2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission 2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

commcomm.gov.fj
from commcomm.gov.fj More from this publisher
11.07.2015 Views

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 <strong>2011</strong>(cont…)Cases Resolved in <strong>2011</strong>Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached<strong>2011</strong>/12/28/BC-FTD/317Consumer Bvs. CompanyH & IOn 28-12-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> 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 <strong>2011</strong>. <strong>The</strong>Complainant informed the <strong>Commission</strong> 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.<strong>The</strong> 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. <strong>The</strong>Complainant requested the <strong>Commission</strong>’s assistance in replacing the KamDivision 1 -Warranty Section 114Page134of236

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!