11.07.2015 Views

2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table:6 Cases Successfully Disposed Of- Northern DivisionCases Resolved in <strong>2011</strong>Case Number Case Name Case Details<strong>2011</strong>/03/16 –FTDN18<strong>2011</strong>/03/17 –FTDN19<strong>2011</strong>/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 the<strong>Commission</strong>’s jurisdiction since the part had been modified from its originalstate and involved a third party liability issue.On 16 th March, <strong>2011</strong>, 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, <strong>2011</strong> did not reveal such practicesoccurring; however regular monitoring was conducted by <strong>Commission</strong> staffin all the supermarkets to ensure that customers were not misled.On 17 th March, <strong>2011</strong>, 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,<strong>2011</strong> 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. <strong>The</strong> Complainant was advised that the<strong>Commission</strong> would not be able to proceed with the case due to the lack ofevidence provided against Company G.On 17 th March, <strong>2011</strong>, 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. <strong>The</strong> 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 <strong>Commission</strong> that he had received the refund from Company H throughthe Small Claims Tribunal. <strong>The</strong> case was then closed.Provisions ofCCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedSection 75Section 76Section 75,76(2) (d) & 83Page146of236

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!