2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

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