agreed to replace 14 bags of potatoes.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 77Section 84.Section 83Page101of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/09/26/BC-FTD/2352011/09/27/BC-FTD/237Consumer Zvs. Company BConsumer Avs. Company COn 26-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Zagainst Company B, regarding a faulty 4HFI starter motor. The complainantinformed FCC that he had purchased a truck starter from Company B. Thestarter was fitted in the truck but the truck experienced the same problem ashis previous starter. The complainant requested that the faulty starter bereplaced. FCC made an official visit to the respondent with the starter. Thestarter was opened and it was found that there was evidence of punchmarks on the edge of the pinion housing which indicated that undue forcewas applied to remove the pinion and clutch from the starter motor. Thestarter pinion and bolts surrounding the pinion housing that was initially soldhad security markings which were no longer visible. FCC after making itsassessment and analysis formally conveyed the above to the complainantand the case was closed.On 28-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Aagainst Company C, regarding wrong meter reading. The complainantinformed FCC that the water meter was replaced because it was faulty; withthe same meter number JA1564. The water billings amounted to $1,197.89which was not correct in the view of the complainant as it had resulted froma wrong meter reading. FCC formally wrote to Company C, informing themof the issue and seeking a response. A response was received fromCompany C, informing FCC that, a credit balance of $1082.64 had beenpassed on to the complainant’s account and a balance of $115.25 remainspayable by the complainant. The above was relayed to the complainant andthe case was closed.No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Consumer Protection &UnfairPracticesPage102of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/09/29/BC-FTD/2382011/09/28/BC-FTD/239Consumer Bvs. Company DConsumer Cvs. Company EOn 29-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Bagainst Company D, regarding the listing of his name with the Data Bureau.The complainant informed FCC that Company D sold Consumer B a tenwheeler truck, which was paid for with cash and a trade-in of 3 vehicles.Company D was given third party and transfer forms of the vehicles andcredit notes were provided to the complainant and all the related documentsshowed that the complainant cleared all payments to the respondent. FCCformally wrote to the respondent, informing him of the issue and seeking aresponse on the matter. A response and documents were received from therespondent which was cross checked with LTA and FCC found out that thevehicle was under another individual’s name and the other vehicle wasowned by another individual and the complainant had no direct interest inthe issue. The above was conveyed to the complainant and the case wasclosed.On 28-9-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Cagainst Company E, regarding the purchase of a vehicle. The complainantpurchased a vehicle in 2008 and discovered a rattling noise and it wasreported to the respondent. The respondent requested for the complainantto bring the vehicle for diagnosis to determine what the matter was. TheRespondent removed almost all the parts of the vehicle and new parts werereplaced. All diagnosis and replacements of the parts were done over a 3year period and the vehicle was taken for so many test drives. Later, on 8September 2011, the complainant’s son noticed that the 4 wheel drive lightwas on and that the release of the clutch plate was hard. The vehicle wastaken to the respondent and they were informed that it was a clutch plateand pressure plate problem and they could not repair it as it was notcovered under warranty. Once the complaint was received, FCC formallywrote to the respondent, informing them of the issue and seeking aresponse. A response was received informing FCC that the reason for theConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesRestrictive TradePracticesSection 76Section 66Page103of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/09/27/BC-FTD/240Consumer Dvs. Company Fsaid noise was due to the wearing of the clutch plate which normally resultsfrom driver abuse. On 22-11-11, FCC received an email from the companystating that the following had been changed/ rectified for the Vehicle: Clutch plate and Pressure plate Release bearing Four Wheel Switch/SensorFCC sent a formal email to the complainant, informing her that theCompany had confirmed the repair of the vehicle and the same wasconfirmed by the complainant. Based on the above, the case was closed.On 27-09-11, the Commission received a complaint, which was referredfrom another government department. The Complainant informed FCC thathe was treated unfairly by two salesmen of Company F, who gave falseinformation in regards to buying a carrier, which the complainant wanted touse to provide transportation to students in the village and other services tovillage people as there was no carrier in the village. In June 2011, thecomplainant was approached by the respondent through an agent ofCompany F and the respondent offered the complainant a carrier for$12,000.00. During the deal, the respondent informed the complainant thatthe vehicle was in good condition. Once both parties agreed, thecomplainant paid a deposit of $5,500.00. The respondent informed thecomplainant that once the 2 nd payment was made; the vehicle would betransferred to his name. Later, the respondent started to demand forpayments. This caused the complainant to inspect the vehicle. Once thecomplainant inspected the vehicle, the complainant came to know that thevehicle was not running for sometime as it was facing some mechanicalproblems. The complainant had been making payments to the respondentand a total of $1,950.00 was paid through monthly payments. During theinvestigation, FCC found that the complainant had misled FCC by notproviding and disclosing the full information in regardsConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesProvisionsBreachedSection 75 & 76 &77Page104of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/09/26/BC-FTD/2412011/09/28/BC-FTD/243Consumer Evs. Company GConsumer Fvs. Company Hto the complaint. There was a strong indication that the complainant hadengaged in corrupt practices and therefore, the case was referred to FICACfor further investigation. The above was conveyed to the department thatreferred the matter to FCC and the case was closed.On 26-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Eregarding high water bills. The complainant informed FCC that fromFebruary 2011 to May 2011, the complainant’s water bill was $6.10. Hereceived the next water bill on 11 May 2011 amounting to $136.03. Thecomplainant alleged that the amount was incorrectly billed to their accountsince, they had only three members in the family and they never had anyfamily functions during the period, which could have increased the water billto $136.03. FCC formally wrote to Company G, informing them of the issueand seeking a response. A response was received from company G,informing FCC that Company G had wrongly installed meter no. EB 8396 inplace of meter no. EB2 88A during the meter replacement request and thesum of $252.92 had been credited to the complainant’s account. The abovewas conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.On 28-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Fagainst Company H, regarding the supply of electricity to his house inLamainasau Village, Nausori. The complainant wrote to Company H,seeking the supply of electricity, whereby Company H advised thecomplainant that he would have to pay a total of $19,000.00 to Company Hfor the supply of power to his house. Once the complaint was received,FCC formally wrote to Company H, informing them of the issue and seekinga response.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesProvisionsBreachedSection 84 & 76Section 84Page105of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/10/05/BC-FTD/2452011/10/05/BC-FTD/246Consumer Gvs. CompanyIConsumer Hvs. Company JA response was received, informing FCC that according to Company H, inaccordance with Determination 5(b) of the Determination on Fiji ElectricityAuthority Customers for Capital Costs, Company H would be making a caseto the Government for support for capital infrastructure in the rural areawhere such extensions may provide low returns and Company H wascurrently seeking assistance from the Department of Energy for support sothat the application could be considered and Company H could proceed withthe extension. The above was conveyed to the complainant and the casewas closed.On 05-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Gregarding the tariff charges imposed by Company I. The Complainantinformed FCC that his bill was 73kwhs which was less than the 75kwhs tariffline. When the complainant clarified with Company I, he was informed thathis average daily usage must be 2.41 or less. The average daily usageindicated by Company I was misleading since it did not specify this on theback of Company I Bills. FCC after making its assessment and analysisinformed the complainant that the tariff rate calculation by Company I wascorrect and the case was closed.On 05-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Hregarding a tyre which he had bought from Company J in 2011. Thecomplainant informed FCC that he had purchased a 900 x 20’ tyre fromCompany J worth $330 on 27 September 2011. After paying for the tyre,the complainant noticed that it was not the brand new tyre which therespondent had agreed to supply. The tyre was not taken by thecomplainant as he was expecting a new tyre. Once the complaint waslodged, FCC mediated the matter and the respondent provided areplacement tyre to the complainant.RestrictiveTrade PracticesProvisionsBreachedSection 66Division 1 -Warranty Section 114Page106of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/10/05/BC-FTD/2472011/10/06/BC-FTD/248Consumer I vs.Company KComplaintagainst L & MOn 05-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Iagainst Company K regarding the charging of interest rates on an overdueaccount. FCC formally wrote to the respondent informing him of the issueand seeking a response. A response was received and FCC invited therespondent and the complainant for a meeting, where the complainantagreed to pay the amount due with the interest. After a week, FCC followedup with the respondent and was informed that the payment was not yetmade by the complainant. FCC tried to contact the complainant severaltimes but was unsuccessful. A number of letters were also written to thecomplainant but no response was received and after a month, the case wasclosed and Company K was advised to pursue the matter privately.On 06-10-11, the Commission received two different complaints against L &M. The complainants informed FCC that the ticket prices for the stadium(pavilion) for the IDC tournament had been set at $15.00 flat, that is,everyone occupying the seat, regardless, of the age had to pay $15.00. Thestallholders who had paid a market rate fee (around $920.00) were beingrestricted from selling products of their own choice, that is, the venue ownerwas dictating terms to the stallholders with regards to what they could selland from where they needed to purchase the products (soft drinks) etc.Once the complaint was lodged, FCC had a formal meeting with therespondents, whereby, the respondents agreed that the adult entry feewould remain at $15 and the children’s entry fee would be reduced to $7and refunds would be made to all those who had paid $15 for their children.The Respondents also informed FCC that they would allow stallholders tosell anything they wished to. The above was conveyed to the complainantsand the case was closedNo Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Restrictive TradePracticeSection 66Page107of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/10/05/BC-FTD/2492011/10/07/BC-FTD/250Consumer Jvs. Company NConsumer Kvs. Company OOn 05-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Jagainst Company N. The complainant informed FCC that his vehicle wasinvolved in an accident, whereby, Telecom and FEA poles fell on the carand it was towed to Sabeto Police Station. The matter was reported to hisfinanciers and a claim was filed with the Insurance Company. Variousquotations were received from car repair companies and all stated that thevehicle was beyond repair and should be written off. The assessor of theInsurance company also stated that the Vehicle should be written off. TheInsurance Company declined to write off the vehicle and preferred to have itrepaired. FCC mediated the matter and the respondent paid $8000 andreleased the car to the complainant. A confirmation was received from thecomplainant on the same and the case was closed.On 07-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Kagainst Company O, regarding the purchase of hand gloves. Thecomplainant informed FCC that they had purchased PVC red hand gloveson 10-08-11 but they were supplied with PVC green hand gloves by therespondent. On 24-08-11, the hand gloves were returned as they were notof the correct quality and color as the client was specific on the itemsordered. The Complainant requested for a refund but the respondentdeclined the request. Once the complaint was received, FCC formally wroteto the respondent, informing him of the issue and seeking a response. FCCwas informed that the matter was before the Small Claims Tribunal and thehearing was on 31-10-11. The Commission requested for a copy of thedocuments from the Small Claims Tribunal as a reference and it was faxedon 18-10-11. The above was conveyed to the complainant and the casewas closed.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 76 & 83Section 83Page108of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/10/12/BC-FTD/2512011/10/12/BC-FTD/252Consumer Lvs. Company PConsumer Mvs. CompanyQOn 12-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Lagainst Company P regarding the vehicle which they had bought fromCompany P. The complainant informed FCC that he had bought a newNissan Navara from Company P on 29 April 2011 which developedmechanical problems. The Complainant was informed that the replacementparts for the vehicle had to be brought via air-freight from the supplierswhich would take at least 2 weeks. The vehicle mentioned was used as arental vehicle and the complainant was losing out on rental hires asbookings had been made for the vehicle. FCC mediated the matter and therespondent repaired the vehicle. A confirmation was received from thecomplainant that the vehicle is in working condition and based on above,the case was closed.On 12-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer M,against Company Q for refusing to finance the vehicles from his dealership.Once the complaint was received, FCC formally wrote to Company Q,informing them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived informing FCC that customers were not treated differently whenthey applied for loan. Company Q also confirmed that Customers’desirability and risk worthiness were assessed with unfettered discretion,taking into account all factors that were deemed relevant. Company Qconfirmed that Customers of the complainant were welcome to submit theirapplication to Company Q for their consideration. The above was conveyedto the complainant and the case was closed.Division 1 -WarrantyRestrictiveTrade PracticesSection 116Section 60Page109of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/10/13/BC-FTD/2532011/10/13/BC-FTD/2542011/10/13/BC-FTD/255Consumer Nvs. CompanyRConsumer Ovs. Company SConsumer Pvs. Company TOn 13-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Nagainst Company R regarding locally produced ply boards. FCC aftermaking its assessment and analysis on the matter formally referred thematter to the Forestry Department. The above was conveyed to thecomplainant and the case was closed.On 13-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Oagainst Company S. The complainant informed FCC that he had purchaseda water blaster from Company S and after using it twice, the machineexperienced problems. The complainant approached the respondentrequesting for the replacement which was denied. FCC formally wrote tothe respondent informing him of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received informing FCC that another Consumer Organisationwas mediating the matter. The same was discussed with the complainantand the case was closed as FCC does not involve itself in parallelinvestigations.On 13-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Pagainst Company T regarding the administrative cost on his hire purchaseaccount. The complainant informed FCC that he had written a letter to therespondent questioning the charging on demand notices concerning hisaccount. The Respondent sent the complainant three demand notices byregistered mail for which he was charged $112.00 for each. TheComplainant also stated that he was charged $2.00 for every telephone callthey made, in total $38.00. Apart from this, the complainant was charged alate payment penalty of $466.00 which was sufficient to cover the costsincurred for delayed payments. FCC after making its assessment andanalysis on the matter formally informed the complainant that theissue/matter did not breach the Commerce Commission Decree 2010 andProvisionsBreachedNo Breach of CommerceCommission Decree 2010Consumer Protection &UnfairPracticesNo Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Page110of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreachedhe may have to lodge claims against the respondent at the Small ClaimsTribunal. Based on the above, the case was closed.2011/10/04/BC-FTD/256Consumer Qvs. Company UOn 04-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Qregarding unwarranted action by Company U. The complainant informedFCC that he was wrongfully terminated by the respondent for Abuse ofOffice when he was confident that he was not guilty of any wrong doing.The Complainant informed that the Council at first had given him an optionto resign or to be terminated and that the matter would be referred to othercompetent authorities for investigation. Once the complaint was lodged,FCC after making its assessment and analysis on the matter, formallyinformed the complainant that FCC did not have provisions under the CCD2010, to handle issues relating to employer & employee disputes and thathe may have to consult the officials from the Ministry of Labour, IndustrialRelations & Employment to discuss his grievances further. Based on theabove the case was closed.No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Page111of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/10/13/BC-FTD/2582011/10/20/BC-FTD/259Consumer Rvs. Company VConsumer Svs. CompanyWOn 13-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Ragainst Company V for failing to deliver/deal as per the contractualagreement on the sale of land at Narere, Nasinu. The complainant informedFCC that on 21-04-11, she paid $3,000.00 to the respondent for thepurchase of a block of land in Narere, Nasinu. Due to the delay in thedevelopments of the project, she had written to the respondent requestingfor the refund. The Respondent offered another block of land in Sakoca,Tamavua and stated that a deposit would be transferred and a newagreement would be made on the legal cost that was already paid. A sum of$1000.00 was paid by her to facilitate the above changes. FCC formallywrote to the respondent, informing him of the issue and seeking a response.FCC followed-up with the respondent in regards to the response on theallegations brought by the complainant and FCC was informed that the casehad been settled between the two parties and a copy of the new sales andpurchases agreement would be forwarded to the Commission. On 8-12-11,the Commission made another follow-up with the complainant and wasinformed that the issue had been resolved. Based on this, the case hasbeen closed.On 20-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Sagainst Company W for deducting 10% of the total value of goods, whenthey were returned for various reasons. FCC formally wrote to therespondent informing him of the issue and seeking a response. A responsewas received and FCC invited the respondent for a meeting to discuss theirpolicy, where FCC pointed out that their policy was in breach of CCD 2010.The Respondent informed FCC that they would amend their refund policyaccordingly. FCC has been monitoring the trader on this issue. The abovewas conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 75, 76 & 77Section 76 & 83Page112of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/10/14/BC-FTD/2602011/10/20/BC-FTD/261Consumer Tvs. Company XConsumer Uvs. Company YOn 14-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Tregarding a sales transaction with Company X. The complainant informedFCC that the respondent was given a job to design a tailor table cloth(medium and large), chair covers, serviettes and tray covers. A samplechair was provided with the expectancy of a proper job and accountabilityfor re-washing. However, upon delivery numerous errors were found. TheRespondent was informed that the chair cover was too short and notappealing. Upon washing, the fabric shrunk and the batch had to bereplaced. The Respondent demanded payments for an outstanding sum of$1,700.00 and the complainant informed the respondent that full paymentwould be made once the job was completed. The Respondent disagreedand a demand notice was sent to the complainant from a law firm. FCCformally wrote to the respondent informing them of the issue and seeking aresponse. A response was received from the respondent, informing FCCthat the matter was before the court and a demand notice had been issuedto the complainant. The above was conveyed to the complainant and thecase was closed.On 20-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Uagainst Company Y for the non-reimbursement of his claim on thesurrender value of his insurance policy. The complainant informed FCC thatCompany Y’s Agent who registered his application had misled him bystating that he was registered under a 10 year insurance policy but he cameto know later that it was a 20 year policy. Company Y’s Agent informed himthat he could also withdraw his funds within the 10 year period. Uponlodging a withdrawal for his policy with Company Y he was only offered onethird of the total sum that he had paid. FCC formally wrote to theDivision 1 -Warranty Section 114ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 76Page113of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreachedrespondent, informing them of the issue and seeking a response .Aresponse was received informing FCC that the complainant had signedpolicy number 3016055 which had a term of 20 years. This was noted onthe written proposal Form which the complainant had endorsed andconfirmed to the Insurance Agent, Mr. X. FCC after its assessment andanalysis formally informed the complainant on the above and the case wasclosed.2011/10/24/BC-FTD/262Consumer Vvs. Company ZOn 24-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer V, theHead Teacher of a School concerning the Diesel Generator bought by adonor for the School. The complainant informed FCC that a generator wasbought from Company Z in 2011. The body of the generator had rustedheavily causing some of the parts to fall apart. The Complainant allegedthat the generator was an old set which was painted nicely to look new. Hestated that proof of this allegation could be seen on the fast accumulation ofrust on the fuel tank. The inside of the fuel tank was also rusted. FCCformally wrote to respondent, informing them of the issue and seeking aresponse. A response was received, informing FCC that the generator hadbeen taken by the respondent for repair works. On 01-12-2011, theCommission was advised by the respondent that the generator wasrepaired with a 3 month extended warranty on normal usage and wasdelivered to the School on 30 November 2011. A confirmation was receivedfrom the complainant and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 75, 76 & 83& 116Page114of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreachedCases Closed in 20112011/11/14/BC-FTD/263Consumer Wvs. InstitutionAOn 14-11-11, the Commission received a request for interpretation andadjudication from Consumer W concerning Institute A’s “Promise to Pay”.The Complainant secured a $4.6million contract from a foreign entity in2010. In its back ground of default, the company owed Consumer W inexcess of $4.0million. On 18-11-11, Consumer W received a Letter ofUndertaking from Institution A stating that the bank had been instructed bytheir customer B to transfer 60% of the proceeds from the Foreign EntityFunded Rehabilitation of the Rubbish Dump project directly to Consumer W.The transfer was to be effected subject to Institute A being made aware thatthe funds have been credited to the complainants account and there wasavailability of the funds. Institution A transferred 60% of the proceeds toConsumer W. However, the transfer was stopped when the CompanyDirector passed away on 13-10-11. Consumer W had questioned the nonpaymentof 60% by Institution A and whether FCC had any jurisdiction toadjudicate and interpret the “Promise to Pay”. On 17-11-11, theCommission had a meeting with Consumer W and details of the complaintwere provided. A Legal opinion on the matter was provided and it wasdetermined that the issue did not fall within the jurisdiction of theCommission and the Reserve Bank of Fiji or the Court of competentjurisdiction were the appropriate authorities to look into such issues. Theabove was relayed to the complainant and the case was closed.No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Page115of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/10/31/BC-FTD/2642011/11/01/BC-FTD/265Consumer Xvs. Company BConsumer Yvs. Company COn 31-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Xagainst Company B regarding a mobile phone which she had purchasedfrom Company B for $109. The complainant informed FCC that her sonpurchased the mobile from the respondent’s branch on 4-8-11. FromSeptember, she noted that the phone’s audio was not clear and there wereechoes heard during calls. The complainant took the phone for repair on 24October 2011 and the respondent replaced the complainant’s phone with anew one. However, when she reached home, the complainant found thatthe replaced phone was unable to receive text messages (SMS). TheComplainant approached the respondent for a full refund and was onlyrefunded $76.20. FCC mediated the matter and the respondent refundedthe full amount of $109. A confirmation was received from complainant thatshe had received the refund and the case was closed.On 01-11-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Yagainst Company C. The complainant informed FCC that he had made anorder with the respondent company for two counter tops with bull nose edgefinishing and in fume blue color. The item supplied was not in thespecification as it was ordered by the complainant. A deposit of $450 waspaid by the complainant and after inspecting the item, the complainantrequested for a full refund which was denied. FCC after making itsassessment and analysis formally informed the complainant that he mayhave to lodge his claim with the Small Claims Tribunal to get his full refundand the case was closed.Division 1 -WarrantySection116No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Page116of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/10/31/BC-FTD/267Consumer Zvs. Company DOn 31-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Zagainst Company D regarding the purchase of a wireless router and flashnet for internet connection to his iPad. The complainant informed FCC thathe was from the UK and was on holiday in Fiji. He went to Company DSuva on 29-09-11, to see if it was possible to connect his iPad to theinternet. The sales assistant informed him that he was familiar with the iPadand that it would work with a wireless router and a USB internet flash. TheComplainant purchased the wireless router and flashnet for $198.00 andtried to set up the system at Waidroka, near Pacific Harbour but it could notset up. The Complainant called Company D on 30-09-11 and 03-10-11 andwas informed that Company D would investigate the matter but there wasno response. The complainant requested for a full refund of $198.00 fromCompany D as the items were wrongly sold to him. FCC formally wrote toCompany D informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received from Company D, informing FCC that they neededthe contact details of the complainant to further investigate the matter. Therequested information was conveyed to Company D. On 28-12-11, FCCreceived an email from Company D informing that they were ready to refundthe full sum to the complainant and they also requested that if someonecould come to Company D and collect the money. The above wasconveyed to the complainant and a confirmation was received after twodays that the refund had been collected.ConsumerProtection&Unfair PracticesSection 75 & 76Page117of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/11/03/BC-FTD/2702011/10/18/BC-FTD/271Consumer Avs. CompanyE,F and GConsumer Bvs. Company HOn 03-11-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Aregarding the charges imposed by Company E, F and G to calibrate taximeters for $25.00 per meter, in the Western and Central/Eastern division.FCC was informed by the Union that the same component is reprogrammedand no other parts are used. The Union considered the charges to be highand the practice by the taxi meter agents of charging the same prices to beanti-competitive behavior. A letter was sent to the 3 companies informingthem that the Commission would be monitoring the issue and should therebe any issues, FCC would take necessary action. The same was conveyedto the complainant and the matter was closed.On 18-10-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Bregarding the quality of a sofa set purchased from Company H. Thecomplainant informed FCC that in 2008, the sofa set was purchased fromCompany H for $1,350.00 with 1 year warranty. After 3 years, white antswere noticed in the sofa while a sofa purchased more than 10 years ago didnot have any problem. During August 2011, while searching for a bed, thecomplainant informed the sales assistant of the white ants in the sofa andqueried about the materials used in making the furniture’s sold. The salesassistant informed him that it might be from the stock where complaints ofsuch nature were received. FCC formally wrote to Company H, informingthem of the issue and seeking a response. A response was received,informing FCC that items are repaired or replaced by Company H within the12 month warranty period. In order to resolve this issue, Company H offeredto repair the sofa set at their factory, whereby the complainant was onlyrequired to bear the cost of the materials. The above was conveyed to thecomplainant and the case was closed.Restrictive TradePracticesSection 60Division 1 -Warranty Section 116Page118of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/11/04/BC-FTD/272Consumer Cvs. Company IOn 04-11-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Cagainst Company I for not fully honoring the insurance claim after thevehicle was involved in an accident. The Complainant requested for a reevaluationof the claim so that the necessary refund from deductions for theparts was made along with additional losses incurred by the complainantduring the period. Once the complaint was received, FCC formally wrote tothe respondent, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received from the insurance company, informing FCC that;1. The write off basis as per Pre Accident Valuation (PAV) of a reputablecompany dated 25-07-11 was $8,500.00 less policy excess for aninstant claim of $1,000.00. Upon re-inspection of the vehicle by theassessor, it was found that certain items were removed or swapped.The assessor forwarded his report stating the items and the value of themissing parts from the damaged vehicle.2. In write off cases, damaged vehicles were to be handed over as it wasat the time of the accident and if items were found to be missing;insurers could charge the appropriate amount as per report of theassessor.FCC after making its assessment and analysis on the matter formallyconveyed the above to the complainant and the case was closed.No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Page119of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/11/09/BC-FTD/2752011//11/10/BC-FTD/276Consumer Dvs. Company JConsumer Evs. Company KOn 09-11-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Dregarding the purchase of a printer ink cartridge from Nadro Computers.The complainant informed FCC that the color and black ink cartridge waspurchased on 4 April 2011 from the respondent. A maximum of 12 to 15pages were printed till 5 May 2011 when the black ink finished. The Sametype of cartridge was purchased before from the respondent and it lasted for4 months with more than 200 pages printed. The complainant requested fora replacement which was denied. Once the complaint was lodged, FCCformally wrote to the respondent informing them of the issue and seeking aresponse. A response was received, informing FCC that the ink cartridgesold to the complainant was used for 1 month of printing and photocopyingand there were no printing or photocopying records kept by thecomplainant. The Respondent informed FCC that the ink cartridge was agenuine product from Japan and had not been used or tampered by therespondent. There was no form of evidence on the issue to prove thecomplainant’s allegations. FCC after making its assessment and analysison the matter formally informed the complainant that FCC could not takeaction on the matter and alternatively, he may lodge a claim with the SmallClaims Tribunal to recover the sum paid to the respondent and the casewas closed.On 10-11-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Eagainst Company K for not honoring a contractual agreement made on 31October 2011. The complainant informed FCC that the agreement statedthat the complainant was to pay the respondent a 10% deposit of $10,000for the hire of the vessel on 19-12-11. The said date would be the last trip toVanuabalavu before Christmas. By signing the contract, the respondentNo Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Page120of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011//11/10/BC-FTD/2762011/11/10/BC-FTD/277Consumer Evs. Company KConsumer Fvs. Company Lconfirmed and accepted the sailing date, route, price and passenger details.According to the complainant, the respondent had breached the agreementby entering into another verbal agreement with another individual to providethe services to Vanuabalavu on 20-12-11. The complainant requested FCCto instruct the respondent to cancel the trip on 20-12-11 to the island. FCCformally wrote to the respondent, informing them of the issue and seekingtheir response and clarification on the concern raised by complainant. On22-11-2011, FCC invited the complainant to discuss the matter and FCCinformed the complainant that the two charters were commercialtransactions and the Commission could not instruct the respondent tocancel the charter for 20-12-11. Based on the above, the case was closed.On 10-11-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Fagainst Company L regarding the non-refund of $1,650.00, an advancepaid on 28 September 2011. The complainant informed FCC that a bookingfor accommodation was made on 28 September 2011 for 15 deluxe roomsat $110.00 each, for guests from another country for two days. Two roomsdid not have towels and hair dryers and the guests were not happy with theservices. The hotel Manager was notified of the early check out and theManager stated that they would be processing the refund on the same day.Upon request by the complainant, the respondent declined to give a refund.FCC formally wrote to the respondent informing them of the issue andseeking a response. A response was received, informing FCC that theywere not in a position to refund the money as the booking was made inadvance and the guests should have asked for the towels rather than justwalking out as they could not re-sell the room again. The above wasconveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 76Section 76 & 84Page121of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/11/15/BC-FTD/2792011/11/15/BC-FTD/280Consumer Gvs. Company MConsumer Hvs. Company NOn 15-11-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Gagainst Company M for unsatisfactory Internet services. The complainantinformed FCC that they had been experiencing frequent disruptions withinternet connections since August 2011 and Company M continued tocharge the complainant for the use of the internet, even thought thecomplainant had not fully utilized the services. The Complainant wasinformed by Company M Technicians to change the modem even thoughthere was no physical damage on the modem. The modem was changedbut the issue of internet connection problems continued. FCC formally wroteto Company M informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received informing FCC that the issue had been rectified andthat FCC could check with the complainant. FCC followed-up with thecomplainant and was informed that he was satisfied as the problem hadbeen rectified by Company M. Based on the above, the case was closed.On 15-11-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Hagainst Company N for failing to attend to their application for GridExtension in Dawasamu, Tailevu. The Complainant informed FCC that hisfarm was one kilometer away from the Company N main Grid and hisrequest for grid extension had been made to Company N. The Complainantstated that with the grid extension by Company N, his business storagefacilities and 4 other houses would benefit as a result. FCC formally wroteto company N informing them of the issue and seeking a response. On 06-12-11, FCC received a response indicating that Company N had issued aquotation for the scheme in accordance with Part 2 of consumer extensionpolicy and a revised quote will be issued under the General ExtensionPolicy once Company N was provided with the power requirements of theproposed installation. The above was conveyed to the complainant andFCC further requested complainant to liaise with Company N on the matter.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 75 & 76Section 76 & 84Page122of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/11/15/BC-FTD/2822011/11/17/BC-FTD/285Consumer I vs.Company OConsumer Jvs. Company POn 15-11-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Iagainst Company O. The complainant informed FCC that in 2010, he left hisvehicle with the respondent for repairs and informed the respondent that thegear box was not working. While the complainant was looking for the gearbox, he noticed that certain items from his vehicle were missing. Thecomplainant asked the respondent to return the missing parts where he wasasked to pay $100. FCC followed-up with the complainant to seek additionalinformation and the complainant informed FCC that he was withdrawing thecomplaint and would be taking the matter to court. Based on the above, thecase was closed.On 17-11-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Jagainst Company P regarding the connection of electricity at 112 RaggAvenue, Namadi Heights. The Complainant informed FCC that the propertywas leased to another tenant early this year and she was given consent toconnect the electricity on the premises. The complainant did not provideany guarantee or assurance to Company P that if that tenant failed to paythe bill then they would be liable. The said tenant vacated the property inOctober 2011 and did not pay the electricity bills. Company P was nowrefusing to connect electricity for the new tenant and was asking thecomplainant to pay the bill before the electricity was connected for thetenant. FCC formally wrote to Company P informing them of the issue andseeking a response. On 05-12-11, FCC received a response from CompanyP, informing FCC that they had connected the power supply to theelectricity account number 1424-5801-13 on 18 November 2011 under thenew tenant.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 76 & 84Section 76 & 84Page123of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/11/11/BC-FTD/2862011/11/11/BC-FTD/288Consumer Kvs. Company QConsumer Lvs. Company ROn 11-11-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Kagainst Company Q regarding his agency agreement and causingdefamation. The complainant informed FCC that he had terminated hisagency agreement with Company Q on 6 October 2011 pursuant to clause21, giving 1 month’s notice of termination in writing. On the same day, anemployee of Company Q wrote that Company Q was terminating theagreement with immediate effect from 7 October 2011, in breach of theagency agreement. From 8 October 2011 to 11 October 2011, Company Qplaced an advertisement in the Fiji Times and Fiji Sun about Consumer K’stermination, after which people who met Consumer K asked him the reasonfor being fired. Company Q also sent chain letters to its clients dated 20October 2011, informing them of the termination of Consumer K. Once thecomplaint was lodged, FCC after making its assessment and analysisformally informed the complainant that the FCC did not have the provisionsunder CCD 2010, to handle issues relating to employer & employeedisputes and he may consult the officials from the Ministry of Labour,Industrial Relations & Employment to discuss his grievances further. Basedon the above the case was closed.On 11-11-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Lagainst Company R in regards to the Day Pass Promotion by Company Ron 10 November 2011. The Complainant informed the Commission that hewas on a free call at 0612hrs from 10-11-2011 to 0612hrs 11-11-2011which ended in the morning. He had enough credit in his phone during thefree pass period. On 11-11-11, he made a call for 31 minutes 9 seconds.After making the said call, Company R sent a text message notifying himthat the free pass had expired. As a result, Consumer L noted that hispurchased/normal credit was deducted.No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Consumer Protection &UnfairPracticesPage124of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/11/22/BC-FTD/291Consumer Mvs. Company SThe Commission wrote formally to Company R informing them of the issueand seeking a response. A response was received from Company Rinforming the Commission that the Complainant had subscribed for the DayPass offer/promotion at 06:11:37 on 10 November 2011, and consequentlythe offer/promotion ended 24 hours later, at 06:11:37 on 11 November2011. Company R confirmed that the Complainant was on an ongoing call,which started before the expiration time at 05:41:44 on 11 November 2011.The call lasted for 31 minutes 9 seconds and continued until 06:12:53. Thecall duration went past the expiration time of the promotion. A Deduction of$1.26 was made from his “real balance” or top up credit on the excessminutes used after the expiration time, until 06:12:53. Company Rreinstituted the charge to his account by refunding the amount $1.26. Theabove was conveyed to the complainant and the case was closedOn 22-11-12, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Magainst Company S for charging him disconnection fees on his telephonebills without the line being disconnected. The Complainant informed theCommission that the disconnection fee was charged to his Account number8326958 on 3 November 2011; however, there had not been anydisconnection of the line. The disconnection charge namely “One-offcharges” of $11.50 was charged on telephone bill dated 3 November 2011.The Complainant requested that Company S credit the sum of $11.50 paidto Company S as disconnection charges. The Commission wrote formally toCompany S informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received; informing the Commission that Company S wouldcredit the customer’s account. A bill was emailed to the Commission as aform of confirmation and the case was closed.ProvisionsBreachedRestrictive TradePractices Section 66Page125of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/11/23/BC-FTD/2922011/11/28/BC-FTD/293Consumer Nvs. Company TConsumer Ovs. Company UOn 23-11-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Nagainst Company T for misleading conduct and deducting $200.00 from hisairline ticket. The Complainant informed the Commission that his wife holdsa multiple visa for 10 years and travelled to USA in January 2010. Shereturned and re-applied for a visa to return to USA for another four (4)months. Due to some reason, the Embassy declined her application. In theprocess, Consumer N had gone to Company T and paid for his wife’s airlineticket. The flight scheduled was from Nadi to Sacramento which cost himabout $2,457.00. Company T noted that the visa had been cancelled butcontinued to receive payment from Consumer N for the airline ticket andbooking. Consumer N cancelled the booking due to the visa problem andwas informed by Company T that $200.00 will be deducted from the airlineticket. Consumer N requested for the refund of the $200.00 deducted byCompany T. The Commission mediated the matter and a refund of $200was provided.On 28-11-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Oagainst Company U regarding the disconnection of electricity at hisresidence. The Complainant informed the Commission that the electricitysupply at his premises was disconnected on 24 November 2011. Accordingto a letter from Company U dated 12-9-11, he was required to pay anoutstanding sum of $1,608.78 to Company U within 14 days period.According to Company U, there was evidence of tampering with theCompany U’s meter to which the complainant denied any wrongdoing. TheCommission wrote formally to Company U, informing them of the issue andseeking a response. A response was received from Company U, requestingthe Complainant to see Company U officials to sort out the matter. On 15-12-11, the Commission followed-up with the Complainant and was informedthat he had reached an arrangement with Company U to make the paymentof the outstanding bill.ConsumerProtection &UnfairPractices.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.ProvisionsBreachedSection 84Section 84 & 76 &75Page126of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/12/01/BC-FTD/2942011/12/06/BC-FTD/296Consumer Pvs. Company VConsumer Qvs. CompanyWOn 01-12-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Pagainst Company V, regarding a chest freezer which he had bought fromCompany V. The Complainant informed the Commission that after using thefreezer for one week, the water from the freezer started to leak. A complaintwas lodged with Company V and the freezer was taken for repair. TheComplainant was asked to pay $180 despite the freezer being underwarranty. The Commission wrote formally to Company V informing them ofthe issue and seeking a response. A response was received informing theCommission that their agent who had to repair the freezer confirmed thatthe freezer had knife marks which were categorised as physical damageand thus the warranty was void. The above was conveyed to theComplainant and the case was closed.On 06-12-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Qagainst Company W for the non-refund of a movie ticket. The Complainantinformed the Commission that on 3 December 2011, he bought a movieticket scheduled for 10.55pm. Thirty minutes prior to the show, theComplainant decided not to watch the movie and requested for a refund.The request was declined and he was told that the refund would not bemade until the tickets were sold out. The Commission mediated the matterand the Respondent refunded the ticket money to the Complainant. Basedon the above, the case was closed.No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Consumer Protection & UnfairPractices.Page127of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/12/06/BC-FTD/2972011/12/12/BC-FTD/301Consumer Rvs. Company XConsumer Svs. Company YOn 06-12-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer R regardingan advertised promotion by Company X which allowed subscribers to makeunlimited calls for $1.45 for 24 hours. The Complainant informed the Commissionthat Company X advertised in the local daily on 18 November 2011 and 2December 2011 regarding the subscription to unlimited calls for $1.45 for 24 hours.The Complainant subscribed on 05-12-11 for the unlimited calls for a day and wascorrectly charged. On 06-12-11, $1.45 was deducted from the Complainant’saccount without him subscribing for it. Once the complaint was received, theCommission formally wrote to Company X, informing them of the issue andseeking a response. The Commission received a response from Company X,stating the following; The Day Pass for 05-12-11 expired and an automatedmessage was sent to the Complainant advising him that, “Your 24 hour Day Passhas expired. Simply text PASS to 9999 for another 24 hours of free on-net calls”.On 06-12-11, $1.45 was not deducted for another Day Pass but three times thesum of $0.50 was deducted as the Complainant had subscribed to a differentservice, Textmate, by sending an SMS to a shortcode 4636; once on December 5and twice on December 6. The above was conveyed to the Complainant and thecase was closed.On 12-12-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Sagainst Company Y regarding the increase in the price of gas cylinders inthe Nadroga/Navosa Province. The Complainant informed the Commissionthat the price of 12kg gas cylinder ranges from $49.00 to $53.00 in theNadroga/Navosa Province and consumers are being charged on thesedifferent rates within the same vicinity. The Commission after making itsassessment and analysis on the matter formally wrote to the Complainant,informing him that LPG is not under Price Control and firms were free to settheir own prices. The Commission further notified the complainant that wewere currently monitoring the marketConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.Section 76No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Page128of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/12/12/BC-FTD/3022011/12/12/BC-FTD/304Consumer Tvs. Company ZConsumer Uvs. Company AOn 12-12-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Tagainst Company Z, regarding a vehicle purchased on 06-12-11. TheComplainant informed the Commission that on 07-12-11, the vehicle couldnot start and Company Z was informed, and the vehicle was taken forinspection and the Complainant was informed that the connections failed asit was not properly fixed when it was serviced. The Commission followed-upwith Company Z on the matter and was informed that the issue had beenrectified and the Complainant had taken the vehicle. The Commission alsofollowed-up with the Complainant and she informed FCC that she wassatisfied. Based on this, the case was closed.On 12-12-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Uagainst Company A regarding an insurance claim on the repair of a rentalcar which the Complainant had hired. The Complainant informed theCommission that on their way to Suva, their vehicle had an accident withanother vehicle. The matter was reported and it was determined that theComplainant was at fault. The Complainant also informed the Commissionthat he disputed the $4,500.00 amount quoted by Company A as the cost ofdamages to the vehicle. He decided to take the vehicle to a mechanic for anassessment of the damages but Company A insisted that the Complainantpay $4,500.00 to settle the matter. The Complainant alleged that $4,500.00was too excessive and unreasonable and that he could only pay $2,500.00as a maximum under point 2, category A – C of terms and conditions on theRental Agreement. The Commission mediated the matter and theComplainant paid only $2,500.00 for the damages. A term of settlementwas signed by both parties and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.Section 76 & 84Section 75 & 76 &84Page129of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/12/15/BC-FTD/306Consumer Vvs. Company BOn 15-12-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Vregarding the cancellation of Company B’s flight from Savusavu to Suva on27-11-11. The Complainant informed the Commission that he and his wifehad purchased tickets for Company B’s flight number FJ112 out ofSavusavu on 27-11-11 and when checking in at about 3.30pm, they wereadvised of a possible delay by 40 minutes due to bad weather. At about5.00pm, they were informed that due to bad weather in Suva, the flight toSuva had been cancelled and that the plane from Taveuni would go to Nadiand there would be no flight to Suva. On further enquiry and demand by theComplainant to be in Suva, the attendant managed to book them fromLabasa to Suva on Monday, 28-11-11. The Complainant accepted it butwhen he asked about travelling to Labasa and accommodation in Labasa,the Complainant was informed that it was not the company’s policy to paycustomers when flights were cancelled due to bad weather. TheComplainant had to pay for a taxi from Savusavu to Labasa and one nightaccommodation/meals in Labasa. Furthermore, the Complainant had to pay$445.40 each for a Nausori to Savusavu return ticket. The Complainantrequested for a refund of all the additional expenses. The Commissionformally wrote to the Respondent, informing them of the issue and seekinga response. A response was received; informing the Commission that theRespondent would refund the additional expenses which occurred to theComplainant and the Respondent further requested for the complainant’sbank details. The above was conveyed to the Complainant and theCommission requested that the Complainant directly liaise with theRespondent concerning the refund. Based on the above, the case wasclosedConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.Section 76 & 77Page130of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/12/14/BC-FTD/3072011/12/12/BC-FTD/3082011/12/19/BC-FTD/310Consumer Wvs. Company CConsumer Xvs. Company DConsumer Yvs. Company EOn 14-12-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Wagainst Company C, for the non refund of money. The Complainantinformed the Commission that he had purchased plugs from theRespondent’s company worth $30 and later the Complainant noticed thatthe plug was incorrect. The Complainant returned to the Respondent andinformed them that the plug was incorrect and requested for a replacementand the Complainant was informed that they didn’t have any other plugs.The Complainant requested for a refund and it was denied. TheCommission mediated the matter and the Respondent refunded the $30 tothe Complainant. A confirmation was received from the Complainant andthe case was closed.On 12-12-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Xagainst Company D. The Complainant informed the Commission that theRespondent did electric works for the power supply to his house. After 7months, the main wire got burnt. The Commission mediated the matter andthe wire was replaced by the Respondent. A confirmation was receivedfrom the Complainant on the same and the case was closed.On 19-12-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Yagainst Company E. The Complainant informed the Commission that hehad purchased a two door refrigerator from Company E. The problem wasexperienced when ants started entering the refrigerator. A complaint waslodged with Company E and the refrigerator was taken for repairs.According to the complainant, the refrigerator had been repaired four timesand the problem was still not resolved. The Commission mediated thematter and the Respondent replaced the refrigerator. A confirmation wasreceived from the Complainant and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.Section 76 & 84Section 76 & 83Section 76 & 114Page131of236

Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/12/21/BC-FTD/312Consumer Zvs. Company FOn 19-12-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Zagainst Company F regarding their application for rural electrification. TheComplainant informed the Commission that an application was lodged withCompany F in 2009 but no action has been taken to date. Their concernwas raised in a Provincial Meeting whereby Company F Officials hadattended. They were informed in the meeting that an inspection would bemade and a quotation would be given thereafter. Company F hadconducted an inspection in the area in 2009; however, no quotation hasbeen received from Company F to date. The Complainant requested for theCommission’s assistance in the matter. FCC wrote formally to Company Finforming them of the issue and seeking a response. A response wasreceived, informing the Commission that Company F would re-survey theschemes to confirm the number of Applicants and issue the quotes by earlyFebruary 2012. A team of Company F officials from Labasa contacted himthat week to verify details of the scheme. The above was conveyed to theComplainant and the case as closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.Section 76 & 83Page132of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/12/21/BC-FTD/314Consumer Avs. Company GOn 21-12-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Aagainst Company G regarding the water bill and payment system atCompany G. The Complainant informed the Commission that Company Govercharged him on his water bill by conducting estimated readings. InAugust 2011, the Complainant visited Company G’s Office in Suva andlodged his complaint. He was informed by the Company G customerrepresentative that his account was being over charged due to the oldmeter that he was using. The Complainant alleged that the increasedoverdue amount was caused by the readings on the old meter and it shouldhave been a fault on Company G’s part. On 11 August 2011, Company Greplaced his meter and he received a $3.98 existing water bill, $1.50 Fireservice charge and an overdue amount of $212.75. The Commission wroteformally to Company G informing them of the issue and seeking aresponse. A response was received informing the Commission that theComplainant’s water meter was Serving 3 domestic occupants in thepremises and the meter was recently replaced with the meter reading of 46units on 22/12/11. The Complainant’s bills were previously estimated basedon the average consumption of 60 units per quarter from his actual previoususage due to the old meter. The high bills resulted from the accumulatedarrears dating back to 31/01/1998, with insufficient payments made to offsetthe total balance. The Commission after making its assessment andanalysis formally conveyed the above to the Complainant and the case wasclosedConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.Section 76 & 84Page133of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/12/28/BC-FTD/317Consumer Bvs. CompanyH & IOn 28-12-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Bagainst Company H, in regards to a set of Timing Kits and otherautomotives supplies purchased from Company I on 14 October 2011. TheComplainant informed the Commission that on 14-12-11, he purchased theTiming Kit plus another two parts form Company H for his vehicle. Duringthe purchasing of the parts, the sales person informed the Complainant thatall the parts were genuine and that the Complainant did not need to worry.After using the vehicle for almost two months, on 23-12-11 his vehicle brokedown. After inspection, his mechanic informed him that the timing belt hadbroken which resulted in the other parts being damaged. On 24-12-11, theComplainant visited the Respondent’s shop to inform them about thebreakdown of his vehicle and in return was informed that he needed tobring all the damaged parts before the replacement parts could be given.The damaged parts were taken to the Respondent’s shop where theComplainant was informed that the Respondent company would inform himon when to pick the parts. On 28-12-11, when the Complainant went to pickthe parts from the Respondent’s shop, the following parts were replaced;a. 1 set Timing Kit;b. 4 only exhaust valve;c. 4 only inlet valve;d. 1 only 2c fiber gasket; ande. 1 set 8pcs 2c valve seal.After receiving the above mentioned parts when the Complainant inquiredabout the Kam shaft and Bulb Guider, he was informed that the respondentneeded time to look for those parts. Later the Complainant was informedthat the respondent could not replace the Kam shaft and Bulb Guider. TheComplainant requested the Commission’s assistance in replacing the KamDivision 1 -Warranty Section 114Page134of236

Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/12/28/BC-FTD/319Consumer Cvs. Company Jshaft and Bulb Guider or alternatively compensating him for the cost of theKam shaft and Bulb Guider. The Commission mediated the matter and therespondent replaced the parts after buying them from another company.Confirmation was received from the Complainant informing the Commissionthat the parts had been fitted and the vehicle was running well. Based onthe above, the case was closed.On 28-12-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Cagainst Company J. The Complainant informed the Commission that anapplication was made at Company J’s Labasa office for the supply ofelectricity to Consumer C’s village. In early October, the Complainant wasinformed that a survey of the project had been sent to the Lautoka office forquotation. The Complainant waited for Company J to forward the quotationbut he did not receive it. On 30-06-11, an email was sent to theComplainant by Company J informing him that the Commission hadinstructed Company J to hold onto the quotation while the policy underwhich the quotation was being prepared was under review. TheCommission wrote formally to the Respondent, informing them of the issue.A response was received, informing the Commission that Company J hadcompleted the survey work for the area and an additional three houseswere added. A quotation was to be given to the spokesman based on thesurvey by the Company J team. The Company was advised not to blamethe Commission for any delays as the Commission had made a ruling. Anemail was sent to the Complainant informing him on the above and the casewas closed.ProvisionsBreachedRestrictive TradePractices Section 66Note: Missing case numbers reflect cases which were received by the Commission but not closed by the end of December 2011.Page135of236

1.3 Summary of Unfair Trading and Consumer Protection Issues -Western DivisionThe Western Division FTD issues are handled by the Commission Inspectors based in Sigatoka, Rakiraki and Lautoka under the guidance of theDivisional Head and the FTD based in Suva.Department Activities from Western Division for the year 2011Table 3 summarizes the number of cases received as per each provision of the Commerce Commission Decree 2010. Please note, that for brevityreasons, provisions under which no cases were received have been excluded from the table below.Table 3: Cases and Relevant Provisions –Western DivisionProvisions Breached Sections Number of Cases undereach ProvisionsAnti-competitive conduct 67 1Misleading and deceptive conduct 75 2Unconscionable conduct 76 3False or misleading representations 77 2Refusal to sell goods and services unless other goods and services are also purchased 87E 1Adulteration 87F 1Statement of Price or Condition and Pull Date 87J 1Action in Respect of Goods of Unmerchantable Quality 114 2Action in Respect of Non-Compliance with Express Warranty 116 1Note: In some cases, more than one section of the CCD 2010 was breached and as such, the numbers in the table are higher than the actual number ofcases received.Page136of236

Table 4: Cases Successfully Disposed Of - Western Division 2011Cases Closed in 2011Case NumberCase Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 Provisions Breached6/10/1106/10/1110/10/1111/10/1109/11/11Consumer Dvs. Company KConsumer Evs. Company LConsumer F vs.Company MConsumer Gvs. Company NConsumer Hvs. Company OOn 06-10-11 the Commission received a complaint from Consumer D againstCompany K in regards to a new kerosene stove being defective. On thesame day investigations were conducted and Company K advised that theywould conduct a test to see if the stove was defective then the Complainantwould be issued with a replacement. On 09-10-11 the Complainantconfirmed that he had been issued with a replacement stove and the casewas closed.On 06-10-11 the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Eseeking a refund for a wedding booking. On 7-10-11 the case was called formediation at the Commission’s office and the Complainant was refunded atotal sum of $200.00 by Company L after mediation. The case was closed.On 10-11-11 the Commission received a complaint from Consumer F againstCompany M for not exchanging a saree purchased under a Lay-ByAgreement. On 11-11-11 the case was mediated and the Respondent(Company M) assured FCC that the saree would be exchanged with that ofthe Complainant’s own choice. The Complainant then exchanged the sareewith that of her own choice and the case was closed.On 11-10-11 the Commission received a complaint against Company N fornot repairing a printer under warranty. The case was mediated on the sameday and the Respondent agreed to repair the printer. The printer wasrepaired by Company N and the case was closed.On 09-11-11 the Commission received a complaint from Consumer H againstCompany O for conducting conditional sales on Butter. It was alleged thatbutter was only sold when a customer bought bread. An investigation wasconducted on 11-10-11 and the Trader was questioned and cautioned at thesame time on such practices. The trader was advised to refrain from suchconduct.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.Sections 77 & 114No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.Section 76Section 116Section 87(E)Page137of236

Table 4: Cases Successfully Disposed Of - Western Division 2011Cases Resolved in 2011Case NumberCase Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 Provisions Breached10/11/1118/11/1122/11/11Consumer I vs.Company PConsumer J vs.Company QConsumer Kvs. Company ROn 10-11-11 the Commission received a complaint from Consumer I againstCompany P in relation to the failure of Company P to provide a refund for awedding booking that was canceled by the complainant. On 11-11-11 theComplainant was requested to provide evidence of the claim to enable theCommission to carry out the investigations. On 15-11-11 the respondent wasconsulted and the Respondent advised FCC that they were happy to discussthe matter with the Complainant. On 18-11-11 the Complainant called andadvised that he had received a refund and as such the case was closed.On 18-11-11 the Commission received a complaint from Consumer J againstCompany Q for the supply of a Faulty Second Hand Refrigerator. On thesame day investigations were conducted and the Complainant was advisedthat secondhand goods were not covered by the CCD 2010. The case wasthen closed.On 22-11-11 the Commission received a complaint from Consumer K againstCompany R for selling expired tablets. On 25-10-11 an investigation wasconducted and the tablets were replaced and the Trader was verbally warnedto refrain from the practice of selling expired products and the Commissionwould prosecute the trader for any future conduct of a similar nature.No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Consumer Protection & Unfair Practices.Page138of236

Table 4: Cases Successfully Disposed Of- Western Division 2011Cases Resolved in 2011Case NumberCase Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 Provisions Breached28/11/11Consumer L vs.Company SOn 28-11-11 the Commission received a complaint from Consumer L againstCompany S, regarding a mobile phone purchased from the company. He hadpurchased the mobile phone-model Z-58 in August 2011.The day after hebought the phone the charger stopped working and he went back to thecompany and the charger was replaced. In early October his phone staredhaving problems and would automatically switch off. He took the phone toCompany S and after 2 weeks was informed that the phone could not berepaired. He informed Company S that he would refer the matter toConsumer Protection Agencies and he was then called by the company andadvised that the phone would be sent to Suva for repair. After more than 2weeks the company informed him that the phone could not be repaired andthat it gotten physical damages which are not covered under the warranty.On 29-11-11 discussions were held with the Respondent and they wereadvised that they would need to provide a service report that the phone hadphysical damages. On the same day the Respondent provided the serviceand provided an offer that a replacement phone of the same value would beprovided should the Complainant agree. The message was conveyed to theComplainant and he advised the Commission that he would consider theoffer. On 9-12-11 the Commission made a call to the Complainant and hethen advised FCC that he had repaired his phone at his own cost. The casewas then closedConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.Sections 77 & 114Page139of236

Table 4: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in from Western Division 2011Cases Resolved in 2011Case NumberCase Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 Provisions Breached01/12/1105/12/1121/12/11Consumer Mvs. Company TConsumer Nvs. Company UConsumer Ovs. Company VOn 01-12-11 the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Magainst Company T for not refunding the whole bond money which was paidto hire a rental car. The case was called for mediation on 5-12-11 at theCommission’s office and the respondent agreed to provide a full refund andthe matter was resolved.On 05-12-12 the Commission received a complaint from Consumer N againstCompany U regarding a faulty phone he had purchased. On the same daypreliminary discussions were held with Company U’s salesperson. On 6-12-11 Company U’s sales person called and informed FCC that the Complainantwould be given a replacement phone. The Complainant was informed of thison the same day and he advised that he would go and pick the phone on 10-12-11. On 15-12-11 a call was made to the Complainant to check if he hadreceived a replacement phone. He then advised that he gotten areplacement on 10-12-11. The case was then closed.On 21-12-11 the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Oagainst Company V for selling a second hand faulty scooter. The same dayinvestigations were conducted and the Complainant was informed thatsecondhand goods were not covered by the CCD 2010. The case was thenclosed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices.Section 76Section 75No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Page140of236

1.4 Summary of Unfair Trading Activities from the Northern Division for the year 2011The Western Division FTD issues are handled by the Commission Inspectors based in Labasa and Savusavu under the guidance of the Divisional Headand the FTD based in Suva.Department Activities -Northern Division for the year 2011Table 5 summarizes the number of cases received as per each provision of the Commerce Commission Decree 2010. Please note, that for brevityreasons, provisions under which no cases were received have been excluded from the table below.Table 5: Cases under each Provision of Commerce Commission Decree 2010Cases under each provision of Commerce Commission Decree 2010Provisions Breached Number of Cases under each Provision38. Control of Prices 166. Misuse of market power 167. Anti-competitive conduct 169. Exclusive dealing 175. Misleading and deceptive conduct 976. Unconscionable conduct 2277. False or misleading representations 383. Certain Misleading Conduct In Relation To Goods. 684. Certain Misleading Conduct In Relation To Services. 1185. Offering Gifts and Prizes 287. Limited Offers and Failing to Supply as Demanded 388. Accepting payment without being able to supply as ordered 7106. Restitution 1112. Action in Respect of Unsuitable Goods 1114. Action in Respect of Goods of Unmerchantable Quality 3116. Action in Respect of Non-Compliance with Express Warranty 1Note: In some cases, more than one section of CCD2010 was breached and as such, the numbers in the table are higher than the actual number ofcases received.Page141of236

Highlights of2011- Northern DivisionTotal number of Cases Complet ted/solved in year2011 was – 52 Ca ases.The breakdow n of cases by theCommission in 20 011 is summarizedbelow.Figure 1:Figure 2:Page142of236

Table: 6 Cases Successfully Disposed Of - Northern DivisionCases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD20102011/01/14 –FTDN 22011/01/19 –FTDN32011/01/19 –FTDN42011/01/24 –FTDN6Consumer Pvs. CompanyWConsumer Qvs. CompanyXConsumer Rvs. CompanyYConsumer Svs. CompanyZOn 14 th January, 2011, Consumer P lodged a complaint against CompanyW for not attending to electric faults that caused his Refrigerator and DVDDeck to malfunction. Company W responded that Consumer P’s neutral linetap for the customer service main wire was corroded. The corrosion wasrepaired by Company W. Consumer P was notified of Company W’sresponse and advised about the cause of the damage sustained to hisRefrigerator and DVD Deck and the matter was closed.On 19 th January 2011, Consumer Q lodged a complaint against Company Xfor not replacing his defective shoe. Investigations revealed that ConsumerQ was already provided with a replacement pair of shoes, and the shoes inthe complaint were the same ones replaced. Legal opinion from HQrevealed that there was no warranty or guarantee on the shoes. ConsumerQ was advised accordingly and the matter was closed.On 19 th January, 2011, Consumer R lodged a complaint against Company Yfor not refunding his money for a rim he had already returned to Company Y.Upon mediation, Company Y refunded the money to Consumer R.On 24 th January, 2011, Consumer S lodged a complaint against Company Zfor an increased Company Z Bill. The case was resolved upon reviewing theCompany Z Bill since a normal reading was taken by Company Z indetermining the bill. Consumer S was advised that if her monthly usage wasmore than 75 units, then her bill would be computed at $0.3484 per kwh. Awritten response was provided to Consumer S.ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPractice andDivision 1 –WarrantyConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeProvisionsBreachedSection 76 & 84.Sections 76, 83& 114Section 75Section 76 & 84Page143of236

Table 6: Cases Successfully Disposed Of - Northern DivisionCases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/01/26 –FTDN72011/02/07 –FTDN82011/02/16–FTDN10Consumer Tvs. CompanyAConsumer Uvs. CompanyBConsumer Vvs. CompanyCOn 26 th January, 2011, Consumer T lodged a complaint against Company Afor an increased Company A Bill. The case was resolved upon reviewing theCompany A Bill since a normal reading was taken by Company A indetermining the bill. Consumer T was advised if her monthly usage wasmore than 75 units, then her bill would be computed at $0.3484 per kwh. Awritten response was provided to Consumer T.On 7 th February, 2011, Consumer U lodged a complaint against Company Bfor being charged $0.3484 for zero kwh and imposed a domestic minimumcharge of $3.43. Discussions with Company B’s Labasa Branch revealedthat if the customer was not using the power supply, then the customercould inform Company B and Company B could disconnect the powersupply. The Complainant was informed of the reasons why Company B waslaying out Domestic Minimum charges for the non-use of power supply.On 16 th February, 2011, Consumer V lodged a complaint against CompanyC (a survey technician) for not surveying his land although Consumer V hadmade all the necessary payments.Company C confirmed to the Commission that he was willing to do the job;however he stated he could not specify a timeframe. The survey job asreported by Company C was under progress. The Case has been mediatedand closed.Provisions ofCCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedSection 76 & 84Section 76 & 84Section 76 & 84Page144of236

Table:6 Cases Successfully Disposed Of- Northern DivisionCases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/02/21 –FTDN122011/02/23 –FTDN 132011/02/25 –FTDN 15Consumer Wvs. CompanyDConsumer Xvs. CompanyEConsumer Yvs. CompanyFOn 21 st February, 2011, Consumer W of Bua lodged a complaint againstCompany D for not repairing his village generator despite Consumer Wpaying Company D $4000.00 in advance. The case was referred from theCommission’s Northern office and Mr. X of Company D agreed to repair andinstall the generator in Bua. The generator was repaired to an operationalcondition. The generator was taken by Mr. X and installed in Bua. The casewas resolved through mediation.On 23 rd February, 2011, Consumer X lodged a complaint against CompanyE for the malfunctioning of his mobile phone’s battery which he had boughtfrom Company E under a 6 month warranty.Despite his attempts to bring the matter to the attention of the Managementof Company E, nothing eventuated. This case was resolved throughmediation and Consumer X’s phone was repaired under warranty and givenback to him.On 25 th February, 2011, Consumer Y lodged a complaint against CompanyF for refusing to replace a Carbonator which he had bought from CompanyF for $150.00. The Carbonator was a second hand spare part. TheComplainant stated that the alleged part could not fit in his car; therefore heneeded a replacement or a refund. Investigations revealed that due to thewrong advice of the electrician and the mechanic, Consumer Y had sufferedloss and as a resultProvisions ofCCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConditionsandWarranties inConsumerTransactions– Division 1 –WarrantyConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedSection 75 & 76.Section 116Section 76Page145of236

Table:6 Cases Successfully Disposed Of- Northern DivisionCases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/03/16 –FTDN182011/03/17 –FTDN192011/03/17 –FTDN20Consumer Yvs. CompanyFConsumer Zvs. CompanyGConsumer Avs. CompanyHpurchased wrong part. It was later revealed in a statement that theelectrician had further modified the part; therefore the case was out of theCommission’s jurisdiction since the part had been modified from its originalstate and involved a third party liability issue.On 16 th March, 2011, Consumer Y lodged a complaint against Company Ffor a disparity in price between the cashier and the shelf display. AnInvestigation conducted on 5 th April, 2011 did not reveal such practicesoccurring; however regular monitoring was conducted by Commission staffin all the supermarkets to ensure that customers were not misled.On 17 th March, 2011, Consumer Z lodged a complaint against Company Gfor not paying dalo farmers as per their rate for each kg. Consumer Z statedthat the Company buys dalo on credit per kg, however when Company Gpays the farmers, they would pay them at a different rate stating that someof the dalo was rejected. Company G was contacted on 26 th September,2011 and Company G advised that he was no longer buying dalo fromConsumer Z. Consumer Z stated that he had no evidence of how much dalohe had given to Company G for sale. The Complainant was advised that theCommission would not be able to proceed with the case due to the lack ofevidence provided against Company G.On 17 th March, 2011, Consumer A lodged a complaint against Company Hfor selling a faulty phone to him and not being able to repair it when hecomplained about the faulty product. The Complainant was advised to referhis complaints to the Small Claims Tribunal since he wanted to claim arefund from Company H for the faulty phone sold. Consumer A confirmed tothe Commission that he had received the refund from Company H throughthe Small Claims Tribunal. The case was then closed.Provisions ofCCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedSection 75Section 76Section 75,76(2) (d) & 83Page146of236

Table:6 Cases Successfully Disposed Of- Northern DivisionCases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/03/18 –FTDN212011/03/22 –FTDN222011/03/22–FTDN23Consumer Bvs. Company IConsumer Dvs. CompanyJConsumer Evs. CompanyKOn 18 th March, 2011, Consumer B lodged a complaint against Company Ifor charging $0.34 for 74 units of kwh usage of electricity. Investigationrevealed that Company I computed the bill through average daily usagewhereby monthly usage was found to be more than 75 units. Justificationwas provided to Consumer B that her average daily usage remained high,therefore she was charged at $0.3484 for each unit of electricity consumed.On 22 nd March, 2011, Consumer D lodged a complaint against Company Jfor selling 10 cartons of 48 x 170g Tuna which cost him $0.85 per can andclaimed that he was overcharged. The transaction occurred before thisbrand of Tuna came under price control.Inspection conducted on 15 th June 2011 revealed that Consumer D had 6cartons left in his shop. The Complainant advised the Commission thatCompany J was not willing to pass a credit note nor did they give anyrefunds. Consumer D was allowed to sell the remaining stock at a Mark-upof 10% as per Percentage Price Control Order of the Fiji CommerceCommission.On 22 nd March, 2011, Consumer E lodged a complaint against Company Kfor practicing Conditional Sales and restricting the quantity of sales by wayof wholesale with regards to the purchase of Cigarettes. The case wasreviewed and Consumer E was advised that wholesale occurs in bulk andnot for retail quantities as was his demand.Provisions ofCCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeControl ofPricesConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedSection 76 & 84Section 38ASection 87IPage147of236

Table:6 Cases Successfully Disposed in 2011 in Northern DivisionCases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/04/04 –FTDN242011/05/06 –FTDN282011/06/15 –FTDN29Consumer Fvs. CompanyLConsumer Gvs. CompanyMConsumer Hvs. CompanyNOn 4 th April, 2011, Consumer F lodged a complaint against Company L fornegligence that caused Consumer F to pay an extra $200.00 for changinghis booking date. The case was solved amicably between the two parties.Company L informed the Commission that arrangements were being madewith the airline and Consumer F did not have to pay any extra costs fortravelling as previously imposed by the airline.On 6 th May, 2011, Consumer G lodged a complaint to the Commission officefor an increased Company M bill of $95.84. Consumer G stated that nobodyfrom Company M Labasa is attending to his complaint as his bill showedthat estimated readings were taken and the current reading, as at06/05/2011, showed 139 kwh; however the estimated bill showed a usage of256 kwh. The case was referred directly to Company M’s Labasa Branch bythe Commission’s Northern office and Company M gave Consumer G arevised bill of $35.00.On 15 th June, 2011, Consumer H lodged a complaint against Company N fornot repairing his phone since giving it to them on 9 th February 2011. AnInvestigation revealed that Company N was operating their own businessand they mutually agreed to provide a new replacement phone forConsumer H.On 1 st July, 2011, Company N gave the new replacement phone toConsumer H.Provisions ofCCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeRestrictiveTradePracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedSection 75, 76Section 67Section 88Page148of236

Table: 6 Cases Successfully Disposed in 2011 in Northern Division (cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/06/27 –FTDN32Consumer Ivs. CompanyOOn 27 th June, 2011, Consumer I lodged a complaint against Company O forselling him a faulty phone. An Investigation revealed that Company O hadalready given Consumer I a new replacement phone, however Company Oofficials explained that the memory card was full and that resulted in theslowing down of the phone’s data processing speed. The case was resolvedthrough mediation and it was explained to Consumer I that he could not berefunded since Company O was willing to repair the phone under warranty.2011 /05/31 –FTDN332011/06/05 –FTDN35Consumer Jvs. CompanyPConsumer Kvs. CompanyQOn 31 st May, 2011, Consumer J lodged a complaint against Company P forbeing charged $0.34 for 72 units of kwh usage of electricity. An Investigationrevealed that Company P had computed the bill through average dailyusage whereby monthly usage was found to be more than 75 units.Justification was provided to Consumer J that his average daily usageremained high, hence the reason he was charged at $0.3484 for each unit ofelectricity consumed.On 5 th June, 2011, Consumer K alleged that Company Q did not fulfill theirwarranty conditions. The warranty period for a headset, battery and chargerwas for 1 year and 3 months for electronic malfunction, liquid or physicaldamage. The phone was purchased by the Complainant on 27 th November2010.An Investigation revealed that the phone was sent to Suva for repairs on05/06/2011. On 28 th June, 2011, Company Q sent the Job sheet and it wasrevealed that the battery was at fault and liquid damages were also visible. Itwas explained to the consumer that he was only being charged for liquiddamages and not for battery malfunctions as per the warranty conditions.The consumer was advised to pay the charges and take his phone.Provisions ofCCD2010ConditionsandWarranties inConsumerTransactionsDivision1 –WarrantyConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedSection 112Section 76 & 84Section 88Page149of236

Table: 6 Cases Successfully Disposed in 2011- Northern Division (cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/07/05 –FTDN372011/07/11 –FTDN38Consumer Lvs. CompanyRConsumerM vs.Company SOn 5 th of July, 2011, Consumer L alleged that Company R chargedhim $0.3484 for the use of 66 units of electricity, when in fact heshould have been charged $0.1720 for 66 units of electricity.The case was evaluated and the Complainant was advised thatCompany R had passed the Govt Subsidy of $11.64; therefore thebill was calculated correctly. The Complainant was advised that thebill was correct.On 11 th July, 2011, Consumer M lodged a complaint in the form ofseeking clarification as to why the Commerce Commission wasputting all rural electrification projects on hold. The case wasinvestigated and the Complainant was advised that the Commissionwas not holding any rural electrification projects. The Commissionadvised the complainant that Company S was free to supplyelectricity to rural areas but only charge consumers with costspredetermined by the Commission that is, they cannot charge thehouseholds for capital costs. Households would have to only pay forthe black wire, connection and any internal wiring done.The Complainant was advised of the Commission’s decision withregards to the rural electrification programProvisionsof CCD2010ConsumerProtection& UnfairPracticeRestrictiveTradePracticeSectionsBreachedSection 76 &84Section 66Page150of236

Table 6: Cases Successfully Disposed in 2011- Northern Division (cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/08/09 –FTDN402011/09/06 –FTDN412011/09/22 –FTDN44Consumer Nvs. CompanyUFootball Clubvs. DistrictSoccerAssociationConsumer Pvs. CompanyWOn 4 th August, 2011, Consumer N alleged that Company U took money forpreparing the Video CD for her daughter’s wedding; however the Video CDwas not prepared to her expectations.The case was resolved through mediation as Company U agreed to replacethe Video CD on 8 th of August, 2011 and Consumer N was satisfied with theCD.On 6 th September, 2011, Football Club lodged a complaint against DistrictSoccer Association for not releasing the prize money won at the 2010District Soccer League Championship that was played in 2010. The casewas investigated and it was found that District Soccer Association neverpaid any prize money to any of the League qualifiers who obtained a semi–final spot. The officials of District Soccer Association and Football Clubcame to the Commission for mediation and the case was closed wherebyDistrict Soccer Association paid the prize money to Football Club.On 22 nd September, 2011, Consumer P lodged a complaint againstCompany W for submitting his name to the Data Bureau, which preventedhim from travelling Overseas for medical treatment. The case wasevaluated and it was found that Consumer P had paid in full with all thesupporting credit notes and Company W’s statement showed a nil balanceowed. Consumer P also claimed that he was not in any way advised byCompany W that he owed $14,030 to Company W; however his name wasdirectly submitted to the Data Bureau. It was also found that Consumer Ptraded vehicles that were not his but his family members, therefore he wasadvised of the Commission’s stand and it was recommended to him to sortthe matter with Company W.Provisionsof CCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedSection 88Section 85 (1)Section 76Page151of236

Table: 6 Cases Successfully Disposed in 2011 in Northern Division (cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/09/28 –FTDN452011/09/28 –FTDN462011/11/08 –FTDN48Consumer Qvs. CompanyXConsumer Rvs. CompanyYConsumer Svs. CompanyZOn 28 th September, 2011, Consumer Q bought 1 x 2kg Sunluv Long GrainRice from R B Patel Supermarket, that was distributed by Company X.Consumer Q explained that he weighed the rice and found that it wasunderweight by 100 grams. Consumer Q’s case was attended toimmediately and Company X was advised to remove all their underweightproducts from sale. The rice was removed on the same day by Company Xofficials and they were advised to provide a replacement pack of rice toConsumer Q. The case was closed.On 28 th September, 2011, Consumer R lodged a complaint againstCompany Y for an increased water bill of $571.28. The case wasinvestigated and Company Y advised that there was a leakage in thecomplainant’s side of the meter. Company Y was advised to issue all thetransaction details from the time when Consumer R bought the property.The Transactions showed that Consumer R owed Company Y $571.28 asthere was no payment of the bill from 2006. Consumer R was advised tosort out the issue with Company Y.On 8 th November, 2011, Consumer S lodged a complaint against CompanyZ for an increased water bill of $362.29 from July 2011 to October 2011. Thecase was investigated and Company Z advised that there was a leakage inthe Complainant’s side of the meter. The Complainant agreed to pay all ofthe pending balance and repair the leakage.Provisions ofCCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedSection 77 (1)(b)Section 84Section 84Page152of236

Table: 6 Cases Successfully Disposed in 2011 - Northern Division (cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/11/16 – FTDN492011/11/29 –FTDN50Consumer Tvs. CompanyAConsumer Uvs. CompanyBThe Commission received a complaint from Consumer T against CompanyA regarding the purchase of a 1 x 3KVA Diesel Generator on 06/09/2011 for$1,700.00 for Construction work at Delai Koro. After using the generator for3 weeks, the sound of the engine changed and it started vibrating. TheGenerator was returned to Company A on 29 th September, 2011. Thecomplainant asked Company A to either refund his money afterdeducting the usage for 3 weeks or provide him with a replacementGenerator to continue his work. However, the Manager replied that since nowarranty was provided on the Generator, the Consumer would have to waittill his generator could be repaired by the distributors.The case was mediated and Company A officials were advised to repair andreturn the generator to Consumer T.On 29 th November, 2011, Consumer U lodged a complaint against CompanyB for selling a Genuine Cebo Sandal for $99.95 that was worn out after 5months from the purchase date. Upon investigation, the trader was informedthat he was breaching Section 114 (1) of the Commerce CommissionDecree 2010 by selling Unmerchantable Quality goods to the customer at aprice of a genuine product, that is, the goods were faulty in just 5 months.Company B agreed to refund the customer. On 14 th December, 2011, thecase was mediated and resolved whereby Company B refunded ConsumerU $99.95.Provisions ofCCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPractice andDivision 1 –WarrantySectionsBreachedSection 77 (h)Sections 76, 83& 114Page153of236

Table: 6 Cases Successfully Disposed in 2011 - Northern Division (cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/12/21 –FTDN51Consumer Vvs. CompanyCOn 21 st December, 2011, Consumer V bought 4 bearings from Company Cand claimed that he was not issued with a receipt. Consumer V informed theCommission that the parts bought did not fit in his vehicle. The Complainantadvised that he wanted to return the parts, however Company C officialsasked him to show them the receipt. The case was investigated, andConsumer V was informed that since he had already used the part, theCommission could not ask Company C to accept the used part. However heas a customer can meditate with Company C. The Commission served aNotice of 7 days to Company C to verify whether the receipt was issued ornot since Company C officials claimed that the receipt book had been sentto Suva. The receipt book confirmed that Company C did issue the receipt toConsumer V.2011/12/29 –FTDN52Consumer Wvs. CompanyDOn 29 th December, 2011, Consumer W lodged a complaint for beingsupplied a faulty Top Head Gasket by Company D on 28-12-2011. AnInvestigation revealed that the Head Gasket was indeed faulty.The matter was mediated and the Director of Company D agreed to provideConsumer W with a new replacement head gasket at no extra cost.Provisions ofCCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPractice /Paragraph 3of CounterInflation(Issuing ofTax invoiceby Trader)(Order 1998& Sec 129(1)a of CCD2010ConsumerPractice &UnfairPractice &Division 1 –WarrantySectionsBreachedSections – 75&Paragraph 3 ofCounterInflation(Issuing of Taxinvoice byTrader) (Order1998& Sec 129 (1)aof CCD 2010Sections 75, 76,114Page154of236

Table: 6 Cases Successfully Disposed in 2011- Northern Division (cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/01/20 -FTDN52011/02/23 –FTDN 142011/02/25– FTDN16Consumer Xvs. Institute EConsumer Yvs. CompanyFConsumer Zvs. CompanyGOn 20 th January, 2011, Consumer X lodged a complaint against Institute Efor serving him an improper notice for repossession of his trucks. AnInvestigation with Institute E revealed that Consumer X was served with allthe reminder notices before his truck was repossessed due to default inpayment. Consumer X was advised that the case was out of theCommission’s jurisdiction.On 23 rd February, 2011, Consumer Y lodged a complaint against CompanyF for selling a washing soap which he alleged had caused damages to hiswife’s hand. Consumer Y was advised that the Commission can onlyproceed with the above case if he can provide a medical certificate thatproves that the skin damages sustained to his wife’s hand was through theuse of the soap. The Complainant was further advised to refer the matter tothe Ministry of Health. The Complainant failed to provide a medicalcertificate. The case was closed.On 25 th February, 2011, Consumer Z lodged a complaint against CompanyG for failing to repair his DVD player, after which he ended up with the repairbill of $90.00. He was notified that the case was out of the Commission’sjurisdiction on 01/06/2011 because Consumer Z stated that he wanted toclaim from Company G the time lost in seeking repairs and his repaircharges. The Complainant was advised to take the case to the Small ClaimsTribunal.Provisions ofCCD2010SectionsBreachedOut of CommissionsJurisdictionConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSection 83ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSection 88Page155of236

Table: 6 Cases Successfully Disposed in 2011- Northern Division (cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/04/04 –FTDN252011/04/14 –FTDN262011/04/15 –FTDN27Consumer Avs. CompanyHConsumer Bvs. Company IConsumer Cvs. CompanyJOn 4 th April, 2011, Consumer A lodged a complaint against Company H forgiving him wrong advice, which led Consumer A to purchase an inferiorquality roofing iron that was very noisy during the rainy season. Consumer Aclaimed that he wanted a refund for the roofing iron. The Complainant wasinformed that he could not be refunded because the roofing iron had alreadybeen modified (The Roofing iron purchased was not at its original state)On 14th April, 2011, Consumer B lodged a complaint against Company I fornot properly painting his vehicle. Consumer B also explained that he wascharged a massive amount for rust guard and other jobs. An Investigationrevealed that Consumer B was claiming for a job done two years ago.Consumer B was also informed that the Commission does not regulate theprice of service charge for rust guard and other mechanical jobs. ConsumerB was also advised to take his complaint to the Small Claims Tribunal sincehe wanted to claim for being excessively charged.On 15 th April, 2011, Consumer C lodged a complaint against Company J fornot paying him for the use of his digging services. There was no evidence ofsuch a service as the whole agreement between Consumer C and CompanyJ was verbal. However, Consumer C had witnesses who confirmed the joband arrangements to the Commission. Consumer C was advised that thecase was out of the Commission’s jurisdiction and advised him to take thecase to the Small Claims Tribunal or file a complaint with the Police againstCompany J for “making off without payment”.Provisions ofCCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedSection 84Section 88Section 76Page156of236

Table: 6 Cases Successfully Disposed in 2011- Northern Division (cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/06/25 –FTDN312011/07/04 –FTDN362011/09/22 –FTDN43Consumer Dvs. CompanyKConsumer Evs. CompanyLConsumer Fvs. CompanyMOn 25 th June, 2011, Consumer D lodged a complaint against Company K fornot surveying his land for the past 6 years. An Investigation revealed thatCompany K had submitted the re-zoning scheme plan to the Nadroga RuralLocal Authority in January 2007. However, there was no record of the saidfile as reported by an employee of the Nadroga Rural Local Authority.Consumer D wanted to claim interest on his land. Consumer D was advisedto take his case to the Small Claims Tribunal and liase with Dept. of Town &Country Planning concerning the re-zoning scheme plan.On 4 th July, 2011, Consumer E alleged that Company L had charged her forthe use of rentals for 5 days; however they had only used them for3 days.An Investigation revealed that Consumer E had signed the agreement forthe use of rentals for 10 days; however she returned the vehicle in 3 days.The 2 days extra charge levied by Company L was because of the loss ofincome. The case was evaluated and the Complainant was advised to takethe Case to the Small Claims Tribunal for her financial redress.On 22 nd September, 2011, Consumer F stated that she gave her vehicle forrepairing and painting to Company M, a garage owner in Volovi, Labasa.Consumer F alleged that the mechanic put the wrong paint, took out thecigarette lighter, 4 car mats, broke door locks, broke lights and the tyrespanner and jack were missing from her vehicle. The case was evaluatedand investigated and Consumer F was advised to take her financial redressto the Small Claims Tribunal.Provisions ofCCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPractice /Division 4 –Door to DoorSalesConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedSection 88Section 106 (1)(b)Section 88Page157of236

Table: 6 Cases Successfully Disposed in 2011- Northern Division (cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/10/06 – FTDN472011/01/10 – FTDN12011/02/15 –FTDN92011/02/21 –FTDN11Consumer Gvs. CompanyNInstitution A-ExclusiveDealings ofSchooluniforms byretailers inLabasaConsumer Hvs. CompanyOInstitution Avs.Companies Pand BOn 6 th October, 2011, Consumer G lodged a complaint against Company Nfor supplying the wrong PVC hand gloves as per their agreement through e-mail. Company N however supplied the green hand gloves instead of thered ones. Consumer G returned the hand gloves to Company N on 24 thAugust, 2011 and asked for his refund of $2500. The Complainant wasadvised to take his case to the Small Claims Tribunal since Consumer Gwas claiming $2500 for the wrong hand gloves supplied by Company N.On 10 th January, 2011, Institution A alleged that In Fashion was engaging inexclusive dealings with regards to the sale of school uniforms of a PrimarySchool. An Investigation revealed that the Traders were not engaging insuch practices; however a caution letter was given to the Ministry ofEducation officials – Secondary & Primary and to the retailers of schoolsuniforms in Labasa.On 15 th February, 2011, Institution A lodged a complaint on behalf ofConsumer H against Company O for selling poor quality shoes. During theinvestigation, Company O confirmed that they were willing to replace theshoes. However, the Complainant’s phone numbers were unreachable andcould not be contacted.On 21 st February, 2011, Institution A lodged a complaint against Tow BusCompanies for using “Not refundable” in their tickets and not returning faresif the passenger wished to get off the bus before it left. The complaint wasinvestigated and the case was referred to the Land Transport Authority. TheCommission requested the Land Transport Authority to devise a mechanismto ensure proper tickets were issued and refunded.Provisions ofCCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeRestrictiveTrade PracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedOut ofJurisdiction –Referred toSmall ClaimsTribunalSection 69Section 75Section 15 (I),76 – Referred toLand TransportAuthorityPage158of236

Table: 6 Cases Successfully Disposed in 2011- Northern Division (cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Case Details2011/06/21 –FTDN302011/05/30 –FTDN342011/07/18 –FTDN392011/09/13 –FTDN42Consumer Ivs. CompanyQInstitution Avs. CompanyRInstitution Avs. CompanySInstitution Avs. CompanyTThe complaint was referred to the Commission by the Consumer Council of Fijion 21 st June, 2011. Consumer I of Bua lodged a complaint against Company Qfor delivering a damaged tank to Bua. An Investigation conducted revealed thatCompany Q provided a 20 year warranty on the drums. Company Q advisedthe Commission that they would repair or replace the drum by 24/06/2011. On25/06/2011, it was revealed by Company Q employees that the drum was notleaking; however the fitting installed by the owner was faulty. The employeesof Company Q did all the repairs and the drum is now in operational condition.The complaint was referred to the Commission by Institution A on 21 st June,2011. Institution A alleged that Company R was engaging in conditional saleswith regards to the sale of butter. An Investigation on 30 th May, 2011, revealedthat Rewa Butter was out of stock at Company R (Labasa), therefore theManager of Company R in Labasa was verbally warned and advised not toengage in such practices as it was a breach of CCD 2010.On 6 th June, 2011, the Institution A referred a complaint to the Commissionregarding Company S. It was claimed that Company S did not issue receipts forthe service works done to Consumer J’s watch and did not refund ConsumerJ’s money since the watch was not in operational condition after repairs weredone. Investigations revealed that Company S was a non– vat registeredTrader, however through mediation Company S refunded the service charge toConsumer J.On 13 th September, 2011, Institution A alleged that Company T was putting acondition that for every purchase of a mobile phone, the customers would haveto buy a Company T top-up of $10.00. The case was investigated and it wasrevealed that Company T was indeed engaging in such practices. The ShopManager was verbally warned and advised not to engage in such practices as itviolated Section 87 (E) of the Commerce Commission Decree 2010.Provisions ofCCD2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticeConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticeConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticeConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticeSectionsBreachedSection 76(1) & 83 (1)Section 87E(1)Section 76Section 87(E)Page159of236

2.0 RENTS DEPARTMENT2.1 INTRODUCTIONRent is a component of housing in the National Consumer Basket and is under price control by the Fiji Commerce Commission. Its control was inheritedfrom the Counter-Inflation Act, Cap 73 and is now governed under the Commerce Commission Decree 2010 (“Decree”).In recent surveys, rent comprises approximately 70% of the total housing sector contribution to the National Basket. In consideration of this fact, theMinister responsible then directed that it be brought under price control as one of the measures to control inflation.The Commission retained rent control during the merger as dictated by the Decree and it augurs well with one of its mandated functions of protectingconsumers. The control was made more relevant in light of the on-going demand for housing, prevalent in urban and peril-urban areas of Fiji, causedlargely by the rise in the rural to urban drift and the scarcity of available land for housing purpose. The scenario has placed tenants (consumers) in amore disadvantaged bargaining position and the threat of exploitation warrants the current control to continue if considered in light of the Commission’sfunctions and the government’s social responsibility.Under the Decree, rent is governed under Section 42 on Records, Section 45 on powers to restrict increases by order through the approval of theMinister, Section 46 on Exclusions and Section 47 on Notifications of increase. Other rental issues such as bond money, evictions and general tenancymatters are considered under the ambit of Section 15 (1) (h),(i) and (j) of the functions provisions. There are also certain sections of Part 7 of the Decreethat could also be utilized to protect tenant rights.The Commission inherited rent freeze during the merge and since it originated from a Ministerial directive, the Commission continued to enforce andextend it in light of recent developments. The freeze covers all residential and ground rentals to which the Decree applies. The current rent freeze orderis cited as the Commerce (Rent Increase Restriction) (No. 2) Order, 2011 which would expire on 31 December 2012. The latest imposition came via aMinisterial directive through the recommendation of the Commission as the review of local rental laws is yet to be completed.Briefly, the rent review referred above was necessary to harmonize the fragmented legislations of landlord and tenancy in the laws of Fiji. The reviewwas overdue as the stakeholders continue to encounter difficulties in understanding the rules that govern the business of letting or renting.Page160of236

2.2 RENT SECTIONRent Section is a division within the Fiji Commerce Commission’s organization structure and since its inception; it has been designated to work closelywith the Fair Trading Department.During the reporting period, the rent section was relocated from the Price Control and Monitoring Division to the Fair Trading Division together with itsstaffing allocation. There were no additional recruitments made and it might continue to be so in the rent freeze period.The section is tasked to attend to all rent complaints and queries from members of the public. Such complaints and queries are normally made throughpersonal visits to the Commission, email correspondences and telephone communications. The Section had also attended to some rent cases referredfrom the Office of the Prime Minister, Office of the Attorney General, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Consumer Council of Fiji [CCOF] and the FijiIndependent Commission Against Corruption [FICAC].The rental issues in the Central Eastern Division was handled by a single staff who was assisted by the Statistics Officer from time to time whereas thosereceived in the Western and Northern were dealt with there and at times with the assistance from the officer designate. The details of the overallcoverage on rent cases processed during the reporting period are highlighted in what follows.The Rent Section has fulfilled the expectation of the Commission in terms of resolving the issues in the most professional and humane way possible. Butit also encountered numerous challenges in terms of resource constraints, unfulfilled consumer expectations, unresponsive parties and inadequate legalpowers to directly tackle the common rental issues encountered. Nevertheless, the Section remains focused on resolving rental cases as amicably,providing every opportunity to hear both parties.Mediation has proven to be an important tool of resolving complaints as redresses are timelier and the settlements reached are tailored to the parties’expectation.The Section looks forward to 2012 with the desire to address the following areas:-1. Improve on its turn around time on each complaint and query;2. Enhance the Section’s skills of mediation;3. Learn other relevant laws thoroughly that govern other aspects of rent;4. Maintain a high level of professionalism, intergrity, accountability and transparency in all rent cases brought to the Commission;5. Ensure uniformity in its approach throughout the three divisional offices of the CommissionPage161of236

2.3 COMMONRENT ISSUESBelow are somprescribed undme rental complainder Section 15 (1)nts commonly enc) (h),(i),(j) and SecFigure 1: RentIncreaseFigure 3:Non- -Refund of Bond Moneyountered by the Cctions 42, 45 and 4Commission during47 of the Commerg the reporting perrce Commission Driod, in accordanc ce with the its manDecree 2010Figure 2: EvictionFigure 4: No rent recordndatory functionsPage162of236

Figure 5: House Conditions e.g. leaking roof Figure 6: Disconnections of UtilitiesFigure 7: Harassment by Landlord Figure 8: Biased tenancy agreementsPage163of236

2.4 FCC’s APPROACH TO RESOLVING RENT ISSUES1. Below are some means employed by the Commission to resolve the types of cases referred to above.Figure 1: Mediation Figure 2: Legal ActionFigure 3: Referrals to other authorities Figure 4: No action – letter to complainants onunsubstantiated complaintsPage164of236

2.5 ACTIVITIES HIGHLIGHTSThe table below presents the summary of cases received and processed by the three divisions during the reporting period. The summaryincluded 22 pending cases from 2010.Table 7: Number of Complaints Received by DivisionCentral Eastern Western Northern176 29 7The table below presents an executive summary of the types of rent complaints handled by the Commission’s three divisional officesduring the reporting period. The summary included 22 pending cases from 2010.Table 8: Types of Complaints ReceivedThe table below presents an issue wise summary of the issues of complaints handled by the Commission’s three divisional offices duringResidential Commercial Others194 15 3the reporting period. The summary included 22 pending cases from 2010.Table 9: Nature of ComplaintsRent Increase Bond Money Eviction Others46 40 70 46The table below presents an executive summary of the cases on rent complaints handled by the Commission’s three divisional officesduring the reporting period. The summary included 22 pending cases from 2010.Table 10: Status of the ComplaintsStatus of complaintsPending Completed8 204Page165of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONCaseNumberCase Name Commercial/Residential/ GroundIssues Applicable Provisions Status2010/08/06/CE -RT/032010/08/10/CE -RT/5Tenant AVs.Landlord ATenant BVs.Landlord BCommercial Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Residential others (no record) Para. 4 of Legal Notice 63/96No breach detected & complainantinformed in writingNo breach detected & complainantcannot be located2010/08/27/CE -RT/14Tenant CVs.Landlord CResidential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Case is pending before NasinuMagistrate Court2010/09/02/CE -RT/212010/09/24/CE -RT/262010/10/05/ CE -RT/28Tenant DVs.Landlord DTenant EVs.Landlord ETenant FVs.Landlord FResidential Rent IncreaseCommercialOthersothers(disproportionate rent)Others (misleadingrepresentation onsale of land)Section 47 & Para. 2 & 4of Legal Notice 63/96.Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Section 79Case is pending before NasinuMagistrate CourtNo breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingMatter resolved through mediation &$10,000 refunded to Complainantwith interest of $1,500 to be refundedin 2012Page167of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CaseNumber2010/10/07/ CE -RT/302010/10/18/ CE -RT/372010/10/19/ CE -RT/38Case NameTenant GVs.Landlord GTenant HVs.Landlord HTenant IVs.Landlord ICommercial/Residential/GroundResidential Rent IncreaseResidential Rent IncreaseCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Section 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Commercial Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediationand excess rent was used to coverfor arrears of rent.Matter resolved through mediationand excess rent of $1,170 refundedto Complainant on 12-04-11.No breach detected & Complainantinformed in writing2010/10/21/ CE -RT/39Tenant JVs. LandlordJCommercialothers(propertycondition)Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j) No breach detected & Complainantinformed in writing2010/10/27/ CE -RT/452010/11/02/ CE -RT/472010/12/6/ CE -RT/54Tenant KVs.Landlord KTenant LVs.Landlord LTenant M Vs.Landlord MCommercialothers (misleading &deceptive conduct)Section 75Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Matter resolved through mediationNo breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingNo breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingPage168of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CaseNumber2010/12/7/ CE -RT/562010/12/7/ CE -RT/572010/11/30/ CE -RT/582010/12/15/ CE -RT/58B2010/12/22/ CE -RT/59Case NameTenant NVs.Landlord NTenant OVs.Landlord OTenant PVs.Landlord PTenant QVs. LandlordQTenant RVs.Landlord RCommercial/Residential/GroundCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusResidential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Rent IncreaseResidentialothers (unjustifieddemand by landlord)Section 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Commercial Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Matter closed due to unresponsiveComplainant.Matter closed due to unresponsiveComplainant.Complaint withdrawnNo breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingMatter resolved through mediation &increase stopped. Excess rent used tocover arrears & Complainant vacatedon 28 February 20112010/12/28/ CE -RT/60Tenant SVs.Landlord SResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $117.96 toComplainant.2010/12/30/ CE -RT/61Tenant TVs.Landlord TResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $215 toComplainant.Page169of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CaseNumber2010/12/31/ CE -RT/62Case NameTenant UVs.Landlord UCommercial/Residential/GroundResidential Rent IncreaseCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Matter resolved through mediation &increase stopped. Excess rent used tocover arrears & Complainant vacatedon 15 April 20112010/12/31/ CE -RT/63Tenant VVs.Landlord VResidential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter investigated and resolvedthrough mediation2011/01/10/ CE -RT/012011/01/11/ CE -RT/02Tenant WVs.Landlord WTenant XVs.Landlord XResidential Others (default of rent) out of jurisdictionResidential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.No breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingMatter resolved through mediation &increase stopped .Excess rent used tocover arrears & Complainant continuedto rent at $150 per month2011/01/07/ CE -RT/03Tenant YVs.Landlord YResidential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $553.00 excessrent to Complainant.2011/01/13/ CE -RT/04Tenant ZVs.Tenant ZResidential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent revoked eviction notice.Page170of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CaseNumber2011/01/17/ CERT/05Case NameTenant A1Vs.Landlord A1Commercial/Residential/GroundCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter could not be resolved throughmediation & parties to settle claims incourt.2011/01/18/ CE -RT/06Tenant B1Vs.Landlord B1Residential Bond moneySection 15 (1) (h), (i), (j) & Para. 4 ofLegal Notice 63/96Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $75 bond moneyto Complainant.2011/01/16/ CE -RT/072011/01/20/ CE -RT/08Tenant C1Vs.Landlord C1Tenant D1Vs.Landlord D1CommercialOthers (commercialrent)out of jurisdictionResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)No breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingMatter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $120 bondmoney to Complainant.2011/02/04/ CE -RT/09Tenant E1Vs.Landlord E1Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent issued formal evictionnotice to Complainant.2011/02/04/ CE -RT/102011/02/07/ CE -RT/11Mr. X1Vs.Tenant (RentsGeneral)Tenant F1Vs.Landlord F1CommercialOthers(commercialrent)Residential Rent Increaseout of jurisdictionSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.No breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingMatter resolved through mediation asno evidence of breach provided.Page171of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CaseNumber2011/02/08/CE-RT/122011/02/08/CE-RT/132011/02/08/CE-RT/142011/02/21/CE-RT/152011/02/21/CE-RT/162011/02/22/CE-RT/17Case NameTenant G1Vs.Landlord G1Tenant H1Vs.Landlord H1Tenant I1Vs.Landlord I1Tenant J1Vs.Landlord J1Tenant K1Vs.Landlord K1Tenant L1Vs.Landlord L1Commercial/Residential/GroundResidential Rent IncreaseResidential Rent IncreaseCommercialCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusOthers (commercialrent)Section 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Section 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Others (no record) Para. 4 of Legal Notice 63/96Residential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation asno evidence of breach providedMatter resolved through mediation andnotice to increase rent revokedNo breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingMatter resolved through mediation asno evidence of breach providedMatter resolved through mediation andnotice to increase rent revokedNo breach detected & Complainantinformed in writing2011/02/28/CE-RT/182011/03/01/CE-RT/19Tenant M1Vs.Landlord M1Tenant N1Vs.Landlord N1Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Bond Money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Complaint withdrawnMatter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $20.44 bondmoney to Complainant.Page172of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CaseNumber2011/03/01/CE-RT/20Case NameTenant O1Vs.Landlord O1Commercial/Residential/GroundResidential Rent IncreaseCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Matter resolved through mediation &excess rent used to cover arrears ofrent.2011/03/07/CE-RT/212011/03/08/CE-RT/22Tenant P1Vs.Landlord P1Tenant Q1Vs.Landlord Q1Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Complaint withdrawnMatter resolved through mediation &Complainant to vacate flat by 4 April2011.2011/03/11/CE-RT/232011/03/11/CE-RT/24Tenant R1Vs.Landlord R1Tenant S1Vs.Landlord S1Residential Others (no record) Para. 4 of Legal Notice 63/96Residential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Matter resolved through mediation asno evidence of breach providedMatter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $20.00 bondmoney to Complainant.2011/03/17/CE-RT/252011/03/18/CE-RT/26Tenant T1Vs.Landlord T1Tenant U1Vs.Landlord U1Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Complaint withdrawnMatter resolved through mediation &Complainant to vacate flat by 18 April2011.Page173of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CaseNumber2011/03/22/CE-RT/272011/03/23/ CE -RT/282011/03/29/CE-RT/292011/03/29/CE-RT/302011/03/29/CE-RT/31Case NameTenant VVs.Landlord VTenant WVs.Landlord WTenant XVs.Landlord XTenant YVs.Landlord YTenant ZVs.Landlord ZCommercial/Residential/GroundCommercialCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusOthers( commercialrent)Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96Residential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)No breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingMatter closed due to unresponsiveComplainant.Matter resolved through mediation &noevidence of breach provided.Matter could not be resolved throughmediation & parties agreed to settleclaims in court.Matter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated flat on 30 April2011.2011/03/31/CE-RT/32Tenant AVs.Landlord AResidential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Complainant found in breach oftenancy agreement.2011/04/04/CE-RT/332011/04/04/CE-RT/34Tenant BVs.Landlord BTenant CVs.Landlord CResidential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96Residential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter closed due to unresponsiveComplainant.Matter resolved through mediation &Complainant found in breach oftenancy agreement.Page174of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CaseNumber2011/04/04/CE-RT/352011/04/05/CE-RT/362011/04/07/CE-RT/372011/04/11/CE-RT/38Case NameTenant DVs.Landlord DTenant EVs.Landlord ETenant FVs.Landlord FTenant GVs.Landlord GCommercial/Residential/GroundResidentialCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusOthers (condition offlat)Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter referred to Suva City Council foractionMatter closed as evidence of refundproduced by the Respondent.Matter closed as eviction notice wasproper.Matter could not be resolved throughmediation & parties agreed to settleclaims in court.2011/04/12/CE-RT/392011/04/12/CE-RT/402011/04/15/CE-RT/422011/04/CE-RT/432011/04/18/CE-RT/44Tenant HVs.Landlord HTenant IVs.Landlord ITenant KVs.Landlord KTenant LvsLandlord LTenant MVs.Landlord MResidential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent revoked eviction notice.Complaint withdrawnMatter resolved through mediation &Respondent extended stay.Matter closed due to unresponsiveComplainant.Matter resolved through mediation & asno evidence provided.Page175of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CaseNumber2011/04/29/CE-RT/45Case NameTenant NVs.Landlord NCommercial/Residential/GroundCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter investigated & no refund wasjustified due arrears owed byComplainant.2011/04/29/CE-RT/462011/04/13/CE-RT/47Tenant OVs.Landlord OTenant PVs.Landlord PResidential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)ResidentialOthers(unjustified claim)Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent extended stay.Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent rescinded claim andComplainant vacated with belongings.2011/05/02/CE-RT/482011/05/03/CE-RT/49Tenant QVs.Landlord QTenant RVs.Landlord RResidential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96Residential Bond Money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)No breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingMatter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $200 bondmoney to Complainant.2011/05/05/CE-RT/50Tenant SVs.Landlord SResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $1300 bondmoney to Complainant.2011/05/02/CE-RT/512011/05/02/CE-RT/52Tenant TVs.Landlord TTenant UVs.Landlord UCommercialOthers(unfair treatment)Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated calmly.Matter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated the flat on 16May 2011.Page176of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CaseNumber2011/05/06/CE-RT/52BCase NameTenant VVs.Landlord VCommercial/Residential/GroundCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusResidential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated flat on 31 May2011.2011/05/12/CE-RT/53Tenant WVs.Landlord WResidential Bond Money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Complainant to clear all dues beforevacating2011/05/03/CE-RT53B2011/05/12/CE-RT/542011/04/21/CE-RT/54BTenant XVs.Landlord XTenant YVs.Landlord YTenant ZVs.Landlord ZResidential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter referred to REALB for actionMatter resolved through mediation &Respondent agrees to extend stay.Matter could not be resolved throughmediation & parties agreed to settleclaims in court.2011/05/12/CE-RT/55Tenant AVs.Landlord AResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $270 bondmoney to Complainant.2011/04/20/CE-RT/55BTenant BVs.Landlord BResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $125 bondmoney to Complainant.Page177of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONCaseNumberCase NameCommercial/Residential/GroundIssues Applicable Provisions Status2011/05/23/CE-RT/56Tenant CVs.Landlord CResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter investigated & no refund wasjustified as complainant was not therecognized tenant.2011/05/30/CE-RT/572011/06/02/CE-RT/58Tenant DVs.Landlord DTenant EVs.Landlord EResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter investigated & no refund wasjustified as complainant was not therecognized tenant.Matter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated flat on 21 June2011.2011/06/02/CE-RT/59Tenant FVs.Landlord FResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter could not be resolved throughmediation & parties to settle claims incourt.2011/06/06/CE-RT/60Tenant GVs.Landlord GResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $300 bondmoney to Complainant.2011/06/01/CE-RT/61Tenant HVs.Landlord HResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter could not be resolved throughmediation & parties to settle claims incourt.2011/06/06/CE-RT/62Tenant IVs.Landlord IResidential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96Matter could not be resolved throughmediation & parties to settle claims incourt.Page178of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONCaseNumberCase NameCommercial/Residential/GroundIssues Applicable Provisions Status2011/05/05/CE-RT/63Tenant JVs.Landlord JResidential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $700 excess rentto Complainant2011/06/07/CE-RT/64Tenant KVs.Landlord KResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Complaint withdrawn2011/06/16/CE-RT/65Tenant LVs.Landlord LResidential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Complaint withdrawn2011/06/09/CE-RT/66M Others Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96No Increase allowed & Commissionresponded officially to submission.2011/06/20/CE-RT/67Tenant MVs.Landlord MResidential Bond Money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $170 bondmoney to Complainant.2011/06/20/CE-RT/68Tenant OVs.Landlord OResidential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated by 30 June 2011.Page179of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONCaseNumberCase NameCommercial/Residential/GroundIssues Applicable Provisions Status2011/06/20/CE-RT/69Tenant PVs.Landlord PResidential Bond Money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $30 bond moneyto Complainant after deduction of dues.2011/06/22/CE-RT/702011/06/27/CE-RT/712011/06/28/CE-RT/722011/06/28/CE-RT/722011/06/28/CE-RT/732011/06/30/CE-RT/742011/06/30/CE-RT/75Tenant QVs.Landlord QTenant RVs.Landlord RTenant SVs.Landlord STenant TVs.Landlord TTenant UVs.Landlord UTenant VVs.Landlord VTenant WVs.Landlord WResidential Rent IncreaseResidential Others (no record)ResidentialResidentialOthers(no record)Others (misleading &deceptive conduct)Section 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96Section 47 & Para. 4of Legal Notice 63/96.Paragraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96.Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &excess rent used to cover for arrears ofrent.Matter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated by 15 July 2011.Complaint withdrawnMatter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated flat on 11 July2011.Matter resolved through mediation &proper eviction notice issued.Matter resolved through mediation &proper eviction notice issued.Matter could not be resolved throughmediation & parties agreed to settleclaims in court.Page180of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CaseNumber2011/06/30/CE-RT/762011/06/24/CE-RT/772011/07/04/CE-RT/782011/07/06/CE-RT/802011/07/07/CE-RT/812011/07/12/CE-RT/822011/07/13/CE-RT/832011/07/13/CE-RT/842011/07/15/CE-RT/85Case NameTenant XVs.Landlord XTenant YVs.Landlord YTenant ZVs.Landlord ZTenant AVs.Landlord ATenant BVs.Landlord BTenant CVs.Landlord CTenant DVs.Landlord DTenant EVs.Landlord ETenant FVs.Landlord FCommercial/Residential/GroundCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusResidential Bond Money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)ResidentialOthers(seeking advice)Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Bond Money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)ResidentialOthers(no record)Paragraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96.Residential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Commercial Bond Money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Commission responded officially withadvice to Mr. Din.Matter investigated & eviction noticewas justifiedNo breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingMatter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $200 bondmoney to Complainant.Matter resolved through mediation &receipts issued to Complainant.Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $300 bondmoney to Complainant.Matter was mediated but Complainantfail to honor agreement, so evictionfollowed.Matter could not be resolved throughmediation & parties agreed to settleclaims in court.Matter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated flat on 25 July2011.Page181of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONCaseNumber2011/07/18/CE-RT/862011/07/18/CE-RT/872011/07/06/CE-RT/882011/07/20/CE-RT/892011/07/20/CE-RT/902011/07/25/CE-RT/912011/07/27/CE-RT/922011/07/27/CE-RT/932011/07/27/CE-RT/94Case NameTenant GVs.Landlord GTenant HVs.Landlord HTenant IVs.Tenant ITenant JVs.Landlord JTenant KVs.Landlord KTenant LVs.Landlord LTenant MVs.Landlord MTenant OVs.Landlord OTenant PVs.Landlord PCommercial/Residential/GroundIssues Applicable Provisions StatusResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)ResidentialOthers(Misleading &Deceptive Conduct)Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Bond Money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)ResidentialOthers(no record)Paragraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96.Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $300 bondmoney to Complainant.Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $150 bondmoney to Complainant.No breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingMatter investigated & eviction wasjustified due to unpaid rentMatter closed due to unresponsiveComplainant.Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $300 bondmoney to Complainant.No breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingMatter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated flat on 3 August2011.Matter could not be resolved throughmediation & parties agreed to settleclaims in court.Page182of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONCaseNumber2011/07/27/CE-RT/952011/08/20/CE-RT/962011/08/05/CE-RT/972011/08/08/CE-RT/982011/07/27/CE-RT/992011/07/12/CE-RT/1002011/08/18/CE-RT/1012011/08/18/CE-RT/102Case NameTenant QVs.Landlord QTenant RVs.Landlord RTenant SVs.Landlord STenant TVs.Landlord TTenant UVs.Landlord UTenant VVs.Landlord VTenant WVs.Landlord WTenant XVs.Landlord XCommercial/Residential/GroundIssues Applicable Provisions StatusResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Rent IncreaseResidential Rent IncreaseResidential Rent IncreaseResidentialOthers(no record)Section 47 of Paragraph 2 of RentControl OrderSection 47 of Paragraph 2 of RentControl OrderSection 47 of Paragraph 2 of RentControl OrderParagraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96.Residential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $200 bondmoney to Complainant.No breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingMatter resolved through mediation &intention to increase stopped.No Increase allowed & Commissionresponded officially to submission.Complaint withdrawnComplaint withdrawnMatter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $126 bondmoney to Complainant.Matter investigated & breaches of norecord detected. Case now underprosecution.Page183of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CaseNumber2011/08/02/CE-RT/1032011/09/01/CE-RT/1042011/09/06/CE-RT/1052011/09/07/CE-RT/1062011/09/08/CE-RT/1072011/09/09/CE-RT/1082011/09/09/CE-RT/1092011/09/13/CE-RT/1102011/09/15/CE-RT/111Case NameTenant YVs.Landlord YTenant ZVs.Landlord ZTenant AVs.Landlord ATenant BVs.Landlord BTenant CVs.Landlord CTenant DVs.Landlord DTenant EVs.Landlord ETenant FVs.Landlord FTenant GVs.Landlord GCommercial/Residential/GroundResidentialCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusOthers(rent refund)Residential Rent IncreaseSection 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Section 47 of Paragraph 2 of RentControl OrderResidential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Bond money Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)ResidentialResidentialOthers(no record)Others(no record)Paragraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96.Paragraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96.Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)ResidentialOthers(unpaid rent claim)Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter could not be resolved throughmediation & parties agreed to settleclaims in court.No Increase allowed & Commissionresponded officially to submission.Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $290 bondmoney to Complainant.Matter closed as parties resolveddispute out of CommissionMatter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated flat on 10September 2011.Complaint withdrawnMatter resolved through mediation asno breach was detected. Complainantvacated flat on 30 October 2011.Matter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated flat on 22September 2011.Matter could not be resolved throughmediation & parties agreed to settleclaims in court.Page184of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CaseNumber2011/09/22/CE-RT/1122011/09/26/CE-RT/1132011/09/27/CE-RT/1142011/09/16/CE-RT/1152011/09/29/CE-RT/1162011/10/11/CE-RT/1172011/10/20/CE-RT/1182011/10/24/CE-RT/1192011/10/20/CE-RT/120Case NameTenant HVs.Landlord HTenant IVs.Landlord ITenant JVs.Landlord JTenant KVs.Landlord KTenant LVs.Landlord LTenant MVs.Landlord MTenant NVs.Landlord NTenant OVs.Landlord OTenant PVs.Landlord PCommercial/Residential/GroundResidentialCommercialResidentialCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusOthers(no record)Others (commercialrent)Others(no record)Residential Rent IncreaseParagraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96. Case is before Nasinu CourtSection 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)No breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingParagraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96. Under investigationSection 47 of Paragraph 2 of RentControl OrderNo breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingResidential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j). Complaint withdrawnResidentialOthers(no record)Paragraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96.Residential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).OthersOthers( property value)Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Matter investigated & no breachdetected.Matter closed as parties resolveddispute out of CommissionNo breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingOut of jurisdiction & Complainantinformed in writingPage185of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved -2011CaseNumberCase NameCommercial/Residential/GroundCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions Status2011/10/27/CE-RT/1212011/10/28/CE-RT/1222011/10/27/CE-RT/1232011/10/28/CE-RT/1242011/10/31/CE-RT/1252011/10/28/CE-RT/1262011/11/03/CE-RT/1272011/11/02/CE-RT/128Tenant QVs.Landlord QTenant RVs.Landlord RTenant SVs.Landlord STenant TVs.Landlord TTenant UVs.Landlord UTenant VVs.Landlord VTenant WVs.Landlord WTenant XVs.Landlord XResidential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Bond Money Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).ResidentialOthers(FEA disconnection)Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Bond Money Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Bond Money Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Matter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated flat on 30November 2011.Matter closed due to unresponsiveComplainant.Out of jurisdiction & Complainantinformed in writingMatter closed as parties resolveddispute out of CommissionMatter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $145 bondmoney to Complainant & $210 to cotenant.Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $310 bondmoney to ComplainantMatter closed as parties resolveddispute out of CommissionMatter closed due to lack of evidenceprovided by ComplainantPage186of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved-2011CENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONCaseNumberCase NameCommercial/Residential/GroundIssues Applicable Provisions Status2011/11/08/CE-RT/129Tenant YVs.Landlord YResidential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Matter was mediated but Complainantfailed to honor Settlement Deed somatter referred to court byRespondent.2011/11/14/CE-RT/130Tenant ZVs.Landlord ZResidential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Matter investigated & eviction noticewas justified due to unpaid rent.2011/11/15/CE-RT/1312011/11/22/CE-RT/1322011/11/24/CE-RT/1332011/11/24/CE-RT/1332011/11/25/CE-RT/134Tenant AVs.Landlord ATenant BVs.Landlord BTenant CVs.Landlord CTenant CVs.Landlord CTenant DVs.Landlord DResidentialOthers(disconnections ofutilities)Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).No breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingMatter closed as parties resolveddispute out of CommissionResidential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j). Under investigationResidential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j). Under investigationResidential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Matter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated flat on 4December 2011.Page187of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved-2011CENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONCaseNumberCase NameCommercial/Residential/GroundIssues Applicable Provisions Status2011/11/28/CE-RT/1352011/11/28/CE-RT/1362011/11/29/CE-RT/1372011/11/24/CE-RT/1382011/12/02/CE-RT/1392011/12/06/CE-RT/1402011/12/06/CE-RT/140B2011/12/07/CE-RT/141Tenant EVs.Landlord ETenant FVs.Landlord FTenant GVs.Landlord GTenant HVs.Landlord HTenant IVs.Landlord ITenant JVs.Landlord JTenant KVs.Landlord KTenant LVs.Landlord LResidential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Bond Money Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Rent IncreaseSection 47 of Paragraph 2 of RentControl OrderResidential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent issued proper evictionnotice to Complainant.Matter could not be resolved throughmediation & parties agreed to settlematter in court.Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $350 bondmoney to Complainant.Matter investigated & eviction noticewas justified due to unpaid rentMatter investigated & no breachdetectedMatter closed as parties resolveddispute out of CommissionResidential Others (bills) Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j). Under investigationResidentialOthers(condition of flat)Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Matter closed as it was out ofjurisdiction. Property is on nativereservePage188of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved-2011CaseNumber2011/12/07/CE-RT/1422011/12/09/CE-RT/1432011/12/06/CE-RT/1442011/12/12/CE-RT/1452011/12/16/CE-RT/146Case NameTenant MVs.Landlord MTenant NVs.Landlord NTenant OVs.Landlord OTenant PVs.Landlord PTenant QVs.Landlord QCommercial/Residential/GroundResidential Rent IncreaseResidential Rent IncreaseCENTRAL EASTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusSection 47 of Paragraph 2 of RentControl OrderSection 47 of Paragraph 2 of RentControl OrderResidential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).ResidentialOthers(rent refund)Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Bond Money Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Matter resolved through mediation as noevidence of breach detected.No breach detected & Complainantinformed in writingMatter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated flat on 16 December2011.Matter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $200 bond money toComplainantMatter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $247 bond money toComplainant2011/12/02/CE-RT/1472011/12/19/CE-RT/1482011/12/19/CE-RT/149Tenant RVs.Landlord RTenant SVs.Landlord STenant TVs.Landlord TResidential Rent IncreaseSection 47 of Paragraph 2 of RentControl OrderResidential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Others (no record) Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j). Under investigationMatter resolved through mediation &Respondent refunded $250 bond money toComplainantMatter resolved through mediation &Complainant vacated flat on 21 January2011.Page189of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved-2011CaseNumber1/112/11Case NameTenant UVs.Landlord UTenant VVs.Landlord VCommercial/Residential/GroundResidential Rent IncreaseWESTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Commercial Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter investigated & no breachdetected.Matter resolved through mediation &proper eviction notice issued toComplainant3/114/115/116/11Tenant WVs.Landlord WTenant XVs.Landlord XTenant YVs.Landlord YTenant ZVs.Landlord ZResidential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Residential others (no record) Rents OrderResidential Rent IncreaseSection 47 of Paragraph 2 of RentControl OrderCommercial Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter investigated & no breachdetected.Matter resolved through mediation &receipts issued to Complainant.Matter resolved through mediation &intention to increase stopped.Matter resolved through mediation &proper eviction notice issued toComplainant7/118/119/11Tenant AVs.Landlord ATenant BVs.Landlord BTenant CVs.Landlord CResidential Others (no record) Paragraph 2 of Rent Control OrderResidential Rent IncreaseResidential Rent IncreaseSection 47 of Paragraph 2 of RentControl OrderSection 47 of Paragraph 2 of RentControl OrderMatter resolved through mediation &receipts issued to Complainant.Case is before CourtMatter resolved through mediation &intention to increase stopped.Page190of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved-2011CaseNumber10/11Case NameTenant DVs.Landlord DCommercial/Residential/GroundResidential Rent IncreaseWESTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusSection 47 of Paragraph 2 of RentControl OrderMatter resolved through mediation &intention to increase stopped.11/1112/1114/1115/1116/1117/1118/11Tenant EVs.Landlord ETenant FVs.Landlord FTenant GVs.Landlord GTenant HVs.Landlord HTenant IVs.Landlord ITenant JVs.Landlord JTenant KVs.Landlord KResidential Others (no record)Residential EvictionParagraph 2 of Rent Control OrderOut of JurisdictionResidential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Others (no record) Paragraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96.Residential Others (no record) Paragraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96.Residential Others (no record) Paragraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96.Matter resolved through mediation &receipts issued to Complainant.Matter resolved through mediation &proper eviction notice issued toComplainantMatter resolved through mediation &proper eviction notice issued toComplainantMatter resolved through mediation &proper eviction notice issued toComplainantMatter resolved through mediation &receipts issued to ComplainantMatter resolved through mediation &receipts issued to ComplainantMatter resolved through mediation &receipts issued to ComplainantPage191of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved-2011CaseNumber18/1119/1120/11Case NameTenant KVs.Landlord KTenant LVs.Landlord LTenant MVs.Landlord MCommercial/Residential/GroundWESTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusResidential Others (no record) Paragraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96.Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Rent Increase Paragraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96.Matter resolved through mediation &receipts issued to ComplainantMatter resolved through mediation &receipts issued to ComplainantMatter resolved through mediation &proper eviction notice issued toComplainant.21/1122/1123/1124/1125/11Tenant NVs.Landlord NTenant OVs.Landlord OTenant PVs.Landlord PTenant QVs.Landlord QTenant RVs.Landlord RResidential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Others (no record) Paragraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96.Residential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Paragraph 2 of LegalNotice 63/96.Residential Eviction Section 15 (1) (h), (i), (j).Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter investigated & no breachdetectedMatter resolved through mediation &receipts issued to ComplainantMatter investigated & no breachdetectedMatter resolved through mediation &proper eviction notice issued toComplainantMatter resolved through mediation &proper eviction notice issued toComplainantPage192of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved-2011CaseNumber26/1127/1128/1129/11Case NameTenant SVs.Landlord STenant TVs.Landlord TTenant UVs.Landlord UTenant VVs.Landlord VCommercial/Residential/GroundWESTERN DIVISIONIssues Applicable Provisions StatusResidential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &proper eviction notice issued toComplainantResidential Rent Increase Paragraph 2 of the Rent Control Order Matter is under prosecutionResidential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Residential Eviction Section 15 (1)(h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &proper eviction notice issued toComplainantMatter resolved through mediation &proper eviction notice issued toComplainant2011/04/15/N-RT/01Tenant WVs.Landlord WResidential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Matter resolved through mediation &excess rent refunded to theComplainant.2011/05/20/N-RT/02Tenant XVs.Landlord XResidential Eviction Section 15 (h), (i), (j)Matter resolved through mediation &tenancy extended2011/06/05/N-RT/03Tenant YVs.Landlord YResidential Others (no record) Paragraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96.Matter resolved through mediation &receipts issued to ComplainantPage193of236

Table 11: Rent Cases Resolved-2011NORTHERN DIVISION2011/06/16/N –RT/042011/08/05/ N -RT/052011/08/24/ N -RT/06Tenant ZVs.Landlord ZTenant AVs.Landlord ATenant BVs.Landlord BResidential Eviction Section 15 (h), (i), (j)Residential Others (no record) Paragraph 4 of Legal Notice 63/96Residential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Matter resolved through mediation &tenancy extendedMatter resolved through mediation &receipts issued to ComplainantMatter resolved through mediation &excess rent refunded to theComplainant.2011/10/28 /N–RT/07Tenant CVs.Landlord CResidential Rent IncreaseSection 47 & Para. 2of Legal Notice 63/96.Matter resolved through mediation &excess rent refunded to theComplainant.Notes and Analysis1. The Commission is mandated under Section 15 (h),(i) and (j) of the Commerce Commission Decree 2010 to look into consumer complaints and totake all means neccessary to ensure their interests are protected. Rent, along with other Fair Trading and Consumer Protection issues are receivedand investigated in light of these broad provisions;2. The Commission, in resolving cases, have adopted MEDIATION as its first option since its inception in 2010. The choice of this approach was basedentirely on the intention to get timely redress to the grieving party (Complainant). Also it was considered on the basis where minimal burden is borneby the Complainant and the issue of compensation dealt with at the level acceptable to both parties;3. Cases deemed completed at the end of the reporting period were considered so on the following conditions:-i. Cases successfully mediated at the Commission level and appropriate settlement reached, documented and actioned. This included bondrefunds, stay of evictions and refund of overcharged rentals based on terms and conditions accepted by both the parties;Page194of236

ii. Cases that could not be resolved through mediation due to unresponsive landlords and have substantial evidences of breaches of theCommerce Commission Decree 2010 were investigated and forwarded to the Legal Section for court actions;iii. Cases that could not be resolved through mediation due to unresponsive parties and have insufficient evidences of a breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010, but have issues concerning other authorities were referred to the relevant authorities and the Complainants informedaccordingly;iv. Cases lacking clear evidences of violations of the Decree, official responses were made to the Complainants in a appropriate manner.4. A total of 8 cases remained pending at the end of the reporting period.3.0 BUSINESS COMPETITION AND REGULATED INDUSTRY3.1 Overview of the DepartmentThe Business Competition and Regulated Industry Department of the Commission is responsible for undertaking independent analysis and research onany industry engaged in the supply of electricity, water, sewage, post, broadcasting, telecommunications, ports, civil aviations or any other industries thatis declared subsequently in Section 5, Regulated Industries of the Commerce Commission Decree 2010.The Department consist of four (4 ) staff members. The breakdown of the staff membere are as follows: Senior Research Officer - Accounting and Finance 1 Research Officer – Accounting 1 Research Assistant – Accounting 2This department is also assisted by Legal Department and Chief Executive Officer of Fiji Commerce Commerce.The tables below present an executive summary of the determinations made by the Regulated Industry Division.Page195of236

Table 12: Summary of Steel Industry Related Activities - 2011Date of Determination Industry Submission/ Issues Commissions Action/Determination25/02/2011 Steel Fletcher Pacific Steel Fiji (FPSF)requested for an increase inwholesale rebar prices for Grade300 & Grade 500 based on thefollowing:The Commission after undertaking a detailed analysis of the submission byFPSF and conducting its own independent investigation and computationsdetermined that as an interim measure, the price for re-bar steel of Grade300 and Grade 500 would remain the same and be further extended to 30April 2011. Increase in raw materialprices due to scrap pricemovement and Devaluation of the FijianDollar against New ZealandDollar.18/03/2011 Steel Fletcher Pacific Steel Fiji (FPSF)requested for a review of theirrebar prices.In its determination, the Commission notified FPSF that a detailed analysis ofthe submission including investigations into the operations of FPSF will beundertaken.The Commission after undertaking a detailed analysis of the submission byFPSF and conducting its own independent investigation and computationsgranted an interim increase of 9.5% until 31 May 2011, taking into accountthe increase in electricity tariff (in effect from 1 April 2011) and thestrengthening of the Fijian dollar against the New Zealand dollar.The Commission had further advised FPSF that an in-depth investigation intothe operations and financials of FPSF will be undertaken before a finaldetermination is released.Page196of236

Table 12: Summary of Steel Industry Related Activities -2011 (cont…)Date of Determination Industry Submission/ Issues Commissions Action/Determination29/06/2011 Steel As part of the interimdetermination (18/03/2011) andafter the completion of the audit,the Commission released the finaldetermination.The Commission after undertaking a detailed analysis of the audit andconducting its own independent investigation and computations authorized a3.49% decrease in wholesale rebar prices for Grade 300 and Grade 500 thatwas effective from 1 July 2011 and expired on 30 September 2011.08/07/2011 Steel The audit report on the operationsof FPSFThe Commission on 08 July 2011 wrote to FPSF outlining that the findings ofthe audit revealed that a significant level of inefficiencies existed at all stagesof the operations of FPSF, which contributed to a high unit cost. TheCommission provided FPSF four (4) months time frame to put in placemeasures to remove the inefficiencies so that there is a competitive marketprice.01/10/2011 Steel Extension of prices for Ex-FactoryGrade 300 and Grade 500 Rebarprices.The final determination on Ex-factory Grade 300 and Grade 500 that expiredon 30 September 2011 was extended to 08 November 2011.09/11/2011 Steel Extension of prices for Ex-FactoryGrade 300 and Grade 500 Rebarprices.The final determination on Ex-factory Grade 300 and Grade 500 that expiredon 08 November 2011 was extended until further notice.Page197of236

3.2 Ex Factory Wholesale Rebar Price Changes for the last four (4) yearsOver the years, there were a number of price reviews that were carried out by Regulated Industry which was based on the submission byFPSF. The summary of price changes is tabulated below.Table 13: Ex Factory Wholesale Rebar Price Changes for the last four (4) yearsDate Effective Rebar Grade Price New Price/ Ton Price Change (%)23/04/2008 Grade 300 $1,627.80 $1,764.25 8.38%23/04/2008 Grade 430 $1,709.52 $1,844.25 7.88%05/06/2008 Grade 430 $1,844.25 $2,186.80 18.57%09/07/2008 Grade 430 $2,186.80 $2,297.40 5.06%07/08/2008 Grade 300 $1,764.25 $2,195.45 24.44%15/10/2008 Grade 300 $2,195.45 $2,609.77 18.87%15/10/2008 Grade 430 $2,297.40 $2,711.72 18.03%04/11/2008 Grade 300 $2,609.77$2,300.00 -11.87%04/11/2008 Grade 430 $2,711.72$2,300.00 -15.18%05/03/2009 Grade 300 $2,300.00 $1,701.60 -26.00%05/30/2009 Grade 430/500 $2,300.00 $1,840.30 -20.00%Page198of236

3.3 Mergers & AcquisitionsMergers are covered under Section 72 and Section 73 under Part 6 of the Commerce Commission Decree 2010 (“Decree”). Section 72 deals withMerger in general while Section 73 deals with Mergers outside Fiji.As per Section 72 of the Decree, firms/entities engaging to carry out any forms of mergers/acquisitions need to acquire the merger/acquisition clearancefrom the Commission before finalizing the deal.Table 2 provides the summary of Mergers & Acquisitions for the year 2011.Table 14: Summary of Mergers & Acquisitions Industry Activities in 2011Date Industry Submission/ Issues Commissions Action/Determination07/02/2011 Hardware Vinod Patel & Company Ltdapplication for clearance forthe acquisition of SuncourtHardwareOn 7 February, 2011 Vinod Patel indicated to the Fiji Commerce Commission(“Commission) its intention to purchase the business and assets of Suncourt,which currently has operations in Nabua, Suva and Nausori.The independent analysis by the Commission indicated that the mergeramounted to a change of control and there was no lessening of competition.Hence the merger was regarded as neutral in substance with no effect on thecompetitive fabric of the market. The Commission also noted that Suncourt wasa failing firm within the various meaning of failing firm’s characteristics. TheCommission further noted that prohibiting the merger would in all probability leadto the closure of the Suncourt, an outcome that could not be justified onsubstantial public interest grounds because of the adverse effect on the relevantmarket as well as the business and employment of workforce who could bedirectly or indirectly affected. The Commission granted approval for theacquisition to proceed.Page200of236

3.4 ElectricityDuring the period, the Commission made a dterminmation regarding the Rural Electrification and General Grid Extension Policy of FEA.Table 15: Summary of Electricity Industry Activities in 2011Date ofDeterminationIndustry Submission/ Issues Commission’s Action/ Determination20/06/2011 Electricity FEA charging customers for capital costs The Commission after its own independent analysis andcomputations determined the following on FEA charging customersfor capital costs:1. For households no capital cost (fee) is to be charged.2. For loads other then households having monthly loads of up to5KW units, no fee to be charged.3. For monthly loads between 5KW to 10KW units; 50% of thecost of extension may be charged as an interest free depositwhich would be fully refunded after 8 years of continuoususage.4. For monthly loads above 10KW, 100% of the cost of extensionmay be charged as an interest free deposit which is to be fullyrefunded after 8 years of continuous usage.5. No Capital costs or operations and maintenance charge are tobe levied on customers seeking extensions of grid inuneconomical geographical areas or rural areas. However,FEA can borrow money under the options available in section16 of the Electricity Act or make a case to Government forsupport for capital infrastructure in the rural areas where suchextensions may provide low returns. This again is purely atransaction between Government and FEA and FEA must notinvolve the community /firm /households /consumers in anyway.Page201of236

3.5 TelecommunicationDuring the period, the Commission provided arbitration services, determined interconnect charges for telecom entities and performed “internationalinbound minute’s reconciliation” from January 2010 to December 2011.Table 14 provides the summary of Telecommunication Industry related activitiesfor the year 2011Table 16: Summary of Telecommunication Industry Related Activities - 2011Date ofDeterminationIndustry Submission/Issues Commission’s Action/Determination29/04/2011 Telecommunication . Non-acceptance of Co-locationchargesInvoicing of E1 links withoutany agreementThe Commission was requested by Operator A to arbitrate on a dispute ColocationCharges with Operator. The dispute was in regards to the ratesimposed by Operator B which Operator A considered to be unfair.The Commission after analyzing the issue released the final determinationon co-location on 06 September 2011 authorizing the rates to be effectivefrom 01 July 2011. Rates determined were as follows: $125 per square foot (per month) relates to the area inside the buildingand should not be applied to areas outside the enclosure of thebuildings, and this rate includes other costs (overheads and operation& maintenance cost) and applies to costing of:i. Rack Spaceii. Cable Ductingiii. Cable TerminationMan-hole charges at $35.00 per square foot per month for the five (5)cemented housing manholes and this rate includes other cost (overheadsand operations & maintenance cost). [Page202of236

Table 16: Summary of Telecommunication Industry Related Activities – 2011Date ofDeterminationIndustry Submission/Issues Commission’s Action/Determination01/07/2011–30/12/2011Telecommunication International inbound callminutes reconciliation fromJanuary 2010 – December2011 for the entire telecomindustry.International Inbound Call Minutes ReconciliationThe Commission is currently engaged in reconciliation of internationalinbound call minutes from January 2010 to December 2011. This is anongoing exercise whereby the Commission will constantly monitor themarket and will vigorously be engaged in performing reconciliation on amonthly basis.During the course of the reconciliation the Commission requested for thefollowing on a monthly basis:o International Inbound call minutes data (raw data, terminated to ownnetwork and transited to terminating network);o Inbound invoice copies ;o Inbound reconciliation between system and invoice;o System report copy for minutes received;o Correspondence attached to inbound reconciliation whereby both theparties agree to payment(s) (e.g. email copy) in case of discrepancynoted between the minutes received and forwarded;o Reconciliation of levy payment and deposit slip; ando Summary of inbound report in USD dollar value sorted by carrier’spayment.Page203of236

Table 16: Summary of Telecommunication Industry Related Activities – 2011Date ofDeterminationIndustry Submission/Issues Commission’s Action/Determination07/11/2011 Telecommunication Interconnection ServiceCharges to the followingtelecom entities: Vodafone Fiji Limited Digicel Fiji Limited Fiji InternationalTelecommunicationLimited Telecom Fiji limited Voicenet IP Fiji Ltd Latent Workforce Pty Ltd Kidanet Fiji Ltd The Commission haddetermined the authorizedrates using the glide pathapproach.The Commission after independent research, analysis and computationreleased the final determination on the following that was effective from 01December 2011.1. For all calls terminating into a mobile network, the interconnectionrates was reduced by 23.5% (from F$0.17 to F$0.13 per minute);2. For all incoming international calls, the terminating rate onto a localnetwork operator was increased from US$0.165 to US$0.22.3. Of the above rate, F$0.06 will be paid by the operators toGovernment in the form of the ICT levy to support Governments ICTPenetration work.4. For incoming international calls, which one operator hands over toanother operator, apart from the interconnection rate, the handing overparty must also pay a Special International Call Handling Levy ofF$0.09 to the network operator on which the calls are terminated.This additional revenue can be used to build new networkinfrastructure and also maintain existing infrastructure.Page204of236

Table 16: Summary of Telecommunication Industry Related Activities – 2011Date ofDeterminationIndustry Submission/Issues Commission’s Action/Determination29/12/2011 Telecommunication Dispute between TelecomOperator A and Opeartor B onAccess to Capacity andNetwork.The Commission received a formal request from Operator A to arbitrate onthe dispute with Operator B on the charges for the access to capacity andnetwork. The Commission was requested to make a decision on the basis onwhich the rates should be calculated.The Commission after independent analysis, study, consultation, taking intoaccount all the factors and issues, including responses from the twoOperators on the Commission's draft determination dated 29 December 2011,made the final determination on 10 January 2012 concerning access to capacityand network between Operator A and Operator B for the facilitation of anadditional STM1 Fiji link to be procured by Operator A as follows: On the basis of the computations, Operator A will have to pay OperatorB a onetime bypass fee of USD$27,337.50 before the transaction isaffected for the disputed Co-ordination of Access Approval and connectivitybetween Operator A and the foreign operator for the provision of STM-1(Protected) SDH. The Commission directed Operator A and Operator B to finalize theiragreement for the disputed Co-ordination of Access Approval andconnectivity between Operator A and the foreign operator for the provision ofSTM-1 (Protected) SDH.Page205of236

3.6 Marina, Airports, Cement and PostalDuring the period, the Commission provided arbitration services for Port Denarau Marina Limited (PDML) and a Oil Company and reviewed the fees andcharges for PDML, Airports Fiji Limited (AFL), Fiji Industries Limited (FIL) and Post Fiji Limited (PFL). Table 17 provides the summary of Marina, Airports,Cement and Postal activities for the year 2011.Table 17: Summary of Marina, Airports, Cement and Postal Industry Related Activities - 2011Date ofDeterminationIndustry Submission/Issues Commission’s Action/Determination18/02/2011 Marina Marina Operator A hadwithdrawn its power supply toCustomer A operations basedat the Marina for nonpayments.The Commission after undertaking a detailed analysis of the submission fromboth parties and conducting its own independent investigation andcomputations had made the following determination:-1. Customer A to pay Marina Operator A FJ$ 792.19 within five days from thedate of this determination.2. The Commission noted that there was an abrupt withdrawal of electricitysupply to Customer A, which was restored upon the Commission’sintervention. Any such abrupt behavior by a dominant infrastructure serviceprovider was unwarranted and the Commission wishes that such practiceswill not be repeated in future.3. It was further brought to the Commission’s attention that certain largecruise operators do not have the provision to be directly billed by FEA ontheir electricity consumption. In this regard the Commission encouragedsuch operators to make their requests to Marina Operator A and for MarinaOperator A to set a high priority on these requests for processing.4. Until the time the provision for direct billing by FEA for electricityconsumption is implemented, the operators will have to bear the chargesas paid by Marina Operator A on their behalf.Page206of236

Table 17: Summary of Marina, Airports, Cement and Postal Industry Related Activities – 2011Date ofDeterminationIndustry Submission/Issues Commission’s Action/Determination18/07/2011 Marina Port Denarau Marina Limitedrequested for a review of thecharges for the annualcontractor fee, exemption ofsuper yachts from the Orderand passenger levy.The Commission after undertaking a detailed analysis of the submission fromPDML and conducting its own independent investigation and computations, hadauthorized the new/ revised charges for PDML with the respective effectivedates:-1. The annual contractor fee of $500 VEP per contractor to be charged byPDML from 19 July 2011;2. An increase of 25% in the existing super yatch berthing rates to beeffective from 01 January 2012 as follows:Super Yacht 35m+ Daily – Low Season $7.84 Daily – Peak Season $9.51 Monthly – Low Season $211.68 Monthly – Peak Season $257.04 Annual – Monthly Fee $234.36The Commission had advised that the passenger levy will remain the same aspreviously determined and the Commission will make a final determination onpassenger levy after submissions from stakeholders are received and analyzed.Page207of236

Table 17: Summary of Marina, Airports, Cement and Postal Industry Related Activities – 2011 (Cont…)Date ofDeterminationIndustry Submission/Issues Commission’s Action/Determination01/09/2011 Marina PDML’s request for passengerlevy fee increase from thecurrent adult- tourist structure,$2.00 to $4.00.PDML requested for thecommercial electricity mark upof 25% and increase ofworkshop rental to $12.10 m 2per month.The Commission after undertaking a detailed analysis, of the submission fromPDML and conducting its own independent research and computations haddetermined the following:1. Passenger Levy: for Adult – Tourist, the Commission‘s authorised price is$2.50 maximum, effective from 1 October 2011.2. Workshop: Rental–m 2 per month, the Commission’s authorised price is$11.25, effective from 1 September 2011.3. Increase in electricity rates for Commercial Operators: No mark up shall beimposed on Commercial Berthing Electricity02/05/2011 Aviation Airports Fiji Ltd requested forthe review of the following: incineration charges; airport development &security charges, ground & baggagehandling services; airline offices;After a detailed analysis of AFL’s submissions, stakeholders consultation andindependent research, the Commission has made the following finaldetermination:1. Incineration charges – unchanged for other categories except for aircraftcarrying passengers from 101 to 200 - $36 to $37 to be effective from 1 June2011, subject to annual review2. Development fees & security fees – unchanged3. Ground & baggage handling fees –unchangedPage208of236

Table 17: Summary of Marina, Airports, Cement and Postal Industry Related Activities – 2011 (Cont…)Date ofDeterminationIndustry Submission/Issues Commission’s Action/Determination exemption of privateaircrafts from theCommerce Order 2009;and increase in FuelConcession fees4. Office Rental rate for Arrivals commercial concourse ground floor - $30 per square foot Arrivals concourse first floor - $24 per square foot Airline admin block - first & second floor - $20 per square foot Cargo Buildings - $17.50 per square foot Operation Building - $25 per square foot5. Temporary approval for the exemption of private aircrafts6. Fuel Concession fees – unchanged12/12/2011 Aviation Airports Fiji Limited requestedfor the introduction ofDomestic Passenger Servicecharge (DPSC) based onCabinet decision number 356on the subject Airports FijiLimited-Capital Projects for2012.Requested for introduction ofDomestic Passenger Fees perCharter Flight per portdeparture.The Commission after detail investigation and analysis approved a DomesticPassenger Fee of $5.00 VEP per domestic departing passengers to beeffective from 1 January 2012. This rate is applicable till the end of year 2021.On 12 December 2011, the Commission approved the following rates to beeffective from 1 January 2012 till end of 2021. Domestic Passenger fee of $5.00 VEP per domestic Departing Passenger; Domestic Passenger fee of $15.00 VEP per domestic chartered flight perport departure.Page209of236

Table 17: Summary of Marina, Airports, Cement and Postal Industry Related Activities – 2011 (Cont…)Date ofDeterminationIndustry Submission/Issues Commission’s Action/Determination29/12/2011 Aviation The specified authorized chargesreleased on the 30 September 2010determination expired on 31December 2011 except for airnavigation charges which is valid tillAugust 2013 and as part of theCommission’s review, request forsubmission and information wasmade to Airports Fiji Limited onAeronautical fees and charges.The Commission upon the receipt of AFL’s submission and after undertakinga detailed analysis and conducting its own research and computations hasmade the final determination on the following fees and charges that are to beeffective from 01 January 2012; Terminal Navigation Fee Airfield charges- Domestic Landing fee Airfield charges- International Landing fee Incinerator charges27/10/2011 CementFiji Industries Limited (FIL)requested for an increase in thewholesale price of Bagged and BulkCement based on the following: Significant increase inborrowings and escalating ofactual cost of goods sold; Increase in Clinker Price fromUS$55 to US $59.50;and Increase in Electricity tariff by48%The Commission after undertaking detailed analysis and its own independentinvestigation and computations, has determined and fixed the price for thebagged and bulk cement, representing a 3.41% increase and was effectivefrom 1 November 2011.The authorized prices by the Commission are: GB Bag Cement is $227.63 GP Bulk Cement is $206.95Page210of236

Table 17: Summary of Marina, Airports, Cement and Postal Industry Related Activities – 2011 (Cont…)Date ofDeterminationIndustry Submission/Issues Commission’s Action/Determination01/04/2011 Aviation Oil Company A’s entry tobecome a participant of aAirport Operating Committeenot considered fairlyThe issue between the Airport Operating Committee and Company A is along outstanding matter that goes back to July 2010. Company A made theapplication to join the Airport Operating Committee in July 2010. Since then,Company A’s application to become a participant in the Airport OperatingCommittee has not been fulfilled due to compliance issues. The Commissionis currently looking into the matter and expects to get the issue resolved inearly 2012.14/10/2011 Postal Post Fiji Limited (PFL) made asubmission requesting for areview on tariff rates and 10%to 30% markup be allowed onthe products based onoperating costs for domesticletters, parcels, private letterboxes and international letterpost.Based on the submission, on site visits to understand the operations and natureof PFL’s business model, its own independent research and computations, theCommission had drafted the Commission information and determination paper.The final review on the paper is in progress and is expected to be finalized inearly 2012.Page211of236

4.0 PRICE CONTROL AND MONITORING DEPARTMENT4.1 Overview of the DepartmentThe basic functions of the department require products to be priced by the Research and Costing Officers, while Price Inspectors monitor the market viadaily inspections. The department is headed by the Senior Research Fellow – Price Control and Monitoring under the guidance of the members of theCommission and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The department is divided into two streams: the Pricing and Costing stream, and the Price andIncome Inspection stream. Pricing and costing section is involved in determining the prices of the products that is controlled by the Commission, and Price and Income Inspection Department is in charge of ensuring that the business sectors abide by the prices set by the Commission.The Commission’s Price Control and Monitoring Section reporting of activities below are divided into two streams; Major Research Cases undertaken in 2011 Price Control and Monitoring (Inspection Reports), from 1 st January 2011 to 31 st December 2011.4.2 Research and Investigations UndertakenThe major researches undertaken by the Commission in the year 2011 are summarized in the tables overleafPage212of236

Table: 18 Investigations and Research-2011CommissionResearch ReportIssues/other topics OutcomeInter Island FreightShippingReview Of Fiji FuelPricing Structureand TemplateServices are handicapped by the long distance between sparsely populated islands and the seasonaldemand for the movement of small quantities of cargo and passenger traffic which reaches peak levelsat certain times of the year.The limited revenues available to ship owners place them in a financially difficult situation in which theyare often unable to replace obsolete and sometimes unsafe vessels.Based on the preliminary findings of the relevant market the key recommendations by theCommission are as follows:1. In order to ensure regular domestic shipping services to remote islands an alternative approachwhich could be considered is franchising. Under franchising schemes, the government selectsspecific routes and the minimum frequency of calls and capacity to be provided to selectedlocations over a franchise period, which would not normally be less than one year and couldadvantageously be considerably longer2. Provide basic business training for small and medium-sized entrepreneurs.The review process was initiated by the Commission and prospective dates for completion wereconsidered, however, for a review of such magnitude the timeline set was flexible. In the first phase,submissions from the oil companies were sought As part of the second phase the analysis ofsubmissions were made and research on the various pricing components were done.In the third phase of the consultative process, a draft consultancy paper was released to thestakeholders and on 26 th September, the Commission invited the three major fuel stakeholders for aface-to-face meeting presenting a new pricing model designed for the calculation of fuel prices forcomments and feedback.This was a preliminaryresearch into the inter-Island freight servicesand a thoroughinvestigation and report isplanned for 2012.The review of the FijiFuel Pricing Templateand Structure wasunderway during theyear and is to becompleted in the firstquarter of 2012.Page213of236

Table: 18 Investigations and Research-2011(Cont…)CommissionResearch ReportIssues/other topics OutcomeAs part of the fourth phase, stakeholders were given three weeks to make objections to theproposed pricing structure and components used in the new pricing template. The deadline set wasfor October 17 th , 2011. The stakeholders were asked to give responses with the relevant supportingdocuments and data pertaining to the new pricing template.After the three oil companies made their submissions, the Commission began to review the issueshighlighted by the stakeholders. A thorough analysis showed that information submitted bystakeholders did not fully support their claims for their indicated values as submissions were withoutdocumentary evidence. The Commission then, via face to face meetings with each stakeholder,outlined what was required to submit. The Commission was still receiving information on areas ofconcern such as operating costs, demurrage, ocean loss and exchange rate.Domestic LiquidPetroleum GasA preliminary investigation and information paper on the need to impose price controls on LPGproducts in Fiji was carried out and the recommendations put forward by the CommissionThis was a preliminaryresearch into theDomestic LiquidPetroleum Gas and athorough investigationand report is planned tobe carried out in the firstquarter of 2012.4.3 Determinations MadeThe following determinations were made and released by the Commission through the PCM during the year 2011.Page214of236

Table: 19 Determinations and Price Control Orders effected-2011DeterminationsCompletedDate released/Issues Effective DateCommerce (Control ofPrices for Hardware Items)(No. 2) Order 2010. LegalNotice No. 116Prices reviewed/released on a weekly basis. The new Bill of Quantities was established andsubmissions were called for in August 2011 to remove non-standard products and ensure thatalthough companies import different brands of products all these are adequately captured in theprice control list. The lists were finalized and the Commission is working on the submissions. Thenew set of prices is to be released in 2012.19 th March 2011Commerce (Price Control)(Percentage Control ofPrices for Food Items) (No.1) Order, 2010 – Basicfood itemsPrices reviewed/released on a weekly basis. For perishable items such as Potatoes and Onionsthe prices were released within two working days.Since November2010Commerce (Price Control)(Percentage Control ofPrices for Food Items) (No.1) Order, 2010 –Pharmaceutical suppliesPrices were announced in January, but the Commission was waiting for Fiji PharmaceuticalSupplies to release the items in the market under the Bulk Purchase Scheme. In the meantime,on 28 th March the Commission decided to put the rest of the medicinal items under percentagecontrol. After consultations and discussions with the Fiji Pharmaceutical and Biomedical SuppliesCenter [FPBS] the Commission made a determination on 74 items. These items were to be madeavailable by the bulk purchase scheme through Fiji Pharmaceutical and Biomedical SuppliesCentre [FPBSC]. The FPBSC had indicated to the Commission that it will use a staggeredapproach for the release of the 74 items under fixed price control. Out of 74 items, 25 items wasmade available by [FPBSC] through their preferred suppliers to all retailers, where theCommission had noted reduction in retail prices. The Bulk Purchase Scheme arrangement waslater withdrawn from the arrangement and all essential medicinal items were placed underpercentage price control.10 th January 2011Page215of236

Table: 19 Determinations and Price Control Orders effected-2011 (Cont--)DeterminationsCompletedDate released/Issues Effective DateCurrently all Medicinal items are under percentage control and the following markups apply: Import Percentage – Twelve percent (12%) Wholesale Percentage – Five percent (5%), and Retail Percentage – Twenty percent (20%).Subsequent to the withdrawal of Fiji Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Society [FPBS] from thesupply of essential medicinal items to the private sector through its bulk purchase scheme, theCommission invited submissions from relevant stakeholders. The stakeholders were asked tomake their submissions on strategies that could be implemented to ensure that an effective pricecontrol mechanism could be implemented. The Commission held a stakeholder meeting on 29November 2011 to hear the stakeholder’s views and also agree on a way forward. Submissionshave been received from the some of the stakeholders and the Commission is expected tofinalise the new list in 2012.4.4 Petroleum Products Price ReviewsDuring the year 2011 three reviews were carried out. After consultation between the fuel industry stakeholders, the Commission and the AttorneyGeneral and Minister for Justice, Anti-Corruption, Public Enterprises, Communication, Civil Aviation, Tourism, Industry and Trade, the review of fuelprices in Fiji was shifted from a monthly to a quarterly basis. The price increase in January 2011 was a result of the increase in Value Added Tax from12.5% to 15%. The April 2011 review resulted in an increase in the local price of petroleum products by 13% - 20%. The August 2011 review resulted inan increase in the local price of petroleum products by 1% - 3%, and the October review resulted in a decrease in prices from 1% - 5%.Page216of236

Table:20 Petroleum Re etail Price-2011Date01.01.1125.04.1103.08.1114.10.11PrePrice1 2.11 2.41 2.51 2.5mixe ($) % Chang13 1.91%47 15.96%54 2.83%51 (1.18)%Kerosene ege Price ($)% 1.57% 1.88% 1.93% 1.83% Change0.00%19.75%2.66%(5.18)%Motor SpiritPrice ($)2.212.502.582.50tFigure4.1: Domestic Petroleum Prod ducts Price Tre% Change2.31%13.12%3.20%(3.10)%DieselPrice ($)1.952.282.312.20% Change2.09%16.92%1.32%(4.76)%Page217of236

4.5 Ex-factory Wheat /Flour & SharpDuring the period, two reviews were carried out on Wheat & Wheaten products (Flour & Sharp). The first review was carried out in April, 2011 andresulted in an increase in Ex-factory wheaten price by 9% -13%. Due to the huge increase, a staggered approach was employed with the initial increaseof 6% in April and then a further 7% increase in flour and 3% increase in sharp in June 2011. The October review saw a decrease in the price of flourand sharp by 15%.Table: 21 Ex-factory Wheat/ Flour/ Sharp ReviewReview Period (Date) Package December 2011 (06/12/11) June 2011 (15/06/11) April 2011(18/04/11)Flour(Normal)Per kg $1.20 $1.41 $1.32Per 1kg pack $1.28 $1.51 $1.42Per 2kg pack $2.43 $2.86 $2.68Per 4kg pack $4.94 $5.82 $5.45Per 5kg pack $6.02 $7.08 $6.62Per 10kg bag $12.12 $14.26 $13.34Per 25kg bag $29.35 $34.53 $32.29Per 50kg bag $58.09 $68.34 $63.86SharpsPer kg $1.22 $1.43 $1.40Per 1kg pack $1.30 $1.53 $1.49Per 2kg pack $2.47 $2.90 $2.84Per 4kg pack $5.01 $5.89 $5.76Per 5kg pack $6.10 $7.18 $7.01Per 10kg bag $12.29 $14.46 $14.12Per 25kg bag $29.76 $35.01 $34.19Per 50kg bag $58.91 $69.30 $67.67Percentage Change Decrease in prices by 15%. 7% inc in flour and 3% inc in sharp 6% inc in flourand sharpPage218of236

4.7 Ex-factory Wholesale Price of GheeGhee is locally packed by Fiji Foods Ltd and Punja & Sons Ltd. Ghee prices were reviewed once in 2011. Messrs Fiji Foods Limited made its submissionstating that the existing ex-factory price of ghee was below product cost and this prompted the company to request for a price review. Upon the receipt ofthe submission, the Board with the approval of the Minister granted a 10% - 11% increase in ex-factory wholesale price of ghee. The prices came intoeffect on 4 th April 2011 as shown in the table below.Table: 22 Ex-factory Wholesale Price of GheeGoods/Quantity Ex-factory wholesale Delivered price exclusive of VATGhee $ C30 x 500ml $196.3220 x 750ml $192.5825 x 750ml $240.729 x 2litres $230.5312 x 2litres $307.316 x 4litres $298.781 x 210kg $2869.88On 23 rd September 2011, upon the approval of the Minister, ghee was removed from price control via the Commerce (Price Control) (Ghee) (Ex-FactoryWholesale Price) Revocation Order 2011.4.8 Retail Butter PricesUpon the receipt of costing and documentary evidence from Rewa Cooperatives Dairy, the Board with the approval of the Minister granted the companyan increase in the prices of Butter. The increase also reflected the global market behavior concerning dairy products since the end of last quarter of2011. The retail prices had increased by 24% in this review. There were two reviews in 2011.The First review was done in May 2011. The prices came into effect on 20 th May 2011. In July 2011, a second review was done by the Commission. Thisshowed a decrease in retail prices by 2%. The prices came into effect on 18 th July 2011 as shown in the table below:Page220of236

Table: 23 Retail Butter PricesQuantity (20 th May 2011) (8 th October2011)500grams $7.50 $7.34250grams $3.77 $3.69125grams $1.89 $1.854.8 Community AwarenessDuring the year the Commission held various awareness programs and forums to disseminate information on the requirements of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010. These included having open forum discussions at Lautoka, Rakiraki, Labasa and Suva conducted by the CEO. Also the staffmembers and Commissioners attended radio talk back shows and the pricing team also visited the sites of various Traders and manufacturing.Furthermore, the Officials from the Commission together with the officials from the Ministry Of National Planning made a two (2) day visit to ValebosogaTropik Boards Limited. A full site visit that observed the process of harvesting, transportation and manufacturing was made. Rural and Outer IslandsTours and Inspections were also conducted and as part of the tours awareness on the Commission. Commerce Commission Decree 2010 andConsumer Protection Issues were also conducted.The Commission also took part in various workshops and seminars and attended the Tikina Council and Provincial Council meetings.4.9 Prices and Incomes Inspections and Prosecutions for the year 2011The Department carried out inspections/monitoring on a daily basis to ensure that Traders were in compliance with the Commission’s determinations andalso adhere to fair trading practices. The inspectors maintain that the prices set out by the Commission’s are being followed.The table below summaries the inspections carried out, tours undertaken and number of prosecutions at each of the three divisions, Central, Westernand Northern.Page221of236

Table: 24 Summaries of Inspections -Central Eastern Division 2011MONTH NO. OFINSPECTIONSNO. OFBOOKINGS/VERBALLYWARNEDJanuary 535 Shops 20 Traders 14 Traders Overcharging 6 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayFebruary 990 Shops 42 Traders 32 Traders Overcharging 9 Traders No price Marking/ Display 1 Trader for selling items with no pulldatesMarch 1148 Shops 40 Traders 34 Traders Overcharging 6 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayApril 911 Shops 53 Traders 40 Traders Overcharging 9 Traders No price Marking/ Display 4 Traders for selling items with no pulldatesMay 810 Shops 15 Traders 13 Traders Overcharging 2 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayJune 941 Shops 22 Traders 12 Traders Overcharging 6 Traders No price Marking/ Display 2 Traders for selling items with no pulldates 2 Traders for misleading publicJuly 852 Shops 11 Traders 7 Traders Overcharging 1 Trader No price Marking/ Display 2 Traders for selling items with no pulldates 1 Trader for not issuing Tax InvoiceTYPES OF BREACHES NO.ISSUED WITH WARNING LETTERS3 Traders16 Traders2 Traders2 Traders6 Traders37 Traders3 TradersAugust 669 Shops 13 Traders 13 Traders Overcharging 34 TradersPage222of236

Table: 24 Summary of Inspections -Central Eastern Division 2011MONTH NO. OFINSPECTIONSNO. OFBOOKINGS/VERBALLYWARNEDSeptember 442 Shops 17 Traders 12 Traders Overcharging 4 Traders No price Marking/ Display 1 Trader for selling items with no pulldatesOctober 566 Shops 28 Traders 15 Traders Overcharging 5 Traders No price Marking/ Display 8 Traders for selling items with no pulldatesNovember 334 Shops 23 Traders 18 Traders Overcharging 4 Traders No price Marking/ Display 1 Trader for selling items with no pulldatesDecember 411 Shops 10 Traders 5 Traders Overcharging 4 Traders No price Marking/ Display 1 Trader for selling items with no pulldatesTYPES OF BREACHES NO.ISSUED WITH WARNING LETTERS48 Traders61 Traders17 Traders47 Traders8609 Shops 294 Traders 294 Traders 276 TradersPage223of236

Table: 25 Summary of Inspections - Western Division 2011MONTH NO. OFINSPECTIONSNO. OFBOOKINGS/VERBALLYWARNEDTYPES OF BREACHES NO.ISSUED WITH WARNINGLETTERSJanuary 536 Shops 5 Traders 5 Traders Overcharging NilFebruary 526 Shops 2 Traders 1 Trader Overcharging4 Traders 1 Trader No price Marking/ DisplayMarch 510 Shops 1 Trader 1 Trader No price Marking/ Display NilApril 587 Shops 11 Traders 8 Traders Overcharging 3 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayMay 649 Shops 17 Traders 9 Traders Overcharging 8 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayJune 195 Shops 16 Traders 10 Traders Overcharging 6 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayJuly 985 Shops 6 Traders 3 Traders Overcharging 3 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayAugust 950 Shops 7 Traders 3 Traders Overcharging 2 Traders No price Marking/ Display 2 Traders for not issuing Tax InvoiceSeptember 656 Shops 7 Traders 3 Traders Overcharging 4 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayOctober 926 Shops 11 Traders 2 Traders Overcharging 9 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayNovember 929 Shops 4 Traders 1 Traders Overcharging 3 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayNil13 Traders14 Traders4 Traders7 TradersNil20 TradersDecember 910 Shops 6 Traders 6 Traders No price Marking/ Display Nil8359 Shops 93 Traders 93 Traders 62 TradersNilPage225of236

Table: 26 Summary of Inspections - Northern Division 2011MONTH NO. OFINSPECTIONSNO. OFBOOKINGS/VERBALLYWARNEDJanuary 641 Shops 6 Traders 4 Traders Overcharging 2 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayTYPES OF BREACHES NO.ISSUED WITH WARNINGLETTERS5 TradersFebruary 659 Shops Nil Nil 3 Traders4 TradersMarch 778 Shops 8 Traders 1 Trader Overcharging 5 Traders No price Marking/ Display 2 Traders for not issuing Tax InvoiceApril 528 Shops 5 Traders 2 Traders Overcharging 3 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayMay 660 Shops 8 Traders 2 Traders Overcharging 5 Traders No price Marking/ Display 1 Trader for Failing to furnish Documents toCommissionJune 455 Shops 7 Traders 4 Traders Overcharging 3 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayJuly 624 Shops 24 Bookings 8 Traders Overcharging 16 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayAugust 714 Shops 7 Bookings 6 Traders Overcharging 1 Traders No price Marking/ DisplaySeptember 952 Shops 4 Traders 4 Traders Overcharging 3 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayOctober 772 Shops 7 Traders 2 Traders Overcharging 5 Traders No price Marking/ DisplayNovember 818 Shops 10 Traders 1 Traders Overcharging 8 Traders No price Marking/ Display1 Trader4 Traders6 Traders 1Trader for Unconscionable conductDecember 493 Shops 12 Traders 5 Traders OverchargingNil 7 Traders No price Marking/ Display8094 Shops 98 Traders 101 Breaches 25 TradersNilNilNilNil2 TradersPage227of236

5.0 Legal Department5.1 OverviewThe department’s role is to provide legal advice to the Commission in relation to the provisions under the Commerce Commission Decree 2010 and anyother applicable laws. The Legal Department consists of the Legal Officers and the Prosecutors and is also responsible for the prosecution of traders forbreaches of the Commerce Commission Decree 2010.In what follows, the prosecution statistics by division and offences under the Commerce Commission Decree 2010 is summarized.Table 27: Number of Prosecutions for Overcharging (Section 52 CCD)-2011DIVISION NUMBER OF CASES FILED NUMBER COMPLETED NUMBER PENDINGCentral/ EasternDivision57 29 34Northern 21 19 2Western 16 10 4TOTAL 94 58 40Table 28: Total of Fines imposed by Courts for Overcharging-2011DIVISION TOTAL VALUE OF FINES IMPOSED TOTAL PROSECUTION COSTCentral/ Eastern Division $13450.00 $1000.50Northern $12150.00 $586.50Western $5950.00 $345.00TOTAL $19,445.00 $1932.00Page229of236

Table 29: Number of Prosecutions for Non-Price Display and Marking (Section 54 of CCD)DIVISION NUMBER OF CASES FILED NUMBER COMPLETED NUMBER PENDINGCentral/ Division 42 10 23Northern 11 10 1Western 10 8 2TOTAL 63 18 26Table 30: Total of Fines imposed by Courts for Non Price Display or MarkingDIVISION TOTAL VALUE OF FINES IMPOSED TOTAL PROSECUTION COSTCentral/Eastern $3900.00 $345.00Northern $3175.00 $345.00Western $3500.00 $276.00TOTAL $10,575.00 $966.00Table 31: Number of Prosecutions for No Pull Dates (Section 87J of CCD)DIVISION NUMBER OF CASES FILED NUMBER COMPLETED NUMBER OF CASES PENDINGCENTRAL/DIVISION 2 1 3NORTHERN - - -WESTERN - - -TOTAL 2 1 1Page230of236

Table: 32 Number of Prosecutions for Failure to Furnish Records (Section 56 of CCD)DIVISION NUMBER OF CASES FILED NUMBER OF CASES COMPLETED NUMBER OF CASES PENDINGCENTRAL/DIVISION 2 2 1NORTHERN 1 1 -WESTERN - - -TOTAL 3 3 1Table: 33 Number of Prosecutions for Refusal to Sell at Maximum Price (Section 53 of CCD)DIVISION NUMBER OF CASESFILEDNUMBER OF CASES COMPLETED NUMBER OF CASES PENDINGCENTRAL/DIVISION 2 1 1NORTHERN - - -WESTERN - - -TOTAL 2 1 1Page231of236

Table: 34 Number of Prosecutions for Rent Issues (Section 45 of CCD)DIVISION NUMBER OF CASESFILEDNUMBER OF CASES COMPLETED NUMBER OF CASES PENDINGCENTRAL/DIVISION 1 - 9NORTHERN - - -WESTERN - - -TOTAL 1 - 9Note: Some cases from 2010 were still pending at the end of 2011Table: 25 Number of Prosecutions for Others Offences (includes offences not stated above)DIVISION NUMBER OF CASESFILEDNUMBER OF CASES COMPLETED NUMBER OF CASES PENDINGCENTRAL/DIVISION - - -NORTHERN 1 1 -WESTERN - - -TOTAL 1 1 -Page232of236

FINANCIAL STATEMENT