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 CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/03/14/BC-FTD/532011/03/18/BC-FTD/54Consumer Tvs. Company FConsumer Uvs. Company GOn 14-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Tagainst Company F, regarding prices charged for the FOG lamp, which hebought from the firm’s Suva outlet. The Complainant was given a quotationon 26-02-11 for the FOG lamp of $20.50 each but later, when he went topurchase the lamp with the quotation, he was charged $35.00. FCC invitedthe parties for mediation and during the mediation; the respondent informedFCC that there was an error in the quotation as it was done manually. Theunit price was right but the total was wrong. FCC also explained the sameto the complainant and the case was closed.On 18-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Uagainst Company G. Consumer U informed FCC that Company G wasgoing to repossess his vehicle since they have not paid the policy excess of$750 to Company X. Consumer U claimed that the policy excess shouldonly be $250 and not $750. FCC formally wrote to Company G, informingthem of the issue and seeking a response. A response was received,informing FCC that during the inspection of the vehicle, the complainantconfirmed that certain damages to the vehicle happened before the incidentand the complainant asked the assessor to include the cost of the repair inthe same quotation. Company G also informed FCC that $750 was chargedfor 3 different excesses. The above was conveyed to the complainant andthe case was closed.ConsumerProtection&Unfair PracticesSections 75No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page33of236