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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Table 6: Cases Successfully Disposed in <strong>2011</strong>- Northern Division (cont…)Cases Resolved in <strong>2011</strong>Case Number Case Name Case Details<strong>2011</strong>/08/09 –FTDN40<strong>2011</strong>/09/06 –FTDN41<strong>2011</strong>/09/22 –FTDN44Consumer Nvs. CompanyUFootball Clubvs. DistrictSoccerAssociationConsumer Pvs. CompanyWOn 4 th August, <strong>2011</strong>, 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.<strong>The</strong> case was resolved through mediation as Company U agreed to replacethe Video CD on 8 th of August, <strong>2011</strong> and Consumer N was satisfied with theCD.On 6 th September, <strong>2011</strong>, 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. <strong>The</strong> 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. <strong>The</strong> officials of District Soccer Association and Football Clubcame to the <strong>Commission</strong> for mediation and the case was closed wherebyDistrict Soccer Association paid the prize money to Football Club.On 22 nd September, <strong>2011</strong>, Consumer P lodged a complaint againstCompany W for submitting his name to the Data Bureau, which preventedhim from travelling Overseas for medical treatment. <strong>The</strong> 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 <strong>Commission</strong>’s stand and it was recommended to him to sortthe matter with Company W.Provisionsof CCD2010ConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeConsumerProtection &UnfairPracticeSectionsBreachedSection 88Section 85 (1)Section 76Page151of236

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!