2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

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